Editorial – Area left behind again

April 21, 2022 Editor Opinion

More than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, we continue to see evidence that this area, SDG Counties specifically, is left behind or treated as an afterthought in the Ontario government’s pandemic response. The most recent being the Ministry of Health’s roll out of COVID-19 antiviral therapies.

Last week, the ministry released a list of more than 700 pharmacies in Ontario where those who have tested positive for COVID-19 – and are at the highest risk of serious complications – can receive no-cost medication like Paxlovid. This is great news for Ontarians as the province is now in its sixth wave of the pandemic, this time fueled by the Omicron BA.2 sub-variant. Great news unless you live in South Dundas or North Dundas. Here a positive COVID-19 test means driving to Cardinal, Long Sault or Ottawa for this treatment.

This is not the first time that we have seen this form of uneven roll out of a pandemic-related program or response. A year ago, the province’s roll out of pharmacy-based vaccinations had a similar theme. SDG Counties (including Cornwall) had fewer locations than in neighbouring Leeds-Grenville Counties (including Brockville).

For the province’s rollout of antiviral therapies, 14 pharmacies in Leeds-Grenville are able to offer them and only eight pharmacies in SDG. According to Statistics Canada, the Leeds-Grenville population Census Area is about 10,000 fewer than that of SDG. This health unit region, the Eastern Ontario Health Unit, has had more infections, more outbreaks and more deaths than the Leeds-Grenville-Lanark Health Unit area. Yet an imbalance continues.

Further compounding matters, Winchester is the only town in Eastern Ontario that has a hospital and a COVID-19 assessment centre where antiviral treatments are not available at a pharmacy in the same community, or even county.

There are other areas of the province, primarily rural, where there is a disproportional handling of access to testing and treatment for COVID-19. Pleas for equity from medical officials and municipal politicians fall on deaf ears at the upper levels of government, primarily the Ontario government as health care is a provincial responsibility.

The solution is not difficult. It is simple math. When resources are limited, divide equally across all areas. As resources become more plentiful, continue to divide equitably based on population. Providing support – whether it be medicinal, financial, or by other means – should always be done on a proportional basis. That is the fairest way to ensure all Ontarians have opportunity for access.

Politicians at the upper levels of government claim to fight for this region’s “Fair Share” when it comes to programs. That fight fizzles when it comes to access to health care.

It is easy for the current government to throw money at problems when it comes to building new buildings. But clearly math is difficult when dealing with providing medication and access to services.

Ontario has had a disproportionate response to COVID-19. More than two years into the pandemic, as case numbers from the sixth wave send infection levels and hospital numbers higher, it is time the province starts using proportional math to make decisions, rather than politics.

Discover more from Morrisburg Leader

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Since you’re here…

… Thanks for reading this article. Local news is important. We hope that you continue to support local news in your community by reading The Leader, online and in print. Please consider subscribing to the print edition of the newspaper. Click here to subscribe today.

Subscribe to Email Alerts

Enter your email address to subscribe to Email Alerts and receive notifications of new posts by email whenever The Leader publishes new content on our website.

Related Articles

No Picture
Opinion

Perspectives with Janet Evans

April 1, 2015 Editor Opinion

 

This is a very significant week in the life of the church. Palm or Passion Sunday received its contrasting names from the day’s Gospel-Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem leads to his passion and crucifixion.

Maundy Thursday gets its name from Jesus’ “new commandment” to “love one another” spoken at his Last Supper where he washed the disciples’ feet.

Good Friday marks Jesus’ trial, crucifixion, and death. Easter Vigil is celebrated on Holy Saturday evening after sundown, prior to Easter Sunday.

Historically, it can be a time for baptizing and receiving new members and celebrating the Lord’s Supper.

Easter Sunday is celebrated with joy. The message “He is Risen Indeed” turns the events of Holy Week and the story of our own lives into a victory. This day initiates the Easter season’s 50 days.

In these days, we are called to draw closer to God and to one another. We have the assurance that Jesus lived, died and rose again–and can give meaning to our often empty lives. 

