Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Doctor's gory tale angers soldier's family

ALAN FREEMAN

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:51 AM EDT 04/08/07

Military investigates published account of dying moments ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Yes indeed, may have violated ethics and upset the family and others so what does the G&M do just to make sure....reprints some of it here and hints at more.......just wonderful!!!!!!
  2. S Lucht from British Columbia, Canada writes: Unless the family had given consent to name the soldier in his article, Dr. Patterson should not have done so. And, while war and the suffering inherent to it are real, he could have exercised some sensitivity in his writing.
  3. chris jenkins from Free The West, Canada writes: It seems to me that the G&M's graphic retelling of this story is just as self-serving. As has been the over-the-top reporting on the ramp ceremonies and the funerals of other fallen heroes. And like the opinions of others that disagree with this newspaper's agenda, this comment will soon be stricken from the record.
  4. Antony Conrad from Charlottetown, Canada writes: Get off your high horses. Clara Jeffery, the co-editor of Mother Jones Magazine, has made the public claim that she had spoken with the Megeney family before the story went to press, and they agreed to it, and the dead soldier's mother proof-read the piece. Good for Mother Jones Magazine for having published a story that portrays war for what it is.
  5. Expert Eel from Canada writes: OK neo-cons, we should censor the doctors, put on our rose colored glasses and pretend that everything is just peachy.
  6. Jean-Paul Sartre from Halifax, Canada writes: I disagree with the soldiers name being stated, but we do have a right to know what is going on over there. The full text of the blog in question is here:
    http://www.theiswas.com
    Click on the article entitled: Talk to Me Like My Father: Frontline Medicine in Afghanistan
  7. chris jenkins from Canada writes: The two above comments [Eeel and Conrad] are what everybody hates about the rabid Eastern Leftwing. Just can not for one second allow the sentiments of the grieving family get in the way of their Lefty agenda. This family and their fallen hero son deserve respect.
  8. Antony Conrad from Charlottetown, Canada writes: Chris Jenkins: You are a fool and an idiot for bringing the issue of regionalism into this. The dead soldier's mother proofread the piece, and gave her okay to it.

    As for those people from the 'rabid Eastern leftwing', guess what: we Eastern Canadians are sending disproportionately more kids into the army and into Afghanistan. So check up on your facts before you embarrass yourself with your ignorance.

    I say to all the neo-conservative censors who want to hide truth and control the media (people like you) that you might want to go establish your own little fascist warmonger republic elsewhere.
  9. Antony Conrad from Charlottetown, Canada writes: And, furthermore, to all those dummies (like Chris Jenkins) who call people like Cpl. Megeney 'heroes', let me tell you something:

    In my 11 years in the Canadian Forces, and having served in Cyprus and Bosnia, I can tell you we were not heroes, but regular citizens of this country, working class men and women who were told that a military life (and death) is heroic, so that we would serve in the army and do jobs no one else wants to do.

    Wake up and smell the coffee, neo-cons, or go live in Alabama or something.
  10. 1938371 1938371 from Vancouver, Canada writes: Leaving aside the truths or untruths in this article - siince I was a young lad, news programs around the world have tried to find out the truth about what happened in one military situation or another, whether it was friendly fire or not and how one soldier or a group of soldiers died. In spite of most legal systems, the truth is often very difficult to discover. Think for a moment what is and is not told a solider before he or she departs to the front.
  11. Matthew Gillies from Calgary, Canada writes: I am struck that no one has questioned why this soldier died as he did?

    So what, a Doctor wrote a passage of the man, as he died? He is dead and the doctor may write. This is how it is. Life and death for the powers. But what is the conclusion to his death, why? What is the answer, the circumstances are peculiar, no? When was this...there is still an ongoing investigation!?

    To the numbered poster above....nice try but this river runs deep.

    Deepest condolance and healing to the family and to our mother.
  12. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Truely heart-breaking. My sincerest condolences to the family. I am at a loss. There is no doubt it was tasteless. But this article carried more information than the gruesome details. It told a story about a soldier that was killed in his tent by a non-enemy. I'm comming up blank. Someone please help me out of my confusion.
  13. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: I don't think its an issue whether the mother gave permission or not, or of burying your head or anything like that. The Doctor demonstrated a catastrophic lack of empathy, which makes me doubt whether he should be a doctor at all. The journal demonstrated a real lack of ethics, Mother's permission not withstanding. How would the author or editor feel if their violent deaths were publicized in the same sensationalist way? Remember also: this wasn't a death in combat. This was an accident. Will they give us glossies next time he deals with the product of a car or hunting accident? The Doctor, as well, was a member of the mission. He should not have gone if his real agenda was to gain notoriety for himself. Having gone he should have realised that it wasn't about HIM. In such a story the real hero is the author. The poor dead bugger becomes a thing. Can't most of us imagine what war's like, even if we haven't been there, without him earning a buck and making a name telling us -- based, of course, on his highly hazardous six week tour as a contractor, confined to Kandahar airfield? I agree with Chris Jenkins. This is cut from the same cloth as the generally ghoulish media coverage of this war. I expect that the Globe's objection (if any) is that it didn't get to publish the story first. I might have hoped that we, as a nation, were rather more compassionate and adult than this. I guess, however, that we just don't really have a schmick.
  14. Expert Eel from Canada writes: have any of you bleeding heart neo-cons ever read an autopsy report???

