Paid maternity leave:
Valerie Vaughan writes: Re. “Tony Abbott’s Great Big New Tax” (yesterday, item 1). It is fraught with problems. All government positions have paid maternity leave. As do all tertiary lecture positions. Will they get this payment instead of or in addition? What about people who are self employed by their own businesses in company structures? They are only paying 30c in the dollar tax already. Many people today have private inherited income, is this to be assessed also?
Are the top professionals to be rewarded? Thank goodness Gail Kelly will not be taking maternity leave. How are you going to pay all the teenagers who are pregnant? It would need so much administration to make it in any way fair.
We all know that company tax is already 30c in the dollar and if the payment was to be fair and the same for everybody most companies would be prepared to pay a levy. Many companies write off all sorts of expenses which could be reduced if this became mandatory. The idea is good but how much? Who needs this payment and it should be means tested?
Melina Smith writes: The re-invention of Tony Abbott with policies like paid maternity leave is opportunistic to the extreme. That is an insult in an election year and watching puff pieces on Sixty Ninutes with his family being used as propaganda is a reason why I will not vote for the Liberal Party at all. Do the advisors honestly think that we are that naive or are they misogynists in disguise as well?
Jane Clark writes: Tony Abbott sat with an Alice Springs town camper in a humpy on a wet mattress and said he wanted to help. Now he’s going for it and amped to the max — on paid maternity leave. Did I miss something? As an Alice Springs resident I feel used once again by a pollie looking for a photo opportunity then doing absolutely nothing.
The Monthly:
Steve Blume writes: Re. “The Monthly editor’s sins of commission” (yesterday, item 16). Indulge me a little reverse ageism (“youthism”?) — Ben Naparstek might be a 24 year old wunderkind, but some of us of more mature years recall our “age of perfect knowledge” when our parents knew so little and we were forthright and often wrong, but never uncertain.
We also recall how rapidly our parents knowledge grew as we aged from around 18 or 19 to age 26 or so. I suspect that parents are taking a little longer to gain that knowledge nowadays so we are probably expecting too much from Ben the Younger — his epiphany might not come until age 30 or more.
Until then he remains a no doubt bright, enthusiastic, intelligent and capable person, perhaps even a logodaedalus of note, but with minimal experience of life or the arts and therefore a restricted contextual sense and little insight.
Factor that into his role as Editor of The Monthly and we shouldn’t be surprised, although as a Monthly subscriber I am frustrated and irritated — mostly, just disappointed.
Ben might be a fine editor, but today that seems an aspiration not a description.
John van Tiggelen writes: The Monthly confecting controversy? Really? Eric Ellis wrote a pedestrian piece. A pedestrian magazine, the Oz Spectator, published it after Naparstek rejected it. Gee. Eric is 84, Naparstek is 23. Cue uproar.
One Gillard biographer got to bitch about an another biographer. Shocking. Naparstek must be all of, what, 20?
Old Louis Nowra gets to bitch about a bitchy old woman. Terrible. Naparstek is 12.
In the hailed words of Helen Razer, F-ck off Ben Eltham. And f-ck off Crikey. Go confect yourselves.
The intertubes and health:
John Orchard, sports physician, writes: Re. “Diary of a surgeon: how the internet is adding to the workload” (yesterday, item 13). As a physician, I can relate to Guy Maddern’s concern about the added work answering patients’ questions relating to information found on the internet. But just say it adds two minutes to the average consultation — for my initial 40 minute consultation I hardly notice, but if you are a surgeon giving five minute consultations, then it might seem potentially catastrophic.
Particularly so if a surgeon completes the maths and works out that last year’s earnings of $1.5 million will drop to $1.3 million for actually answering the patients’ questions. As much as this seems tough, it is an even bigger threat that a patient might Google terms like “knee arthroscopy” and “osteoarthritis” and “Moseley trial” and find that there is a high quality study published showing that the 30 minute operation the surgeon is proposing to charge $2500 for isn’t any better than a placebo.
