Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2018-01-25, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2018. PAGE 5. Other Views History shows how far we've come The other night we watched the English movie Breathe, the inspiring real-life story of Robin Cavendish and his courageous and dedicated wife Diana as they struggled to find a life after he was struck down by polio in the late 1950s. Watching the movie, produced by Robin and Diana's son Jonathan, reminded me again about how quickly humans move on and adapt to a new reality and forget the past. Few people today remember when the very word "polio" struck terror into people's hearts, particularly those of parents who worried about their children who made up more than half of all polio victims. The virus, often spread through contaminated water, attacked cells in the nerves sometimes paralysing limbs or even muscles in the throat and chest. Those who couldn't breathe were imprisoned in a machine called an iron lung which breathed for them. Parents almost came to dread summers, which was when polio usually attacked. Some summers would have relatively few cases while others had infections of epidemic proportions. And then in 1955, Dr. Jonas Salk developed a vaccine to prevent people from being infected by polio. Our governments took action, setting up special mass vaccination clinics through the public health system. I remember lining up to get my dose on a little sugar cube. Nobody was worried about the possible side-effects of the vaccine as some people are today. They were so grateful for the cure to this terrifying disease that they weren't seeing the cure as a problem. The irony of Robin Cavendish's story is that he contracted polio at a time in the late 1950s when it was being irradicated in his home country so he hadn't been vaccinated. But he Keith Roulston From the cluttered desk and his wife were in Kenya on a business trip (he was a tea broker) and he was infected just before the birth of their only child. He was totally paralysed. He only survived because of a ventilator that breathed for him. Stuck in a hospital ward with dozens of others like himself, he became so depressed he wanted to die, even after the birth of his son. Diana wouldn't let him, stressing how important he was to her and their child. Against the advice of doctors who said he'd die outside of a hospital, she took him home and looked after him herself. His spirits picked up, and improved even more after his friend Teddy Hall, an Oxford scientist and engineer, developed a wheelchair with a portable respirator so he could become more mobile. Seeing how much better his life was thanks to the chair, Cavendish and Hall set out to raise money so more chairs could be built for others, and eventually persuaded the British government to help fund the manufacture of the special wheelchairs. In 1975 Cavendish was made a Member of the British Empire for all his work for the disabled. In 1977 he raised money for a holiday home for the disabled on England's south coast. He lived years past the life expectancy doctors gave those as seriously affected by polio as he, dying in 1994 at the age of 64. His son went on to get a good education and become a movie producer. The 1950s was a time of many exciting changes, just like today. My childhood doctor, Dr. William Victor Johnston, called his memoir, published in the 1970s, Before the Age of Miracles because of how new drugs such as antibiotics and vaccines like that for polio changed the face of medicine and the situation of society with diseases like tuberculosis becoming part of fearful past. In the 1960s, came universal health care, improving even more lives. But we soon take such advances for granted. We forget the miracle of the cure and worry that the vaccine that cured disease could itself be dangerous. We complain about what our universal health care program doesn't cover or even become envious of treatments available to those who can afford it in the private U.S. system. It's good, of course, to be always questioning, always pushing the boundaries. If Robin and Diana Cavendish had listened to his doctors he would have lived an unhappy, probably short, life in a hospital ward. Instead he was at home, being a father and husband and working to make the lives of others with disabilities happier. Sometimes we need the perspective that movies like Breathe bring us. Many people hate history, thinking it's all about dull men and duller dates. But stories like the Cavendishes' are also history and help us understand our present as part of a long path of human advancement. They can teach us gratitude for the efforts of those before us who made today's life possible, and give us a touch of humility at how privileged we are today. Yes, we have other killers to be conquered but there are so many things we no longer fear. Evaluating source is very important As a reporter, trusting a source is a very important part of the job — we need to know that what we're bringing back to our readers is verified information. Whether it's interviewing someone because of an accolade they received or getting to the bottom of a salacious story, we need to make sure our sources for information are trusted and verifiable. This week, I decided to take my space here and give readers a glimpse of what differentiates the news we report from the reports you might find on Facebook or other social media. This comes in light of several people asking me questions about how we do what we do. Usually, we're dealing with first-hand knowledge here at The Citizen — there isn't much in the way of hearsay that we need to go too far to follow up. If someone thinks we need to investigate something, we can usually go directly to the pertinent person or group and get the information. Unfortunately, not every person or group is completely forthcoming. Take, for example, recent hirings and firings, or hirings and termination of municipal employees. Typically, we hear about the issues on the streets long before we receive official word on them and, despite the claims that townships and their goings on are becoming more transparent, our ability to confirm information like that is somewhat hampered. I'm not pointing fingers here, or saying it should be different, but with privacy laws changing and everyone worried about evolving legal concerns, getting a simple yes - or -no answer isn't easy anymore and typically doesn't happen with a timeline that is conducive to a weekly newspaper, to say nothing of daily or more immediate media. Keen readers may have picked up on that problem when The Citizen has reported on Denny Scott Denny's Den various issues in the past. We've reported