    You know that they are all insensitive to the victims and victims families, but the truth and fact have no sensitivity.

    Why are you all attacking the Doctor here and not wondering why this soldier died under such suspicious circumstances??
  15. Canuckle Head from Canada writes: Antony Conrad, while perhaps the mother gave permission to the Journal to publish a story about her son, I did not read anywhere that she 'proofread' it. If the mother gave the journal a 'blank cheque' to publish an article about her son, as painful as it is to say, she won't make the same mistake twice. Unfortunately, going public through someone else's perspective (e.g. a reporter) as opposed to owning the content yourself (e.g. through a self-purchased advertisement), leaves one wide open to having the story presented in a way that one would not want. I wonder if the consent that the mother provided was done so in writing??? If not, I fear the journal won't have much of a legal leg to stand on. And, if it was captured in writing, I would hope that the mother would have demanded to have editorial privileges to remove any offending portions. Lastly, given the suspicious nature of the man's death, I wonder how it is that this story comes close to fitting with the perils of war. While I could be wrong, the fit doesn't seem like a good one at all, which calls into question the physician's desire to share it. And, that's my two cents... others can decide if it is worth that much.
  16. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: What suspicious circumstances? He was shot on ACCIDENT. It happens.

    Expert Eel: what makes you think that people who disagree with you are 'bleeding heart neo-cons'? I believe that good taste is not confined to people of a narrowly defined political view. And certainly there are occasions to read autopsy reports, but they generally aren't published in reputable journals. FYI: 'Amazing True Crimes!' isn't a reputable journal. I'm having my doubts about the Globe for what that's worth.

    I hope DND nails the author under the NDA. There was no call for him to try to turn somebody else's tragedy into his windfall.
  17. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Doctors already have a reptuation as being thoughless gossips who like to discuss patients as if they were some kind of pets. Modern patients shy away from treatment at hosptials where their private medical records could be read by every studrent nurse and clerk, then gossiped about between staff, and worse, outside the hospital. For many, the medical profession is a group to whom you share little, and as rarely as possible. Perhaps that 's as it should be. They are, after all, basically biologists, persons with science degrees, not great humanists with humanties and arts backgrounds. As for a doctor-writer, with different duties owed to each, professional responsibilities to respect confidentiality surely win out. But an obvious error in judgement, should be cured with a reprimands, an apology and some attempt to make amends, in the case of the dead, but lawsuits where the confidentialities of the living are divulged.
  18. Time Out from Canada writes: At the risk of being called a neo-con, it seems to me, highly unethical of the doctor to have written this piece as described. If his motivation was to describe the horrors or reality of war, this unfortunate event hardly qualifies as that. I suspect the motivation of this MD is far more self serving and we will be hearing more from him in the future.
  19. M Phillips from Canada writes: Perhaps a doctor would care to write a pretty story about the last moments of someone who has been shot and who is dieing or perhaps as we all know already that would be impossible. What an aXs.
  20. Brian MacDonald from Berwick, NS, Canada writes: This is what happens when the military allows anyone from the left wing to get near it. Left wingers are a traitorous bunch of mean spirited liars who will stoop to any lows to cast discredit on true warriors. The person who accidently shot his comrade, should be executed, publicly, to ensure a clear message gets across to the others about safety.
  21. Time Out from Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: 'Doctors already have a reptuation as being thoughless gossips who like to discuss patients as if they were some kind of pets.' Painting with a rather broad brush this AM aren't we. 'They are, after all, basically biologists, persons with science degrees, not great humanists with humanties and arts backgrounds' Sounds like you either scored too low on the MCATS, or didn't get an interview. Since when does having a humanities and arts background make you a great humanist? I could probably agree that kind of background might make one resentful of others success though.
  22. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne: I agree with 'Time Out'. Working in the arena that you're discussing, I can honestly tell you that privacy is taken very seriously and is respected.
  23. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Once again, Brian Macdonald, against stiff competition, you win the prize for the most idiotic posting on this thread.
  24. dennis Harris from United States writes: Brian sounds like a certain popular bombastic morning talk-radio host I once heard while in Ottawa. Anyone who disagrees with him is a lefty, or a granola cruncher or a 'Taliban Jack' sympathizer.
  25. Expert Eel from Canada writes: Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: What suspicious circumstances? He was shot on ACCIDENT. It happens.

    Winston, did you read the story??

    how about this part:

    shot in the chest in his tent at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization base in Kandahar.

    The death, which has been described as resulting from non-enemy action, is still being probed by the military's National Investigation Service.

    ?????

    If it was an accident, why is the NIS still probing?
  26. Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Why be upset? This article is just another example of the low class society we've become! Just try flapping your wings hard enough to keep above the dung heap!
  27. S Boatright from Canada writes: Expert Eel from Canada writes: 'The death, which has been described as resulting from non-enemy action, is still being probed by the military's National Investigation Service.
    ?????
    If it was an accident, why is the NIS still probing? '

    There is always an investigation into accidental deaths, if for no other reason than to take steps to change processes so it doesn't happen again.

