After reading that elective surgeries in the ACT could be cancelled for up to three months (''GP shortage may get worse, minister says'', July 24, p4) I am grateful mine took place a few days ago.
I did have a long chuckle of irony, however, to read further in the story that Canberrans wait an average of 72 days for elective surgery.
I am sure I am far from alone when I say that I would have been more than delighted to wait only 72 days for a procedure to relocate a nerve in my right arm, a condition which has hampered my ability to work (cleaning and ironing) normally and without significant pain.
Instead I waited for almost 500 days with my condition deteriorating continually. Fortunately I am now on the road to recovery.
My sympathies go to others who are still on the list in the hope they don't have to wait much longer.
Julie Clark,
Flynn
WRONG ON HICKS, HU
Whatever Neil James (Letters, July 24) says about the legality of David Hicks's detention, as opposed to the breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the case of Stern Hu's detention, the fact remains that both detainees were/are detained by countries that, regardless of world views and covenants, still impose the death penalty.
In other words, in my opinion, both China and the United States care little for humankind or the opinions of other people, countries or international conventions because they still apply the death penalty.
Until countries such as Australia take a meaningful stand against the death penalty on an international level, poking sticks and politicking over detainees such as Hu and Hicks will only add to the quandary of why we trade with such countries in the first place. Is it just the trade money, that boosts our standard of living, or do we really care how other countries treat other humans?
David Cavill,
Kambah
Neil James (Letters, July 24) states that the detention of Stern Hu was arbitrary.
He obviously has more information than the rest of us to be able to make such a statement.
Nations do have the right to lock up people whom they think are breaking their laws.
As for the civil detention being a ''clear breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'', I would ask James to explain how.
It is quite clear from articles 10, 14 and 15 of the covenant that people may be detained if they are thought to have committed an offence under the ''national law'' of that country.
The articles predominantly refer to a person's treatment while in detention.
Vic Adams,
Reid
EMPTY PLEDGE OF POPE
According to the Pope's latest encyclical ''it is contradictory to insist future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves'' (''Pope sees lessons in the 'book of nature''', July 23, p11).
So if one is ''for'' the environment and for mitigating climate change, then one must necessarily be opposed to the rights of homosexuals and lesbians.
This seems to me to be a very long bow to draw.
However, the central problem with the Catholic Church's social teachings has always been its complete inability to follow its own example. Its ability, for example, to extol the virtues of austerity and ''human ecology'' while at the same time spend millions of dollars battling child-abuse cases in courts across the world.
The day the Pope pledges to have the Vatican run with clean renewable energy is the day that I take seriously any of his lectures on saving the environment.
Simon Leeds,
Nicholls
According to Neil Ormerod (''Pope sees lessons in the 'book of nature''', July 23, p11), the Pope's latest encyclical Caritas in Veritate ''calls for the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate'' through international cooperation and regulation.
Those who think this is an advance for the environment should think again.
Until the Pope and religious leaders of all faiths come to terms with limiting the numbers of humans on the planet, there is not the slightest possibility that the ''green'' aims of this encyclical will do very much at all for the environment.
Steve Thomas,
Yarralumla
A SUB-EDITOR'S SLANT
Once again an anonymous Times sub-editor gives an anti-Israel heading to a news brief item (''Israel land grab'', July 21, p6), despite the item itself making quite clear that the houses and land were bought and paid for.
These sub-editorial slanted headings are so persistent as to raise the question of whether it is bias rather than haste on his/her part.
Please cease and desist from attempting to distort the news, letters and opinion features through misleading headlines.
Earle S. Hoffman,
Deakin
NUCLEAR POWER DANGERS
Who are the rat bags? The nuclear power lobby that claims a ''Chernobyl-style accident [is] unlikely with the new generation-four reactors'' or those who warn of the proliferation of nuclear dangers we have already experienced?
The editorial (''Nuclear logical if pollies are game'', July 23, p10) does not tell you that generation-four reactors are only a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs now being researched.
Again, the nuclear power lobby is saying ''trust us'', there won't be any problems with this untested design, and it will solve all the global warming problems.
If you believe that, then you must also believe in the tooth fairy.
Bruce A. Peterson,
Kambah
Your editorial (''Nuclear logical if pollies are game'', July 23, p10) asserts that risks of nuclear power accidents and problems of waste disposal are ''exploited by an assortment of left-wing ideologues, ratbags and environmentalists to stifle any meaningful debate''.
Do you imply that a ''meaningful debate'' would ignore these legitimate problems?
What about other problems, such as nuclear weapons proliferation, cost, long time leads and the greater all-round merits of energy efficiency?
Is it ''exploitative'' to raise these issues in debate?
The Canberra Times regularly features fact-light articles by nuclear power advocate Leslie Kemeny that ignore many of these problems, and the Times either does not publish or gives less prominence to articles offering a more informed and comprehensive view.
I think you make it clear, by your emotive language, by your actions and by your gatekeeper position, who are the ratbag ideologues stifling meaningful debate.
Geoff Davies,
Turner
AIRPORT NOISE CONFUSION
The logic used by those speaking on behalf of the Canberra Airport on aircraft noise is rather strange. They deny that any Canberra residents will ever hear aircraft noise over 60 decibels as the airport expands.
Yet the Hackett noise monitor has recorded numerous planes at over 70decibels in recent months.
The airport people dismiss 70 per cent of these incidents as community noise so they admit that at least 30 per cent of these noise disturbances are from their aircraft overhead.
Yet in the same breath they say that no Canberra resident will hear aircraft noise over 70 decibels.
I'm confused.
C. Proudfoot,
Hackett
FAIR CREDIT-CARD FEE
Roger Quarterman (Letters, July 23) shouldn't object to businesses charging a fee if you pay for something by credit card rather than cash.
After all, being able to do that (which, incidently, gives you an interest-free loan for up to 50 days) is a service and there's nothing wrong with being required to pay for services rendered, whether it be this or a visit by, say, a plumber.
Perhaps Quarterman would be happier if he realised that charging a fee for payment by credit card is the same as giving a discount for cash, a well-known and popular practice.
R.S. Gilbert,
Braddon
SHIFTS ON CITY HILL
Why are the works approval applications to the National Capital Authority for development at Section 63, City Hill, for a massive underground car park and Buildings 3 and 4, labelled: ''These applications are not subject to public consultation under the requirements of the National Capital Plan or Consultation Protocol''?
Why can't Canberrans and others see and comment on how the development is proposed to look, function, and impact in other ways on a precinct of the greatest symbolic significance to the ACT, and of major importance to the nation, given that the governing ''Griffin Legacy Plan'' contains no details in those regards?
Jack Kershaw,
Kambah
FOOLISH ON MURDER LAW
The Canberra Times reports in ''Police argue ACT murder law too lenient'' (July 23, p1) that in formal evidence to the ACT Assembly committee into changing the murder law police Commander Kevin Zuccato stated that Nanette ''Sandy'' Porritt had been stabbed 57 times and then drew some conclusions about the incident.
As Chief Justice Terence Higgins stated in his judgment, ''The autopsy evidence has been substantially misquoted. In truth, the report revealed 57 incised wounds, only a few of them being stab wounds.''
Zuccato joins the irresponsible, ongoing parade of those who misquote evidence in support of an emotive and political point they seek to make; I expect better from a senior police officer.
Civil Liberties Australia is not an apologist for the actions of Glen Porritt, but changing such a basic law as murder on the basis of the sentencing in one case is inappropriate and foolish law-making.
Lance Williamson,
Director, Civil Liberties Australia
Email a friend