A HEALTHY PROPOSAL

Some of the most controversial issues confronting municipal officials
fall under the general rubric of public health. And it's precisely
because these issues are so sensitive that, unfortunately, political
calculations rather than scientific evidence are sometimes the main
criteria when fashioning policy.

The city's former medical officer of health, Dr. David Salisbury, has
expressed the understandable frustration felt by experts when their
research is ignored or downplayed because it happens to make elected
officials uncomfortable. He and others would like to see public
health de-politicized.

Fortunately, a plan is in motion to do that. The city is proposing
the creation of an independent board that would assume responsibility
for issues of public health. If the science shows that a particular
drug policy reduces the spread of disease, city councillors won't
have the prerogative of simply saying no it doesn't.

It's important, however, that city councillors not use the new board
as a convenient means by which they can avoid taking difficult
positions. They mustn't use the board the way, for example, federal
parliamentarians use the courts (in the sense that many cowardly MPs
are happy to let the courts make the tough decisions, such as the one
on same-sex marriage, so that they don't have to take any political heat).

It's reassuring to see that the proposed 13-member health board will
have six seats reserved for city councillors; this means there will
be at least some degree of political accountability.

The line between a political issue and a public-health issue won't
always be crystal clear, and councillors must never abdicate their
roles of leadership.