    As for the story, I agree with the posters who said it was in very poor taste on the part of the doctor to recount in such graphic detail this soldier's death in 'surgery'. There are other, less cruel ways that he could depict the horror of the war - this was a bad choice.
  28. andre marchand from Canada writes: to ant conrad : Alabama is filled with democrats who sometimes pine for the good old days of carefree living, as long as you were white. And neo cons are those who had assisted LBJ to get the civil rights act into place. Once that was done, they then moved onto the economy to fix it. Call them LBJ conservatives, or Reagan democrats, they did good work no matter what left wing morons define as the usual evil that allows individuals to make their way in liberty and freedom in North America.
  29. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: Let's put aside the fact that he was a soldier and this is a war. If he was your father, brother or son, shot in his own home, would you want the intimate details of his death published?

    I hope this doctor finds employment more suited to his personality .....something that doesn't bring him into contact with humans.
  30. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: Thank you S. Boatwright. The NIS is investigating because there was a death, and because they are probably going to lay a charge. For what its worth, I know a man who cleared a pistol into a clearance bay on Kandahar airport, while unbeknownst to him the rules had changed, and he wasn't to have brough ammunition into the base at all. He's still under investigation, and probably will be charged. Safety is serious business (although there are always accidents). The NIS would be investigating if the deceased and had been killed in a vehicle accident in Gagetown N.B.

    For what its worth, as well, I'm currently in the UK. These past couple of weeks have been hard ones, with deaths reported every day. Do you know what the news says? 'A British soldier has been killed. The family has been informed'. That's it. I wish we could preserve the same level of decorum when dealing with tragedy.

    Face it: the Doctor lacks ethics (and I'm confident will shortly be told so formally, by DND and/or the College of Physicians) and the magazine that published his story is a rag.
  31. Bob Beal from Canada writes: Canackle Head: This is the relevant portion of Clara Jeffery's statement: 'As the co-editor of Mother Jones, I would like to make a few things clear in regards to the part of this story that involves Cpl. Kevin Megeney. First, we sent a letter to Cpl. Megeney's parents, uncle, and sisters, ahead of publication, informing them that this 7,000 word diary of a doctor's month of service at Kandahar Air Field did contain a scene involving the tragic death of their son. That it was written by a doctor present when Cpl. Megeney was brought in for emergency surgery, and that it would likely be disturbing to those close to him. We offered to send it to them or any intermediary they would like if they thought it would be too disturbing to read it themselves. I then spoke with Mrs. Megeney by phone at length. She assured me that the family would like to see the article, and that she was a nurse and would read it before any other members of her family; she said it would help to have closure to know more about what happened. We heard from other members of the family who also wanted to read it, and some whom after they did expressed the desire to write to Dr. Patterson 'to express my appreciation to him for exhausting every effort to save [him].' They asked that we link to Cpl. Megeney's memorial site, which we were already planning on doing, so our readers would have a chance to express their condolences.' As a former journalist and editor, I am not surprised by the family's reaction as Jeffery describes it. I have seen much the same thing in similar circumstances. I have also seen frequently how much at odds this is to the statements and opinions of some outraged readers who claim to speak as if they were speaking for the family. I think that Mother Jones was very careful and responsible in the way they handled this story.
  32. Daniel Martin from Petawawa, writes: Expert Eel
    the military probes EVERY death weather it be accidental or combat.
    The name shouldn't have been printed, Soldiers have rights too! If it was about a civi everyone would be all over it what the difference between a soldier and civi we desever the same respect when we die as anybody else
  33. dallas mcquarrie from Regina, Canada writes: The doctor has displayed an incredible lack of sensitivity. The person or persons who decided to send our soldiers on this military fiasco are the people who really have something to answer for.
  34. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Don't you like to know the TRUTH about what really happens.? No, maybe you just like to here 'he was happy at what he was doing, serving his country, getting accolades from the Prime Minister and the Canadian Media?

    If you really want to honour the soldiers, go and visit the ones who are lying in the hospitals WITHOUT LIMBS, IN MENTAL DISTRESS, WONDERING HOW TO GET THOUGH ,LIFE AFTERWARDS, WITH MINIMAL SUPPORT FROM THEIR GOVERNMENT.

    Yes, even the relatives need to sit up and stop glorying this illegal war. If these young men and women had more lucrative and interesting opportunities in Canada, MOST OF THEM would not now be in Afghanistan.

    And forget about slinging mud at me, I have more military relatives that you have friends!
  35. Jayna Barnes from Calgary, Canada writes: I've read the whole post. Nicola Goddard is from Calgary, and her death is also described under her name. Should her family be subjected to the same howls of outrage from neighbours and friends? Certainly not. The doctor is describing how combat medicine works in a particular theatre of war. He is not saying anything disrespectful of anyone living or dead. The people making all the noise back home are the ones being disrespectufl: to the dead, to their families, and to the medical staff who wrench their guts out day and night trying to patch the unpatchable and save the unsavable. Get over yourselves, people, and quit co-opting other people's tragedies for your own hysteria. This is SO not about YOU.
  36. Brian MacDonald from Berwick, NS, Canada writes: The only people commenting here are left wing fanatics that live off others like parasites.
  37. Brian MacDonald from Berwick, NS, Canada writes: Take a flying one - this is no body's business other than the military's. A bunch of whiney, left wing, Taliban-symps should concentrate on their peanut allergies, asthma and lead-paint sucking moronic offspring.
  38. S Boatright from Canada writes: Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: 'Don't you like to know the TRUTH about what really happens.? '

    That's rich, coming from you.
  39. Steve White from Canada writes: The doctor was bound by doctor/patient confidentiality. That confidentiality can only be breached with the express authorization of the patient (or immediate family in the event of death). This type of confidentiality is protected by various statutes in Canada (for example, in Ontario it is the Personal Health Information Protection Act - 'PHIPA')

    This really has nothing to do 'Mother Jones'. The doctor breached his professional obligations to the patient by giving confidential information to the editors of that publication in the first place. In order to ensure compliance the doctor would have to receive permission BEFORE disclosing the information to Mother Jones. Therefore, the fact that the editor may, or may not, have subsequently received permission to publish the article is irrelevant.

    Interesting to see people so keen on having someone's personal health information made public without first following the proper procedure. No doubt Yvonne Wackernagel would support having her own personal health information made public to the entire world without her permission.
  40. J S from Canada writes: Bob Beal: thank you for clarification. The piece is lengthy and while very important, the part about Cpl. Megeney is confined to a couple of paragraphs. It is graphic but not insensitive. The description is not emotional and rightly so. This was not a piece of fiction. Whether or not Dr Patterson had ulterior motives (and I believe he actually stated he may have), is irrelevant. He performed his duties to the best of his ability - there is no question of that, and his article is an illuminating inside look at the state of medical care in Kandahar. Talk about two-tier health care. My condolences to Cpl. Megeney's family, once again.
  41. Andrew Clarke from Calgary, Canada writes: If the family is upset then the article should be removed. Mother Jones may have run it by them first, but out of respect for them they should remove it.
  42. Bob Beal from Canada writes: J S: I just read carefully the whole of Dr. Kevin Patterson's article. I agree with you. It is a magnificent piece of journalism, extraordinarily moving and informative, and a wonderful testiment to the work of military medical personel. Kevin Megeney's death is the appropriate climax to the article, and Megeney is described in an extremely respectful manner.

    I do not agree that Patterson had 'ulterior motives.' He is a doctor, a soldier, and a writer. There is no conflict-of-interest. One of my close friends was a colonel (now retired) in the Canadian army and a former president of the League of Canadian Poets. Soldiers can be writers, too. And, some of them, such as Dr. Patterson, are very good writers, something for which we should be thankful. (An antecendent to Patterson who comes immediately to mind is Colonel and Doctor John McRae, of Flanders Fields fame.)
  43. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Damm Liberals and the Liberal supporting Globe and Mail!!!
  44. Andrea Timmons from Kingston, Canada writes: The truth hurts & none of us sitting in our living rooms wants to hear it, including the soldier's parents. BUT somebody's got to tell it so we will get our troops out of an unmanegable war in a country with a corrupt government.
    I wouldn't want my kid's death to be thought of as holy & heroic, I'd want his death to help bring other kids back to their parents.
    The best thing G&M can do now is to publish what the soldiers' parents want to tell Canadians how they feel about the report re their son's death & what they need to hear from us.
    Let's hear from them, not someone who speaks for them.
    I offer them my deepest sympathy & prayers.
  45. Clara Jeffery from United States writes: Clara Jeffery, co-editor of Mother Jones here. I'm disappointed that the Globe and Mail did not bother to call us for comment. The 'storm' of controversy that I replied to on our site was, in fact, nine comments, which came about after another Canadian paper reported, inaccurately, that we had neither notified nor talked to the Megeney family. Here is my response, in whole (which is going to take two posts):

    'As the co-editor of Mother Jones, I would like to make a few things clear in regards to the part of this story that involves Cpl. Kevin Megeney. First, we sent a letter to Cpl. Megeney's parents, uncle, and sisters, ahead of publication, informing them that this 7,000 word diary of a doctor's month of service at Kandahar Air Field did contain a scene involving the tragic death of their son. That it was written by a doctor present when Cpl. Megeney was brought in for emergency surgery, and that it would likely be disturbing to those close to him.

    We offered to send it to them or any intermediary they would like if they thought it would be too disturbing to read it themselves. I then spoke with Mrs. Megeney by phone at length. She assured me that the family would like to see the article, and that she was a nurse and would read it before any other members of her family; she said it would help to have closure to know more about what happened. We heard from other members of the family who also wanted to read it, and some whom after they did expressed the desire to write to Dr. Patterson 'to express my appreciation to him for exhausting every effort to save [him].' They asked that we link to Cpl. Megeney's memorial site, which we were already planning on doing, so our readers would have a chance to express their condolences....'

    The rest of my response will follow in the next post.
  46. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: I'm in favour of publishing the consequences of war down to the last gory detail. It might discourage humans from starting them.
  47. Clara Jeffery from United States writes: Clara Jeffery, co-editor of Mother Jones, with the rest of my original response on our website.

    'Doctors can and do publicly talk about how patients die when the story is already in the news--consider press conferences following tragic accidents. And there was certainly nothing in this account that disparaged Cpl. Megeney, who served his country admirably and died in a tragic accident.

    This was an extremely emotional story to work on. The account of Cpl. Megeney's death was particularly poignant, but there were many other stories in there of death and injury to soldiers and civilians that are hard to read. But in our opinion for the greater public to live in denial about what happens in a war does a disservice to those soldiers who serve and the civilians who are affected.--Clara Jeffery, Editor, Mother Jones.'

