Yet here I am embarking on my third post of the day on the topic. The President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association (NLMA) has written an apology to the Premier for saying that the Commission of Inquiry into Hormone Receptor Testing was not discussed during the formal part of a meeting between the government and the NLMA last week.
His comments yesterday really set the cat amongst the pigeons because they made the Premier look like a liar about the source of his concerns regarding the Cameron Inquiry's impact on recruitment and retention of pathologists and oncologists. It goes to show that this entire issue has become a media circus. Why did Dr. Tumilty rush out to the media with his original correction? What was the motivation for correcting the Premier's comments in such a public way? Would he not have made contact with others at the meeting before doing an interview? How did the interview come about? Was it arranged by the NLMA?
In the article, "Williams faces heat over inquiry comments," which appeared in the May 13 edition of The Telegram, I was quoted as saying that the subject of the Commission of Inquiry into Hormone Receptor Testing was not discussed during the formal part of a meeting between the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the premier to address issues related to the recruitment and retention of pathologists and oncologists. In fact, there was discussion about the commission which I unfortunately did not recall. I wish to apologize to the premier for any upset or damage to his reputation that my inaccurate statement may have caused.
Dr. Joseph Tumilty, president
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association
Would he not have spoken with the Premier or his officials to clarify his recollections with those of others at the meeting? Surely he must have realized that his statements challenged the Premier's credibility at a very critical time? Whoever does communications over there must be in knots today.
An apology does not seem good enough at this juncture.
4 comments:
Peter, you are 100% correct. An apology is not enough, this man should be sent to the Tower and locked away. Bread and water. Maybe put in the stocks and lashed
Heaven forbid that anyone criticize the Premier or question him at this critical time. He needs our undying love and support to get through this ordeal.
Let us never forget that the real victims here are the Premier and his staff. Imagine being subject to such questioning in the media. It's a real shame that anyone would question this man's greatness.
For a guy who purports not to care about what he hears in the media, and who claims to be too busy to act on the hundreds of thousands of emails that come into his office, etc. this sure was responded to in a big hurry, eh?
I try not to post anonymous comments but I wanted to deal with this one.
The article in question was about a specific inaccurate comment from an influential organization representing health professionals.
This was specific to that issue not the larger one.
Someone over at the NLMA was eager to score a few points for some reason. I think it unfairly tainted the coverage and soured the public mood even more.
The response I assume came a s a result of any other person who participated in the session wondering where the president was coming from.
I try and call it as I see it. I am on the record about the Premier's comments. However, as I wrote a post using this information from the Telegram yesterday it was important that I correct the record.
I think this man should step down from his position as president. This was not a goof!
Peter - you're such a hypocrite.
If public officials should be forced to step down if they make an errant comment, then the Premier should have resigned four years ago. What a double standard you seem to have...
As for the substance of your post, it's factually incorrect. From what I can gather he has not retracted his comment that the inquiry was not discused during formal part of the meeting. He only said that he didn't mean for the comments to malign the Premier and that the Premier did indeed discuss it with a couple of attendees informally. You seem to have it wrong.
I would post my name, but I genuinely fear reprisal. We all should.
People like you might report us.
"In fact, there was discussion about the commission which I unfortunately did not recall."
How did I get it wrong, i was speaking and quoting from the letter of apology which quite clearly states the original comments were not correct.
If what your saying is the case than why the apology?
Fear of being reported. Yea I should be concerned than because it is all or nothing with all of you.
If I were you I would be concerned about getting extended past this session!
Post a Comment