An Amish horse and buggy makes its way toward a polling location at the Leacock Township Municipal building in Intercourse, Pennsylvania, on Nov. 5.RYAN COLLERD/AFP/Getty Images
Don’t tell me
Re “How America voted: A closer look at how the U.S. presidency was won – and lost” (Nov. 7): I am a Canadian expat, now a citizen of the United States.
As I scrolled through election night coverage on the four U.S. legacy networks, one dominant theme emerged from commentators: How could the American people be so stupid? Underlying this was an implication that they’re also driven by racism and misogyny.
Let’s be honest: The U.S. electorate is fed up with this condescension. Most voters felt they were economically better off under Donald Trump than under Joe Biden. Many saw Mr. Trump’s administration as relatively effective while perceiving Mr. Biden’s as less successful, and this opinion isn’t entirely unfounded.
Most people voted with their pocketbooks rather than focusing on issues of race or gender, and they’re fed up with being patronized by elitist media and politicians.
Andrew Davey Scottsdale, Ariz.
Re “Celebrity endorsements might have hurt Kamala Harris more than they helped” (Nov. 7): I suspect that for every malleable Bruce Tramp, Swiftie or BeyHive member, there are many independent thinkers who are insulted to be thought of as someone shallow enough to vote the way some musician suggests. Some voters are put off by the elitism exuded by a candidate surrounded by celebrities.
If those arguments aren’t enough for “stars” to stay in their lane, their self-interest might be. As per the immortal words of Michael Jordan, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”
Rudy Buller Toronto
Our turn
Re “Canada reacts to Trump’s victory as Trudeau pledges collaboration” (Nov. 7): The election of Donald Trump brings home the pressing need to have an election here, and soon.
The Liberal Leader is likely to be defeated at the polls and could be considered a lame-duck Prime Minister. Members of his own party have expressed a lack of confidence in him to lead.
Canadians should have a government with a strong mandate to negotiate for the benefit of Canada, whether Liberal, Conservative or NDP. At present the political ambitions of those in power, or those seeking it, will likely take precedence over what is best for Canada.
C.E. Miall Toronto
Company men
Re “TD Bank executives should have been punished more severely, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren tells prosecutors” (Report on Business, Nov. 1): Bravo to Elizabeth Warren for calling out the U.S. Department of Justice for failing to hold Toronto-Dominion Bank executives accountable.
Yes, the bank has had restrictions placed on its growth; fines were levied and ultimately paid for by shareholders. But let’s keep in mind that a corporation is just a legal entity, and these failures were committed by individuals who work for that corporation.
Their failures, whether deliberate or out of ignorance, shoddiness or carelessness, have enabled others to launder money. And who are those others? Tax evaders, thieves and perhaps the drug cartels who are fuelling the drug crisis and the resultant decay in our society.
Does no one else feel embarrassed, then, that these crimes were ostensibly committed by employees of a Canadian bank?
Ken Sanders Hamilton, Ont.
Move carefully
Re “Involuntary treatment for severe addiction is better than doing nothing” (Nov. 4): We beg to differ. The evidence on forced care tells us that doing nothing is safer. Involuntary treatment is not only ineffective, but harmful. Our focus should be on increasing access to voluntary, evidence-based care that respects individual readiness which can lead to stronger, more sustainable outcomes.
Angela Welz learned about the harm of forced care after using an Alberta involuntary care program for her teenage daughter Zoe. Their relationship was irreparably broken after that deep betrayal of trust. Zoe died from fentanyl poisoning seven months after being released from the program.
We should remember that many of those who die, including teens, only used once or occasionally. Because of the toxic drug supply, treatment of any form would not have saved them.
It’s critical to add that on-demand voluntary care is not available in most areas, and changing that should be our focus. Care is not coerced.
Petra Schulz and Angela Welz, Moms Stop The Harm, Edmonton
As an emergency physician who on a daily basis sees the suffering caused by substance use disorders, I share the contributors’ concerns but not their conclusions.
While there may be a role for involuntary treatment in certain situations, such as minors with severe substance use disorders or individuals with acute concurrent psychiatric disorders, it could have unintended negative consequences were it to be broadly adopted. In a medical system already suffering from a severe lack of inpatient beds and staffing, where would involuntary patients go and who would provide their care?
I suspect most such patients would end up in our already strained and overcrowded emergency departments. I suspect that such a form of involuntary treatment would have little, if any, lasting benefit to patients with severe addiction, and have no doubt that it would negatively impact the ability of EDs to deliver care to the populations they serve.
Jeffrey Eppler MD; Kelowna, B.C.
As the carer of a loved one with a mental disorder and serious addictions, I have no concern over intervening during periods of high risk and invoking involuntary treatment. However, multiple admissions have not “cured” my loved one.
Mental illness and addiction are chronic diseases for which we have, as yet, only fallible treatments. Despite deep and positive bonds with family and excellent clinicians, involuntary treatment is never forgotten and never remembered as anything but traumatic.
How long would someone need to be detained? A week, a month, a year? On discharge, would they continue to engage with treatment? Would this be practical if they were discharged to homelessness and poverty?
My concern is purely pragmatic. This is not therapeutic nihilism, but a recognition that any treatment for mental illness and addiction is complex.
Involuntary treatment may achieve very little, or may turn out to be worse than doing nothing.
Rachel Robinson Ottawa
A thousand words
Re “Making pictures” (Moment in Time, Nov. 4): My late husband was an avid participant in the Art Gallery of Toronto’s Saturday morning classes back in the 1930s.
He decided one day to climb onto the roof of a church to get a good perspective for a sketch. He was spotted by a cop walking his beat.
A kid on the roof of a church? Art? The burly cop hauled him home by the scruff of his neck.
My mother-in-law, who was no taller than five feet, berated the cop for not believing her son. I’m sure the cop was glad to get away.
Helen Godfrey Toronto
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com