Letters

As an AMA member, I feel I must write to put an alternative view to that of the President in the matter of the ‘asylum seekers’, and to make it clear that, the President,

Dr Hambleton, does not speak for all AMA members.

I work in public hospitals, not in a leafy green suburb with middle class patients, and I see many recent migrants.

The greatest critics of the illegal immigrants are their fellow nationals from the same origins.

They are angry. They tell me they went through many months, even longer, negotiating the serpentine bureaucratic process to obtain a legal visa to migrate here, whilst the others bypassed that whole process.

They are from the same places, they are at no more risk of harm staying there. Read the transcripts of the Courts that deal with their appeals.

They are mostly tertiary educated, upper middle class people who paid thousands to fly commercial airlines half way then ‘lose’ their documents as instructed by the smugglers.

Within three years, 60 per cent have flown back to visit family, so how much danger do they face there?

I am not saying we should not be professional in our medical dealings with them, as with everyone.

All the same, we should not, as a profession, countenance the actions of those who willingly break the law of a nation they seek to make their home. That is a very poor beginning to becoming an Australian and should not be supported by the medical profession, as our President seems to do.

Waiting to complete the legal process offshore is a perfectly satisfactory solution, and we should not oppose it.

Barry N. J. Walters FRACP FRANZCOG

Editor's note - Dr Hambleton has been very careful in his public comments on asylum seekers and refugees.  He has restricted the AMA's concerns to the mental and physical health of the asylum seekers, especially children and, more particularly, unaccompanied children.  His comments have been informed by AMA doctors who have been providing care to asylum seekers. The AMA has made no comment on the political issues of processing.

No more ‘nanny’

As a retired medic I strongly support those who cry ‘nanny state’ and protest at yet more proposed laws to regulate our behaviour. We must be among the most highly regulated of all Western democracies. Must we as individuals be deprived of any responsibility for our own actions? Educate certainly, but leave us some choice. When the control freaks push always to legislate, it is to take away yet another of our freedoms. It smacks more of the approach of a totalitarian state than of a true democracy.

I know about the value of seat belts and appropriate child restraints. I approve of restrictions on smoking in public places. But I am unconvinced of the overall value of cycling helmets, when they discouraged many of my age group from cycling.  I reluctantly wear a helmet when cycling, despite having cycled many thousands of kilometers without one before they became compulsory, without ever suffering a head injury - but enough is enough. Educate, persuade, but we've had enough of the legislative big stick of those who ‘know better’ than we do how we should live!

Prof James R Taylor