    Those who wish to read the context of this post on our site can go to Mother Jones [dot] com.
  48. Clara Jeffery from United States writes: Clara Jeffery, co-editor of Mother Jones, again.

    I would like to clarify that Mrs. Megeney did not 'proofread' the article in advance of publication as some here have suggested. Our communications with the family occurred after the article was completed, but before it appeared on newsstands. We fact-check our articles vigorously, but we do not seek permission from people to write about them. (In another context the reasons would be obvious: If we're about to run a story about a corrupt politician, we don't say 'is this okay with you?' But the same rules apply to all journalists, no matter what kind of story.)

    If the extended Megeney family has differing opinions about the article, or their feelings about it have changed since it first came out, that is entirely their right. They have suffered an enormous loss, and our condolences are with them, and the families of all the other soldiers and civilians whose deaths and injuries Dr. Patterson chronicles.
  49. Steve White from Canada writes: Ms. Jeffery: You have failed to address the key point. Did the doctor receive the soldier's (or an authorized member of his family permission) to disclose the soldier's personal information to you? As I indicated in my previous post, the protection of private health information is protected by statute throughout Canada. As an example, the Ontario Personal Health Information Protection Act ('PHIPA') states at section 20 of the Act: 29. A health information custodian shall not collect, use or disclose personal health information about an individual unless, (a) it has the individual’s consent under this Act and the collection, use or disclosure, as the case may be, to the best of the custodian’s knowledge, is necessary for a lawful purpose; or (b) the collection, use or disclosure, as the case may be, is permitted or required by this Act. 2004, c. 3, Sched. A, s. 29. A 'health information custodian' would include a doctor. The relevant question is: Did Doctor Patterson receive permission from the family to disclose the soldiers private health information to you? If the doctor disclosed private health information to you without permission he breached his statutory and professional obligations to his patient. A few final questions I have for you is this - did you seek legal advice before publishing this material? Were you aware that the doctors disclosure of personal health information to you potentially violated privacy legislation? To put it another way - Ms. Jeffery, are you qualified to determine when, and when not, private health information can be lawfully released to the public?
  50. Steve White from Canada writes: Ms. Jeffery: You have failed to address the key point. Did the doctor receive the soldier's (or an authorized member of his family permission) to disclose the soldier's personal information to you? As I indicated in my previous post, the protection of private health information is protected by statute throughout Canada. As an example, the Ontario Personal Health Information Protection Act ('PHIPA') states at section 20 of the Act: 29. A health information custodian shall not collect, use or disclose personal health information about an individual unless, (a) it has the individual’s consent under this Act and the collection, use or disclosure, as the case may be, to the best of the custodian’s knowledge, is necessary for a lawful purpose; or (b) the collection, use or disclosure, as the case may be, is permitted or required by this Act. 2004, c. 3, Sched. A, s. 29. A 'health information custodian' would include a doctor. The relevant question is: Did Doctor Patterson receive permission from the family to disclose the soldiers private health information to you? If the doctor disclosed private health information to you without permission he breached his statutory and professional obligations to his patient. A few final questions I have for you is this - did you seek legal advice before publishing this material? Were you aware that the doctors disclosure of personal health information to you potentially violated privacy legislation? To put it another way - Ms. Jeffery, are you qualified to determine when, and when not, private health information can be lawfully released to the public?
  51. Steve White from Canada writes: Ms. Jeffery - I originally wrote in paragraphs but the website squished into one large one. Sorry if this made it more difficult to read. One clarification - I referred to section 29 of PHIPA (not s.20). It states:

    29. A health information custodian shall not collect, use or disclose personal health information about an individual unless,

    (a) it has the individual’s consent under this Act and the collection, use or disclosure, as the case may be, to the best of the custodian’s knowledge, is necessary for a lawful purpose; or

    (b) the collection, use or disclosure, as the case may be, is permitted or required by this Act. 2004, c. 3, Sched. A, s. 29.
  52. harry carnie from Northern, B.C., Canada writes: Expert Eel..........Good post.......you said it for me....have a pleasant weekend
  53. uninterested observer from Canada writes: Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, well how WONDERFUL that you supposedly have more military relatives than I have friends! Bully for you. While I think it is great that some of your relatives have done ther duty for our country, and I actualy respect them for it, please stop acting as if them doing their duty somehow bequeaths something to you. It's akin to you wearing their rank and honours, they earned them, not you! Thus it is THEM that deserve respect for their sacrifices, you do nothing but ride on their coattails. And that, my dear is not mudslinging, it is the bitter truth!
  54. Bob Beal from Canada writes: Steve White: I am going to defend Mother Jones here. I think the magazine engaged in highly responsible and important journalism.

    I am not sure about this, but I think the strict legal rules about disclosure may well end with the individual's death. That said, journalists must be very careful and respectful in reporting such as this. Most of them, in fact, are, and Mother Jones was in this instance.

    You have to look at the whole of Dr. Patterson's article. The naming of Megeney fits well in the context. In fact, it adds emotion and understanding to a significant explanation of what our people in Afganistan are facing.

