The most common mistake people make is to subject persons with sensitivities to a reverse onus when they report their experience of repeatable, controllable circumstances, contrary to ethics, social convention and laws since the Magna Carta. This practice is unethical in any context, but becomes especially damaging in clinical medicine.
In the late 1980's, Conservative, Liberal and NDP MP's worked with Health and Welfare to bring environmental sensitivities out from being eclipsed by clinical ecology and the MCS model, immunology and the allergy model, psychiatry and the PTSD/eating-disorder model, the pharmaceuticals are dangerous model, and so on.
Legendary Sudbury NDP MPP Elie Martel worked hard for years to stop preventable harm being caused to persons with environmental sensitivities. But when the NDP got into power in Ontario, they pretended they weren't aware of legally obligating information the federal government had already acted on, ironically thanks in part to pressure from the federal and Ontario NDP.
10 May 2007 - As predicted, the Canadian Human Rights Commission's report repeats mistakes and deceits about environmental sensitivities that contribute to the unnecessary killing of undiagnosed patients in health care settings.
10 August 2007 - While in opposition, John Manley, MP, helped to forward concerns about preventable harm being caused to persons with environmental sensitivities. Once he was in government, the fact kids were being abused in schools and injured or killed while receiving health care didn't faze him. His government had reversed the position he'd fought for.
Staff and management in the Accessibility Directorate have failed to familiarize themselves with the injury and killing of persons disabled by environmental sensitivities in health care, and their exclusion and injury elsewhere, even as public servants contribute to ongoing preventable harm. There is an apparently deliberate lack of corporate memory on this topic in MCSS.
6 November 2008 - The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario refuses to assure that the same misconceptions and deceits of other public servants are not operative within HRTO.
Based on long experience with other abusive Ontario agencies, it seems silly to bring concerns about the exclusion, injury and killing of persons with sensitivities to the tribunal without such assurances.
Meanwhile, persons with sensitivities, especially undiagnosed sensitivities, are killed in health care, and excluded and injured there and elsewhere.
20 October 2008 - Today, the Advocacy Gateway for Environmental Sensitivities (AGES) questioned the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) concerning Ontario public servants' contribution to the exclusion, injury and killing of persons disabled by environmental sensitivities. With few exceptions, Ontario public servants, including officials with agencies of remedy such as the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman, have:
