Dear Editor:
Re: Fecal transplant saved her, Burnaby NOW, May 2.
Before I get to the issue of the Fraser Health's appalling retrogressive approach to sensitive issues, I should like to correct what I consider a misnomer in your recent front-page report of a potentially life saving procedure.
I find the term "fecal transplant" misleading, since transplant in the medical sense implies a surgical procedure. I think fecal transfer, or infusion, would be a far more accurate and apt description of the treatment.
Your article indicates that the treatment as applied to Jane Thomas was effectively a last resort after all other methods had failed. In a situation like that, where there appears to be nothing left to lose, I do not see how bureaucracy can deny the application of any possible remedy, whether it is experimental or, as in this case, virtually proven.
The authority's attitude brings to mind the heartrending case of Margot Bentley, in which Fraser Health rode roughshod over Ms. Bentley's living will to the extent of threatening to physically restrain her family if they tried to remove her from a facility that was intent on supporting their denial if her wishes.
This appears to be yet another case where bureaucratic butt-covering trumps both common sense and human rights.
Thomas Hasek, Burnaby