that multiple sources have said something is true, given an opportunity for an authority to comment on it, and, eventually, had to run the story we had because were confident enough in our sources that we could write the story. I'm speaking in vague terms here because, to be honest, I don't necessarily want to re- open any old wounds for anyone. Unfortunately, living in a small community and covering several small communities, the less information there is to back up a claim, the faster it seems to spread. That's become even more true in the age of social media. Heck, just ask all those still -living celebrities who have had to go through being declared dead on Facebook and Twitter more than once. Recently, I spoke to a business owner who was looking at some significant changes for themselves and, before they had finalized anything, there were already rumours floating around the community saying the changes were already confirmed. I have first-hand knowledge of the power of rumours and fake news; two weeks ago, firefighters attended my house as a precaution for a natural gas issue. Apparently, that visit spawned a rather persistent rumour that I had a fire at my house. I was shopping at a local store that day, needing to try and repair my home as soon as possible (thank goodness for local merchants, right?) and explained my entire situation to them as I was checking out. Apparently, another customer, in the days following the front of my house getting a facelift, came in and was talking about the fire I had at my house. The person at the store tried to set the misinformed individual straight, but they wouldn't have any of it. It's a valuable lesson in the importance of being able to trust the source. I know the three firefighters that were at my house. I know everyone I told about the situation (before I published a column about it) and I know that no one was under the impression that there had been any fire at my house. If the rumour was a gas leak, well, that would have been more plausible. Not correct, mind you, but plausible. This kind of misinformation becomes infinitely more prevalent in the face of people refusing to comment on issues. Simply confirming or denying rumours (with adequate information to stop more rumours) will make everyone's lives easier. That said, as proven above, not everyone is willing to give up the salacious rumour for the much more mundane truth. I get that. A fire proves a much better story than a precautionary call due to a potential (non- lethal, non -explosive) gas call. That's why, however, the service that newspapers provide is an important one. Sure, we may need to break an exciting rumour down by reporting something far more run-of- the-mill, but that's one of our primary responsibilities: separating fact from fiction. While it is our responsibility, that doesn't mean it's not something in which everyone can participate. The next time you hear a story at the coffee shop or the grocery store, feel free to use some of the tactics we employ to guarantee its veracity. Ask where the story came from, evaluate its likelihood, or, better yet, go right to the source and simply ask whether or not the tale is true. Aa7S- Shawn Loughlin Shawn's Sense Turning the tables n my years as a journalist for The Citizen, one of the most difficult of my tasks has been court reporting. The most difficult aspect of that difficult task is the ever - powerful victim impact statement. These, perhaps (at least in my mind), are one of the most important aspects of a court case. What exactly happened to the victim as a result of the crime? If a loved one is murdered, the victim's family members have very literally lost that person forever. However, when it comes to crimes like sexual assault or break and enter, effects can be harder to see. When someone's house is burgled, the law views that crime as damage caused (a broken window or door to gain entry to the dwelling) and the goods stolen (putting a dollar value on items taken from the person's home). However, I have heard judges also discuss a third effect from such a crime, which is the loss of a feeling of safety. Once someone who is unwelcome in the home has shown they can come and go (and do) as they please, will those who live there ever feel safe again? These are as powerful as statements get. As a reporter, it has been hard for me to hear these kinds of statements. They are often deeply emotional and highly personal. Larry Nassar, a former physician with the U.S. national gymnastics team and faculty member at Michigan State University, has been accused of sexual assault by nearly 150 women, some of whom were underage at the time of the alleged assault. He has since pled guilty to charges associated with child pornography and sexual assault and, last week, underwent sentencing for his crimes. Judge Rosemarie Aquilina has been conducting Nassar's sentencing hearing, which has spanned several days and has heard from over 100 of Nassar's victims, many of whom have shared very personal and powerful accounts of what they endured at the hands of Nassar and how they have coped with it in the years following the abuse. Nassar, however, reached his breaking point and penned a letter to the judge, suggesting that she was carrying out a "media circus" for her own benefit, saying that hearing from this parade of his victims was trying his mental health. "I'm very concerned about my ability to be able to face witnesses this next four days mentally," Nassar wrote to the judge. It is a scumbag in the purest sense of the word who could attempt to flip the script and look at himself as a victim, simply as a result of hearing from the women he abused. Had he not abused these women, you'd have to think he wouldn't be sitting in court and they wouldn't have anything to say. Surely, he only has himself to blame for what he's hearing. Lost in the shuffle as well is just how difficult it must be for Nassar's victims to speak publically about the abuse they've suffered. Of course, that doesn't matter to him, he can only think of himself. Don't do the crime, they have always said, if you can't do the time. Nassar will most certainly do the time (he has already been sentenced to 60 years in jail for his child pornography crimes) but part of that time is sitting in court and hearing the pain he has caused and the lives he's affected. In addition, perhaps in the post -Harvey Weinstein era — very much like our increasing numbness to mass shootings — it's easy to shrug off nearly 150 victims, but when over 100 women speak, one after the other, the sheer volume of lives affected by Nassar cannot be ignored. And for that volume, he has no one to blame but himself.