Private/public debate

[Guest UTMed07]

It is interesting what one finds on the internet these days... here is a Canadian medical student petition to the CMA: new.petitiononline.com/CanMed05/petition.html.

 

It voices discontent with the Canadian Medical Association's position on private health insurance.

[Guest Jochi1543]

Urgh, can non-medical students sign it, too? Cuz I want to.

[Guest UTMed07]

Urgh, can non-medical students sign it, too?

Sorry Jochi1543... only Canadian medical students.

Cuz I want to.

You can start another petition. Aside from that... you can make your voice heard by voting, regrettably, something many our age don't do.

[Guest Jochi1543]

Haha, I'd love to vote, but I'm not a Canadian citizen yet....:hat

 

I can't vote in the US either, but I've always made my contribution by volunteering for the campaign I was supporting.

[Guest riffraff]

you sure it's only for med students? Saw a few signatures of students that designated themselves as 'premed'.

[Guest Steve MD09]

Well the petition starts with "We, the undersigned Canadian medical students", so any premeds who signed the petition did so inappropriately. There's nothing preventing anybody from signing it, but signatures from premeds wouldn't bear any significance.

[Guest peachy]

It's a nice idea, but I am skeptical about the effectiveness of online petitions.

[Guest Jochi1543]

It's a nice idea, but I am skeptical about the effectiveness of online petitions.

 

 

I know. A year ago I signed the "Stop Ashlee Simpson" petition, and she's still out there dyeing her hair a different color every week and lip-synching with her acid reflux.:rolleyes *sigh*

[Guest noncestvrai]

"Premed" refers to the 5-year degrees in Quebec.

 

I actually favor some form of competition in the medicare system, if this petition is for staus quo I'm not going to sign it.

 

BUT I am going to vote in the federal election.

 

noncestvrai

[Guest UTMed07]

A number of the points raised are valid... but many don't apply to the particular petition and quite a few miss the point entirely.

Often petitions contain no information about whom they are ultimately intended for and instead are no more than outpourings of outrage.

It is clearly directed at the CMA.

Even those that clearly identify the intended recipient don't come with a guarantee that the person slated to receive the document is in any position to influence matters. A misdirected petition is of no more use than an undirected one — though the voices it contains may be shouting, they won't be heard.

This basically says... if you're not politically connected don't even try to get involved in politics. Very cynical view. Possibly true in the USA-- where this piece was written.

Even well-addressed, well-thought-out petitions have their problems, chief among them the lack of a guarantee that anyone is collecting and collating the signatures or will deliver the completed documents to the right parties.

It is clear who the instigator is... the first person on the petition.

Moreover, petitions aren't the instruments of social change we'd so dearly love to believe they are. Yes, a petition festooned with a zillion signatures can have some influence, but only as a tangible proof of a subset of public opinion, and only upon those whose welfare is dependent upon public opinion (eg. politicians). Those signatures aren't votes, and they aren't treated as such by the governing bodies that have to decide on the tough questions of our times. At best, they're seen as an indication of the public's will, no more.

This basically suggests expressing your opinion on something is pointless.

Petitions calling for the erection of a firefighters memorial or to have next Thursday designated national performing arts day have some small hope of success, but all bets are off when the question becomes more complex...

The objectives of the petition are fairly well circumscribed-- it is voicing disapproval of the CMA position.

Paper-and-ink petitions are signed in a variety of handwriting styles, each unique to its signer. Consequently, signatures on a paper-and-ink petition cannot easily be faked else certain glaring similarities would show up in one entry after another.

This is an additional challenge for an electronic petition-- but the medical school communities are quite small. I have a complete list of everyone at U of T and I imagine that other students at other schools have lists of their collegues. Verifying that the undersigned are medical students would be do-able... and could be done electronically. Despite the what is says... I think a variety of handwriting styles can be faked-- and could be done with a signature machine.

Those in a position to influence anything know this and thus accord e-petitions only slightly more respect than they would a blank sheet of paper. Thus, even the best written, properly addressed, and lovingly delivered e-petitions whose every signature was scrupulously vetted by the petition's creator fall into the same vortex of disbelief at the receiving end that less carefully shepherded missives find themselves relegated to.

I think that the value of the petition rests on the credibility of the organizers. Are medical students credibile? Would they make-up signatures? You can answer that one.

Through the magic of the e-petition, those left feeling like bystanders to important events are transformed into powerful agents for social change. It's heady stuff. It's also illusion.

It isn't as effective as smoozing the policos... or having a buddle of money to bribe... but it is better than nothing at all.

It's slacktivism that prompts us to forward appeals for business cards on behalf of a dying child intent upon having his name recorded in the Guinness World Book of Records or exhortations to others to continue circulating a particular e-mail because some big company has supposedly promised that every forward will generate monies for the care of a particular dying child. Likewise, it's slacktivism that prompts us to want a join a boycott of designated gas companies or eschew buying gasoline on a particular day rather than reduce our personal consumption of fossil fuels by driving less and taking the bus more often.

This seems more directed at chain letters. Interesting is the marketing companies and lobby groups often try to astroturf issues-- the bottom-up... loosely organized grouping have cred... or it wouldn't be done.

Those tempted to confuse the appearance of legitimacy with legitimacy itself should keep in mind that many a mark has been conned out of his life's savings by a smooth talker who had a fancy, seemingly well-staffed office and impressive letterhead. Looks ain't everything.

One could say the same about many larger companies... Tyco, Bre-X, Enron etc.

No matter what else can be said against cyber petitions (and so far we've said a great deal), they do serve one actual valuable purpose: They can sometimes be useful tools with which to acquaint folks with situations they might otherwise have little, if any, knowledge of. For instance, in those days prior to the September 11 attacks and the subsequent war on the Taliban, a cyber petition decrying the condition of women in Afghanistan worked to enlighten many as to what was going on half a world away. That the premise of the petition was horribly flawed ("If only the Taliban knew they were doing a bad thing, they'd stop") doesn't change that it worked to bring information to people.

The Taliban and women is a GOP talking point. The US government doesn't give a @#%$ about the women there... if you disagree you should read this (Harold Pinter – Nobel Lecture).

Of course, that same valid purpose could be better served by essays circulated on the Internet. Essays, at least, don't foster this growing climate of slacktivism, of participation at no cost, of lasting social change achieved through no effort.

The internet has been quite effective -- activists can network at almost no cost and disseminate information at almost no cost -- here is a nice example: McLibel.

Those truly committed to righting the wrongs of the world are encouraged to take pen in hand and craft actual letters to their congressmen or to whomever they deem are the appropriate people to contact about particular issues. Real letters (the kind that are written in a person's own words and sent through the regular mail) are accorded far more respect than form letters (let alone petitions), and that should be kept in mind by those intent upon being heard. Yes, the effort it takes is far larger. But so is the potential for making an actual difference.

A carefully crafted letter is great... but it takes time. A petition is something... it is better than nothing. Also, there is an old saying-- "... there is strength in numbers."

[Guest Steve MD09]

If you're a CMA member, commenting on this paper would be a better way to have your voice heard than signing that petition.

 

www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_i...a_id/1.htm

[Guest UTMed07]

If you're a CMA member, commenting on this paper would be a better way to have your voice heard than signing that petition.

I think the petition has its place.

With the substantial number of signatures collected-- it is likely to make the news when it's presented to the CMA. Personally, I think it important that the public knows that large numbers of medical students (like a good part of the medical community at large) disagree with the CMA's position. If you read the history of the Medical Reform Group and its fight against extra billing (in Ontario) you know that speaking-out (publicly) can be very effective.