    Editor Clara Jeffery says that she consulted the Megeney family in advance of publication, at the very least to warn them what was about to happen. As a former reporter and editor who has faced similar situations, I think Jeffery and Patterson acted entirely correctly and gave those of us sitting in our armchairs in front of our computers valuable insight into what is happening a long way from us.
  55. Clara Jeffery from United States writes: Steve White:

    First, yes, we lawyer all our articles and discussed the issues at hand. Secondly, while I'm not a lawyer, I think an operative word here is 'private.' The fact that Cpl. Megeney was shot in the chest and lung, and that it happened in his tent, and so forth was all reported in the Canadian press when the accident occurred. This isn't like disclosing mental illness or an STD. A traumatic gunshot wound to the chest occurred. Trauma surgery commenced. Unfortunately the wounds were too severe for medical intervention. Dr. Patterson's article more than amply shows how hard he and the other doctors and nurses tried to save Cpl. Megeney. And before you pile on, I would ask you to consider that.
  56. S Boatright from Canada writes: I believe the standards of decency are ultimately decided by the public - by what they accept, and what they don't.

    The posts on this board are a representation of some opinions of the public (although not a scientifically nor accurate depiction of the public as a whole).

    The Mother Jones organization can defend their position on what is ethical or not, and I do not oppose that.

    However, it's not a matter of whether Mother Jones follows the correct protocol with the family. It's about whether people find this distasteful.

    As an individual, I will choose not to read your articles. That is not intended to be a punishment to you. It is intended to be a choice by me.
  57. D. Clearwater from Lethbridge, AB, Canada writes: Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: 'Let's put aside the fact that he was a soldier and this is a war. If he was your father, brother or son, shot in his own home, would you want the intimate details of his death published?'

    Anthony B., it is impossible to put aside the fact that he was a Canadian soldier participating in a war in Afghanistan... that is the whole point and that is why these kinds of episodes are so difficult and bring out such different opinions. The military is supposed to be an instrument of the state... government... people (at least that is the way it is supposed to work). When individuals enter into the military, they are entering into a public institution and, to an extent, their lives (and deaths) are public. I would say it HAS to be this way and I think the worst thing we can do is look the other way and NOT pay attention. We--the public--need to hear stories about what actually goes on from sources other than the official ones (where we are encouraged to just 'support the troops' in an unquestioning way or call everyone heroes and be done with it). Personally, I feel we are fed too much propaganda about war and, really, what is more callous? A doctor writing about a soldier that he tried to save but couldn't or calling the soldier's death 'an accident' and not paying any more attention to it? I don't think it is easy to answer.
  58. Mrs. Whiggans from Canada writes: This week I had to speak to the Coroner about my brother's death. Stuff happens and life isn't all roses and happy as a daisy. This story needs to be told. It wasn't long ago that Harper and O'Connor tried to keep the deaths of our service men and women hidden from our country. If this soldier's mother read and approved the story before publication, all anyone is doing here with outrage and expressions of horror is escalating the issue, and possibly hurting the mother who simply wants the details of her son's death known and illustrate the heroism and futility of war.
  59. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Except for the very rare occasions like this, when the public gets a very brief glimpse into the reality of war, we are otherwise fed a carefully crafted image of war as a glorious activity, filled with patriotic symbolism to get us to support the war, any war, war in general.

    Thus most of us see ourselves as armchair generals (without the benefit of the information that the real generals have, but we're not aware of that), gravely pondering very abstract geopolitical issues and thinking that we're very clever or very patriotic.

    I'm sick of the propaganda. I'm nauseated by the obscenity of having young healthy people not merely killed but ripped apart, our sons dying in intolerable pain, for the sake of some political project.

    I am fed up with having my intelligence insulted by claiming that this young man's bleeding to death in horrible anguish is so that some Afghan farmer may get a new irrigation ditch. No home, school, or irrigation ditch in Afghanistan is worth this.

    And I am incensed by the attempt to silence a witness, who is doing Canadians the tremendous favour of telling us the story of war like it really is, and not like the warmongers want us to believe it is.
  60. Antony Conrad from Charlottetown, Canada writes: Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary: That was one of the most intelligent posts I have seen on Globe and Mail forums.
  61. Bill Harrison from Canada writes: The doctor could just as easily written about the death of an auto accident victim that would have been just as graphic and just as tragic. So the question becomes did he have a political motive in doing this?
  62. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Trust scum at the Globe and Mail to continue to offend real Canadians.
  63. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: The memory and account of it is the doctor's, not the corporal's. He has earned that memory. That memory may not be savoury and even less so given that it is attributed to an actual event with actual persons. Further it reflects the gruesome side of combat operations - a side that the Government of Canada and the CF brass would rather hide or glorify. While I can understand the parents are upset, this is a combat activity (or 'accident' in combat) and not a traffic accident. I think the doctor has a duty to the public to reveal what happened in all of its gory details - not for sensationalism but to warn Canadians of the darker side of and high cost of combat.

    What has the doctor done with the profits of the account? If he has not given them to charity or to a veteran's or wounded veteran's group and pocketed them, then in my view he is personally profiting off of the account. To me that would be unethical (but it is a violation of medical ethics?).

    I do think that it was inappropriate of him to reveal an account to the public while an investigation is still active. If he is still under the jurisdiction of the CF he should be charged for conduct unbecoming.
  64. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Of course lowlifes like Mhatma Gandi thinks Canadians need to know exactly how some brave kid died. It is his/its right.

    Mahatma Gandi please feel free to make your opinions known in public here in Calgary, at the coffee shop or in a bar.

    Let's see how many kudos you get then cowadly scumbag ?

    Show us your courage loser.
  65. Antony Conrad from Charlottetown, Canada writes: Kevin Megeney died because his buddy's rifle went off while he was eating breakfast. Brave kid.

    As for Rick McNaulty, let's just say that tough-sounding guys like you would not last more than a few minutes in a military outfit. And if you would, you would be the butt of everyone's jokes for how dumb you sound. I speak from lengthy experience (see my earlier posts).
  66. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Let's follow the money. You know backers and publishers. What motivated this so called Doctor to disrespect a mourning family and country in this way ? Money alone ?

    This story has Liberal Party Of Canada written all over it. Anything to return to power as quickly as possible right, Mr Dion.
  67. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: Just an afterthought -

    What next? We censor MA*SH?
  68. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: A second afterthought -

    Let's have a burning of all the war poets and war artists...

    (McRae, Robert Service, Wilfred Owen, Robert Greaves, Arthur Lismer, AY Jackson, Stephen Crane, Homer...)
  69. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: ...Oh to have a couple of rounds in the gym or coffee shop with cowards like Anthony Conrad...

    Are you buying coffee?
  70. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Hello I R when it comes to smashing Liberal scum I'll always pick up the tab for a cup of java. Maybe even a shot of tequila to sooth your pain when it over.

    I'm not inhuman you know. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
  71. Steve White from Canada writes: Ms. Jeffery: The fact that an accident is 'public' as opposed to “private” is completely irrelevant when determining if medical information can be disclosed. Personal medical information is protected by statute and there is not an exception because an accident is “public”. For example, Ms. Jeffery, if you were involved in a highly public accident this would still not give your doctor permission to publicly talk about your subsequent medical treatment without your consent. Similarly, just because a person is a famous actress would not give a doctor permission to talk about her specific cancer treatment (either at a press conference or at a dinner party) without her permission. With respect, Ms Jeffery, it is obvious that you do not have even the most basic understanding of the statutory privacy rights that attach to personal medical information in Canada. Your suggestion that doctors have “press conferences” all the time to discuss a specific patient’s recovery ignores the fact that these doctors have received prior permission to do so. Moreover, any lawyer who was qualified to give legal advice on privacy/health related matters would have told you that you were participating in an unlawful act unless the doctor had received permission to disclose the information to you. If a lawyer told you something else may I suggest you report your lawyer to the law society. Ms Jeffery, I am challenging you on this matter because your “story” indicates that you participated in the unlawful release of private medical information. I note with interest the fact that you have not disclosed whether the doctor received prior permission to disclose the soldier’s private information to you. If the doctor did not receive permission, I can guarantee you that he is going to need a lawyer before this is finished.
  72. fake fake from Canada writes: I'm of 2 minds on this issue. While I respect the need for privacy for the family to get over the death of their son I also see the value in taking this war and shoving it in the faces of Canadians and wiping our noses it in just like you would take ap uppy and rub his nose in the illicit pee stain.

    You wanted a war? well this is a war now learn it, understand it and embrace fully the human cost of this war. You don't like hearing about nice young boys bleeding to death in gory detail? too bad - this is war and nice young boys are going to bleed to death and whiteweashing it is only going to lessen the impact of this war on the sheltered civilians and prolong the suffering for al parties involved.
  73. Bob Beal from Canada writes: I R: You, I think, are correct that the memory belongs to the doctor. Thanks for saying that.

    However, I think you are wrong when you suggest that the dissemination of his memory for profit is not appropriate. The man is, among other things, a professional writer. He wrote a long, very thoughtful, and very well-crafted piece, a piece of writing that gives insight into the experiences of others. I hope Mother Jones paid him very well for that.

    We writers do not normally get paid very well. People should not suggest that when we write about things that tend to tug at heart-strings we should, therefore, give our earnings to charity. I still have to pay my rent.

    And, by the way, if you look at Dr. Patterson's account, it is no more 'gory,' and probably less so, than what we used to see on MA*SH. The issue is the naming of the individual.
  74. A Peon in the golden boy's court from Saskatchewan, Canada writes: Canadians need to hear about what’s going on in Afghanistan. I feel for the family of the deceased soldier who was the subject of the article in question & the pain they feel must be very difficult. The fact is though, this democratic country is at war & there are differences of opinion amongst our citizens as to whether or not we should be there. Furthermore, many people in this country don’t know what is happening in Afghanistan on a daily basis; granted, we don’t lose soldiers on a daily basis but the entire war effort is sanitized by government propaganda. As a formed member of the armed forces, I can appreciate the patriotism & code of honour instilled into men & women who wear a uniform, but as a democrat & a man who values freedom more than anything else, except the love of my wife & children, I can appreciate the Dr’s desire to write about a gruesome experience & make it public in a free country. War is gruesome, no matter how you cut it or spin it in the media; it’s gruesome, terrifying & it’s horror even when the war is being waged for a “just” cause (I’m not saying this cause is just). The public doesn’t realize the gruesomeness that our fellow citizens are facing & the public isn’t being spoon-fed all the information on the war; we are only being spoon-fed information that the government wants us to have in order to quell our opposition. I feel for the troops out there because the job they’re doing is difficult, terrifying, thankless & life-threatening. But I don’t subscribe to the school of thought that says supporting the troops means not to question the intentions & actions of our government or the military brass. The fact of the matter is – there’s nothing sensitive about war; it’s not about love & good feelings; it’s about death & destruction & the sooner people would realize that & recognize it, the better off those men & women out there would be.
  75. J M from Canada writes: 'Responding to the onslaught of criticism, Mother Jones's co-editor, Clara Jeffery, said in a posting on the magazine's website that she had contacted the family prior to publication and that Cpl. Megeney's mother had said that the article would help the family have closure.'

