The last few decades have seen a greater politicization of a number of issues related to health. The clear division among pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine proponents during the COVID pandemic was a major indication of such politicization, with even public officials taking up one side or another. The pandemic raised a number of health issues in both the U.S. and Canada, forcing governments and medical practitioners to support one side or the other. However, the science was clear and supported the need for a vaccine and the various societal restrictions introduced to protect peoples’ lives. The high number of COVID-related deaths, particularly in the first year of the pandemic, confirmed the urgency for action in order to minimize the terrible impact of the virus on the population at large. Results indicated that where individuals were not immunized, the probability of serious health consequences and even death was that much higher. Many ended up placing an extreme hardship on the health care system and communities.
In the U.S., the recent Supreme Court’s decision which overturned Roe vs. Wade — a 1973 landmark decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion — opened up the door to reviving the whole issue surrounding abortion, another primarily health issue. Again, pro-life and pro-choice groups became more politically active in many states, with some state governments enacting laws introducing all kinds of restrictions on abortion, sometimes leading in practice to an outright ban. This placed medical practitioners in a difficult situation, often putting a woman’s health in jeopardy as a result of the loss of the abortion option.
More recently, governments in Canada and the U.S. have or plan to introduce legislation to support planned policy changes affecting transgender and non-binary youth and adults. Often under the banner of “parental rights”, the laws aim to restrict health-care options for such youth and inform parents of any name and gender identity changes students request at school. Age limits are being prescribed for the use by medical practitioners of puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender affirmation. As a result, medical experts and patients are weighing in on gender-affirming care and the potential impact of such laws on affected youth. They believe that limiting their access to care will put some kids at risk of self-harm, especially with respect to their mental health. Psychiatrists who see gender-diverse youth and adult patients believe that to outlaw access to puberty blockers ignores best practices, guidelines and international standards of care endorsed by major medical associations. Such laws are an unnecessary and unconstitutional political intrusion into the personal health choices of children, their parents and their doctors. What is difficult to understand is that it appears to be the policy equivalent to hitting a fly with a hammer, given that the issue affects a very tiny portion of the population, often depicted as representing well less than one percent of children and adolescents.
When it comes to personal health matters, I believe that the majority of people would prefer that the government stay out of the equation. In Canada, we saw a similar political split during past debates on the issue of medical assistance in dying (referred to as MAiD). There were those that opposed MAiD primarily on religious beliefs, compared to the medical profession and civil rights groups who argued in favour of assisting those with terminal diseases, living with pain, in anguish, and with no hope for a cure. In the six years since assisted dying was decriminalized by the Canadian Parliament in 2016, more patients are seeking MAiD year over year as this option becomes more widely known and available. Since the introduction of this practice into the Canadian healthcare system, over 40,000 Canadians have taken advantage of the option. Decisions for assisted dying are left to the individual, his or her family and their medical practitioners, using several prescribed guidelines developed under the program.
I don’t know about you, but I want to make decisions about my health with the least amount of government interference or that of politically motivated groups. I want decisions to be based on the best science at the time and the experience and input of medical practitioners. There has been far too much politicization of health issues, driven by motives that most likely have nothing to do with the freedom to determine what is right for each person. Our beliefs are our own. As long as one is not harming anyone else, our health-related choices are our business.
FROLITICKS 
Leave a comment