Brown to CHRC Chief Commissioner Max Yalden about Health Minister Jake Epp

One is less persuasive when condemning otherwise respected persons for the unethical nature of their conduct in one area. So it hurts the argument. It is also less accurate, and accuracy is usually more useful in discussion. It was what Epp was doing and not doing that was unethical, not his overall person. It might have been better to avoid becoming fed up with his person, but to wait seemed irresponsible and dangerous. There was intense loyalty to Jake Epp, from the institutions in his community, from the people in his office, from cabinet colleagues, from public servants. However, after four years in office, he was still eclipsing the history of persons with sensitivities behind debate about the approaches of doctors of environmental medicine, as proscribed by Thomson and Zimmerman. His office and his officials were still accepting unethically held, damaging positions as credible in the debate. The department was still ignoring life and death areas where it had and has a legal duty of care. The arguments were ethical ones, legal rather bleeding heart. They were the reverse onus, long clinical history, existing method of diagnosis, human rights, institutional and consumer experience arguments. Ignoring them was unethical, in some situations illegal, and the consequences were horrific. Many honourable people betrayed persons with sensitivities.