Good Friday is a dark day. Good Friday is a reminder of our inconstancies, our lack of courage under fire, our willingness to join the crowd rather than stand by our convictions and our friends. It is an accusing finger condemning our weaknesses.

Easter, however, just two days later, is the revelation of the pure love of God for all people. It is the death of fear, the end of despair, the awakening of belief in the goodness of God in spite of the evil of human beings.

May we remember that Holy Week is a precious time, revealing to us once again how very much our Christ loves us.

The resurrection of Jesus lit a flame in the hearts of men and women which has never been extinguished.

It confirms forever the teachings of the man from Nazareth who said, “Because I live, you shall live also. I came that you might have life and have it more abundantly.”

We are so blessed for Jesus promises us hope, peace, joy, love, light and eternal life in His arms. Our Saviour can bring glory out of darkness and resurrection out of death. And in a few days Jesus will be Risen, He will be Risen Indeed.”

May all of you be touched by the poignancy of Jesus’ death and by the celebration of Easter.

Give thanks for family and friends and count your other blessings.

And know that Jesus cherished us enough to lay His life down for us. We can rejoice always–for we are the precious sons and daughters of the living Lord.

Happy Easter, Happy Spring! 

[…]

No Picture
Opinion

Letter: drainage woes in South Dundas

June 20, 2012 Editor Opinion

 

Dear Editor

In reference to our issues with South Dundas over our drain problem, we would like to think we can depend on our township to supply us with information and follow proper procedures. Seems we are being held more accountable than they are.

The form that was brought around to Jake’s neighbours had a list of names on the front. Most were printed, one was even written by one person to include their spouse as in “Mr. and Mrs. Smith”. Jointly owned properties had only the name of one owner represented. 

When the office staff in charge of drainage received this form, they should have rejected it from the start. But they chose to send it ahead to their engineer without having it properly filled in.

The engineer then gets his crack at it. When asked at the township meeting about the necessity of ALL property owner’s signatures his response was “as long as he saw one name it was good enough for him.” 

When asked about the fact that most names were just printed, his response was “they could have signed with an “X”. (Wouldn’t signatures of witnesses be needed?)

Mr. Byvelds indicated he requested a letter from the engineer to see how he validated the petition. In his response he did not address any of our concerns about the missing joint owner signatures, but continued to use them in his calculations.

By doing this he was able to reach 65 per cent representation of the land needed. He needed 60 per cent for the petition to be valid, but if you remove the names of properties with missing joint owner signatures, the land represented falls down to 47 per cent. Not enough for a valid petition according to the Drainage Act.

To support the requirement for these signatures here is a quote from a Superior Court of Justice in the Court of the drainage referee case: “The first matter is whether all signatures of joint owners, co-owners and partners are necessary on a petition. The answer is they are. If land is held by husband and wife, whether jointly or as co-owners, both have to sign the petition… this is for purposes of the Drainage Act.”

I attended a drainage meeting held in Avonmore this spring, searching for information, where I asked Sid Vander Veen, the Drainage Coordinator from OMAFRA, questions about joint owners both having to sign for a petition to be valid. He confirmed that yes they do and on viewing this petition said it was invalid and suggested I retain the services of a lawyer.

Mr. Byvelds was also at this meeting so once again was made aware of the need for all signatures. He also was sent the above  court case, but still continues to support his drainage engineer.

I have attempted to speak to council about this issue, but have been refused and told the issue is closed. 

My lawyer has contacted this township but they continue to ignore him. He has indicated “there never was a valid petition executed in the proper manner by petitioners and therefore section 10 of the Drainage Act has no application to these proceedings.”

What if the engineer is wrong, Mr. Byvelds? What if the drainage staff at the township did not complete the simple task of having forms filled in properly? 

The Superior Court of Justice and the Provincial Drainage Coordinator seem to have views different than you and your staff.

We as individuals seem to be held much more responsible for knowing the ins and outs of these drainage issues than those being well paid to do this.

Bert Geertsma

[…]