Letters to the Editors

The Journal is so rude

Dear editors,

Hi. My name is Lorie and I wanted to ask you how you can be so rude about certain movies. Save The Last Dance was really, really good. In fact, it is my new favourite movie.

You may not have liked it because you aren’t young enough, but I know my grandmother loved it too.

After I saw it, I was really glad I was going dancing. That movie gave me a lot of energy and I was glad it was created. It had good actresses and actors in it.

I can’t wait until it comes out on video, because I am buying it and wearing out the tape. Anyways, I just wanted to know how you can be so rude. See ya!

--Lorie Ross

Brooks degree = No money from me

Dear editors,

Every year I get a phone call from a Queen’s student asking for my annual donation to the Alumni fund, and every year I send my modest contribution to my alma mater. It’s not much but it’s what I can afford, and I’m sure thousands of other alumni do the same.

I bitterly regret that I sent this year’s contribution before I heard that this distinguished and respected university had decided to bestow an honourary degree on Catherine Brooks, Executive Director of the Anduhyaun Centre in Toronto. Had I known about it at the time, I never would have written the cheque.

Catherine Brooks is responsible for the centre where the infant Jordan Heikamp starved to death. Like everyone else at the inquest, she energetically denied any responsibility for his death, and tried to blame someone else, even though he slowly starved to death at her shelter, under her watch.

Some shelter. Some watch.

While the inquest failed to point the finger of blame at any one person, it was clear that there was an awful lot of negligence surrounding that poor child. Among the torrent of reaction that followed it were calls for the Anduhyaun Centre to be shut down.

I’m ashamed of Queen’s University for giving the Anduhyaun director an honourary degree. Next year when I get the annual phone call, I’ll explain why I’m not sending any money.

--C.J. Spendlove, Arts ’74

Glaxo okay after all

Dear editors,

When I first read about the Glaxo lawsuit and the generic AIDS drug problem in South Africa, I was furious with the drug companies. My opinion changed after speaking to an old friend who happens to work for one of the companies.

I do support generic drugs going to South Africa, so long as they are used in a responsible manner. We are just starting to learn now how misused drugs can increase the resilience of harmful pathogens—for example a new strain of E.coli has appeared that is completely resistant to even the most powerful modern anti-biotics. Part of the concern of drug companies is that drugs will be misused, which could result in new strains of the HIV virus developing which are resistant to the current treatments.

Drugs are a necessary tool in combating diseases but they must be used properly. The mass distribution of these drugs in South Africa would certainly lead to misuse.

What about setting up clinics, where patients could receive their treatments on a regular basis and in the correct dosages? As well, encouraging safe-sex (especially if it comes from the Catholic Church) would greatly reduce the number of individuals suffering from AIDS in South Africa.

Drugs are for the people, but they must be used by those who understand them in order to fully protect the people. I don’t pretend to have all the solutions, but mass distribution of generic drugs will certainly not end the AIDS pandemic in Africa.

--Geoff Cole, Sci ’02

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

When commenting, be considerate and respectful of writers and fellow commenters. Try to stay on topic. Spam and comments that are hateful or discriminatory will be deleted. Our full commenting policy can be read here.