It is difficult to subject surgical procedures to high quality trials, but when surgeons in Australia ignore the evidence of high quality trials even after they are published, it is difficult to accept a view from a surgeon that “unproven options are not part of modern surgical practice”.
Nigel Brunel writes: Perhaps it’s the arrogance or intellectual indifference that we often strike when we see many (not all) specialists (and their receptionists). It’s almost like they have an inferior air about them bristling with contempt if you dare to question or bring up some of your own research you have decided to undertake.
I have friends who, faced with overwhelming situations (desperately sick kids) — being fobbed and mishandled by specialists — have done their own research and have actually ended up telling the specialist what’s wrong and the treatment required.
Arrogance is no defence doctor and a dose of empathy goes along way.
Stateline:
Alan Sunderland, Head of National Programs, ABC News, writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 6). Last Friday’s Stateline was indeed interrupted by technical difficulties, which meant the debate between the Treasurer and Shadow Treasurer did not air in full. The ABC fixed the problem and the full show aired the following day in the normal repeat timeslot.
It is this complete version which is being put up on the program’s website. Although it is indeed standard practice to add an Editor’s Note explaining any changes from the program that went to air, we would not routinely note that a technical glitch had occurred.
However, to remove any confusion or uncertainty during an election campaign, an explanatory note is being added to the program website.
Fat dogs:
Jackie French writes: Usually I agree totally with Rosemary Stanton (yesterday, comments), but not with her comment “Excess weight is due to a sedentary lifestyle and poor food choices. Genes play a role, but they don’t explain why fat families also have fat dogs!”
Like many, I was fat for years, despite an almost impeccable diet and exercise. Then came more thyroxine. 37 kilos lighter, I’m now a healthy weight, with the same lifestyle as before, and a lingering fury at nutritionists and doctors who for decades would ask cunningly: ‘What is your weakness dear? chocolate biscuits?”
Give the same diet to 50 people and some will get fat, and some lose weight.
For the record: none of my dogs have ever been fat.
Nor are my wombats.
This American Life:
Maire Mannik writes: Re. “Daily Proposition: is This American Life the best podcast ever?” (yesterday, item 7). This is indeed a wonderful radio programme and podcast, and often genuinely haunting. Permanently embedded in my memory are the woman who sold dolls in a grand New York store, and writer Jon Ronson going back to his school reunion in Wales to confront his friends who had thrown him in the canal.
But the most moving was the one on islands, broadcast in December 2007, which included a history of Nauru and ended with a relentless narration of the refugees imprisoned there, culminating in Ruddock’s heartless and shameful tour of the camps, something no Australian medium had covered.
The reason the programme was intensely moving was that it was broadcast on the same day that the new Labor government, in one of its first actions, closed down the camps and brought the remaining refugees to Australia.
Nine’s Oscar’s coverage:
Gavin Thompson writes: In addition to Joe Collins’ contribution (yesterday, comments). Channel Nine actually spoiled the Oscars during the first ad break (over one and a half hours before the news update mentioned above).
They had the self-serving “We bring you all the news first” style ad — which included footage of the Best Picture victory. Unbelievable!
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Jackie French writes in Fat dogs:
Jackie you are spot on.
Decades of research at my cost and my new Institute of Medicine will tell you that you are on the right track and very many people are in exactly your boat but Medical experts are too dependant on rules for understanding rather than understanding because very few of them have any scientific depth in understanding. They are considered to be trustworthy on scientific understanding because they sound scientific as they recite phrases rote learnt.
Of course that means they can’t understand what I am saying which they see as making them right.
Of course if they really understood science they would understand why I am right.
Disappointment and frustration for patients who actually know the truth from first hand experience is inevitable while the Dr’s are actually innocent in these circumstances as their delusion about their understanding isn’t really their fault and is too deep for an individual to climb out of alone.