Another interview

It's a sign of advanced age, notoriety, fame; whatever. This morning I was on the receiving end of yet another interview, my fifth in the past 18 months or so, about the specialty of which I was for a few years regarded as a world leader. It is part of a series to be published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health. I warmly welcome this initiative.  I hope it continues on track and yields usable material for a series of articles that will help recruit enthusiasts to public health practice, research and teaching.

I greatly enjoyed this morning's interview. I hope the young public health specialist who interviewed me enjoyed it too, and was encouraged to continue interviewing old farts like me, finding out what attracted us to public health, what we regard as essential skills and personal attributes for a successful and productive career. He promised to send me a transcript, and perhaps I'll ask him if I may post some of it on this blog. I told him that I moved into public health ten years after I graduated, after rich experience in clinical practice and patient care; and that my motives or incentive were philosophical and ideological. Philosophical, because I'd realized that it makes more sense to find out what's causing illness and injury and take action to prevent it from happening, rather than to wait for these unfortunate events to happen and treat illness and injury one person at a time. Ideological because I'd found it unacceptable to get rich from fees I extracted from families afflicted with illnesses that sometimes had catastrophic impact on them. (I described the 'moment of truth' that led to this life-altering decision in a post on March 15, 2013).

This interview gave me a chance to speak about my own self-perceived weakest link, the essential attribute required for success as a public health worker: political savvy. I recall a CPHA meeting in Alberta at which the provincial minister of health said he was against making seat belt use and helmets for motor cyclists mandatory because his freedom loving constituents wouldn't like being told what to do. I asked him whether he thought elected officials such as he should lead or follow public opinion. I got a round of applause for the question, which obviously discomforted him (and he didn't answer it). Likewise I detest the present government ministers' constant reference to 'taxpayers' as the arbiters of all that they do. I want to ask them if the needs of newborn babies, school  age children and indigent dependent people should play any part in policy-making. Their actions and policies make it pretty clear that these groups don't count for much in this (or any other right-wing) administration. I hope this message come through loud and clear in this interview