    Given this bit of information, why is everyone so upset? The family agreed to the article...
  76. hilda subda from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Should we continue to glorify the war, wrap our victims in the flag, and forget the horrors of it? This doctor should be commended for bringing the truth to the forefront.
  77. Canuckle Head from You can take the boy out of the West, but..., Canada writes: It is sad that in this forum, where one would hope for meaningful dialogue, so many people resort to throwing needless insults back and forth. Perhaps I sound a little mightier-than-thou; It's just that there is so much potential for benefit that can result from respectful discourse. It is a waste of time and energy for people to disparage one another in this medium, because there is no credibility to posts that do so. Steve White: You're right on the money. Clara: You can not assume that you have permission to disclose private information just because you did not get a response from Mrs. Megeney. You failed to meet the standards set out in the PHIPA legislation. The public did not NEED to know this information, because there was no one being protected by sharing it. The right to privacy of one's health information is a right we are all afforded. In this case, the public act of this soldier being shot meant that the public had a right to know this. However, the soldier's right to protection of his health information started from the moment the soldier began receiving health care. With all due respect, the arguments you have made are far from convincing and clearly show that your agenda clouded your ability to make a wise and appropriate decision.
  78. John L from Ottawa, Canada writes: Jeez, get a grip people. Big deal. 'Gruesome' details about people dying appear in the news/magazines/television every single day. Just because this guy was a soldier he has to be treated differently? I don't think so. It's a war for Chrise sake. People like to pretend that everything is fine, wear rose-coloured glasses, but that's not the reality.

    How about the recent 'gruesome' details about the 17-year-old falling into the crevice on the commuter train in Calgary and having massive internal injuries? How about the illustrative details surrounding the Toronto boy who got shot, Jordan Manners? How about the gruesome details about people dying in Sudan? I don't get it. It's a freakin' war!

    We shouldn't even be there in the first place, yet people want to put Peter Mackay's fingers in their ears, and Steve's hand over their eyes.....
  79. joseph Cheng from Toronto, Canada writes: What kind of doctors do we have in the military? This is truly pathetic and disgusting. Whether the soldier's family agreed to have it published or not was not the issue. The only person whose permission must be sought should be the dying soldier himself. For heaven's sake, this soldier had already paid his supreme sacrifice for his country and for another troubled land. Let him have his privacy in his final moments and the world has no business to know about it.
  80. Max Stebbins the True Blue Tory from Charlottetown, Canada writes: Ya, that doctor is a low life. i wonder how much money the liberals gave him to write that article
  81. Dennis Petruk from Canada writes: More 'deathwatch journalism' from the G&M.

    When is enough, enough from the media, in covering this war.

    Why was there none of this type of reporting when we fulfilled our obligations in Bosnia?

    Oh, the Liberals were in power.

    Can anyone recall how many casualties there were in Bosnia?

    No?

    How come everyone knows how many casualties we've taken in Afghanistan?

    Why, the Liberal hacks in the media are making sure we know.

    How else can they hang the Liberal generated war on Harper, and protect their Liberal masters.

    This doctor should be put in jail for putting the family through this, and the G&M should be sued by the family for printing some of it.

    I'd gladly contribute to that.
  82. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: The fact that this soldier was killed in his tent by an non-enemy is what makes the ethics of this situation difficult to decide. The voilation of medical ethics only covers the revealing of the gruesome details. It doesn't address the reason for the death. I can be satisfied with the fact that an investigation is proceeding, but I cannot justify not talking about it because it was tasteless. We can't put our heads in the sand and hope bad things goes away. This really truely was a tragedy in every sense of the word.
  83. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Well said Dennis Petruk. I am sure there are millions of real Canadians that have now decided to put OUR collective money to work to battle trash like the Globe and Liberal Party, see Conservative war chest versus Liberal scum.

    I too will gladly donate my families hard earned money to defend this soldier and his family's RIGHT to privacy. This act will show the incredible respect I have for this fallen soldier and his family..

    Keep it coming Globe and lefty trash, real Canadians can't touch you.
  84. John L from Ottawa, Canada writes: Dennis:

    There were 20 casualties in Bosnia

    We were there as PEACEKEEPERS and REBUILDERS

    And it was a JUSTIFIABLE mission
  85. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: John L thinks soldiers like watching women and children slaughtered in front of them because their lefty masters are cowards.

    John L disgusts real Canadians.
  86. John L from Ottawa, Canada writes: Rick McNaulty...

    Well said. You're right. You CAN'T touch us.
  87. John L from Ottawa, Canada writes: Haha....'women and children slaughtered in front of them because their lefty masters are cowards'.... good one buddy.

    If that's the case, we're cowards for not being in Sudan right? Or how about how we didn't go to Rwanda? Women and children being 'slaughtered' in Afghanistan....haha. Good one. I needed a good laugh....