Talk:Colin D'Cunha

I see a warning on here about biographies and contentious content so I won't edit in case I am stepping into the middle of a disagreement or something here. However, the citations list for Dr. D'Cunha's role in SARS is incomplete, and missing important information. The Province of Ontario held an official inquiry into the management of the SARS outbreaks, which significantly criticized Dr. D'Cunha - criticisms that are particularly notable as the handling of SARS-CoV-1 has direct bearing on the handling of SARS-CoV-2, and readers may wish to examine the handling of these crises, and what was (and was not) learned.

That report is here (via the archives of the Government of Ontario, so it's an authoritative source): https://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/e_records/sars/report/index.html

Notably it was a report that did not have a mandate for individual findings of fault, so any criticism of individuals in it is particularly serious - right at the limit of what the inquiry was permitted to find. Despite this, there is an entire section devoted primarily to shortcomings in Dr. D'Cunha's handling of SARS - see "Problem 4: Lack of Provincial Public Health Leadership" on page 60 of Vol 4, Chapter 5 of the report of the SARS Commission (chapter is here: https://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/e_records/sars/report/v4-pdf/Vol4Chp5.pdf ). The report is careful to surround the criticisms with generic positive statements, but they are significant.

I will put some extensive quotes below for reference. These are sequential, although there are additional paragraphs in between them. I have not put in any partial paragraphs.

While it may be due to misunderstandings or a simple difficulty on the part of Dr. D’Cunha to communicate effectively, there is a strong consensus on the part of those colleagues who worked with him during the crisis that his highest and best public calling at this time is in an area of public health other than direct programme leadership. This general concern has undoubtedly been reflected in the government’s decision to provide him with other opportunities within his area of expertise.

His friends and supporters see him as a strong advocate for public health, badly treated by the system that he served with such dedication. Those who see him less charitably think he cultivated those above him and did not appropriately value those below him. Against the many anecdotes recounted by those who felt they were inappropriately and wrongly criticized by him, and by those who observed behaviour they considered inappropriate or self- absorbed in a time of public crisis, there are many reports of his total commitment to the proper handling of the crisis according to his own lights. For instance, Dr. Yoal Abells, on behalf of the Ontario College of Family Physicians, in a presentation at theis Commission’s public hearings described the leadership of Dr. D’Cunha, among others, as “excellent.”

As noted in this report, there was a sense in recent years that bright independent minded people were not particularly welcomed and that experts from other provinces were reluctant to come to the Ministry of Health’s Public Health Branch because of concern over what they perceived to be a difficult working environment.

A number of Medical Officers of Health even before SARS thought there were problems with Dr. D’Cunha’s leadership. They thought that the Ontario public health community was being shut out of useful federal-provincial committee work because of the perceived difficulty of working with Dr. D’Cunha.

Some senior people in the Branch developed the impression that Dr. D’Cunha discouraged the sharing of information with local public health units in the field and that he communicated the impression to Public Health Branch employees that “the field is not your friend.”

As outlined below, there was a lack of positive leadership in Dr. D’Cunha’s position in relation to West Nile planning, surveillance, and management.

To some who worked with him during SARS his behaviour appeared puzzling. It seemed to them that he was more preoccupied with his personal authority as Chief Medical Officer of Health than he was with working with others to get the job done. These concerns include the observation that he would make himself unavailable if he felt personally slighted by the presence of someone he considered an intruder on his own turf. His supporters on the other hand suggest that he responded appropriately by staking out the authority of his office in response to the inappropriate presence of outsiders in the management of a public health crisis that by law and by bureaucratic convention was his alone to direct entirely by himself as he saw fit.

What is abundantly clear, despite Dr. D’Cunha’s recollection that he always shared and never withheld information, is that a contrary body of opinion is held by some who worked with him closely. Perception, in a time of crisis, is as important as fact. Many colleagues ended up with the impression that Dr. D’Cunha felt that knowledge was power and the best way to demonstrate to others that he was in charge of his own turf was to show them that he controlled the flow of information. Having regard to Dr. D’Cunha’s recollection to the contrary this impression may well be inaccurate and may simply reflect misunderstandings.

The above is established fact, the following is the rationale for notability: It is important that that this information be reflected in the accessible public record (e.g. Wikipedia) as senior medical authorities tend to close ranks, and conceal even very serious criticism of their colleagues. This results in a false impression of infallibility, that allows similar mistakes to be made (at a high cost in lives) over and over. The death toll from COVID would have been much lower had the criticisms of the SARS Commission been remembered and acted on. If the same criticism had been levelled at someone less influential, it would be considered both noteworthy, and likely the central aspect of their biography. We cannot learn from the mistakes of the past if the people who made them are entitled to erase the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.213.66 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)