CIPHI International, a National Roundtable Discussion

Abstract

The recent disaster in the Philippines (November 2013) caused by hurricane Haiyan and the Harper government’s $150 million attention to the Syrian refugee crises ( January 2014) reemphasizing the appeal for help and support from the international community both stimulated the question of ‘‘How could we as a profession do some good and where would we fit in best’’? As in most similar humanitarian calamities (e.g., Syria, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Haiti, Darfur), desperate calls for public health ‘‘environmental sanitation’’ services rank as one of the most critical and earliest interventions, and this is also critical during the recovery and healing phases. Are we ready to respond? Do we have a moral obligation to actively engage and apply our professional abilities in a humanitarian crisis situation? Are we ready to act in the true and traditionally reputed Canadian spirit? Is ‘‘we’’ meant to be the Institute as an organization or the Institute-supported individual elite PHI ‘‘star volunteers’’? Here we have a chance to create a National Roundtable on this EHR page to freely discuss our opinions, options, visions, moral obligations, and assumed credibility status as they relate to overseas services. In fact, the compassionate character of the subject should draw the attention of all of our brave peers. It is not so much the dues you pay, rather than the dues of dedication you owe to strengthen our professional solidarity. This can be a galvanizing reason to become not only a member, but also one of our elite PHI star volunteers for overseas services. We can only have a lively discussion if points of either disagreements or endorsements are aired and constructive critique is added. Honour wise critique, and despise heartless apathy. Only after our rank and file have spoken and a reasonable concept is firming up, the ‘‘Institute heavyweights’’ with the insights of their experiences (NEC, CoPE, CPC, EHFC, IFEH) might weigh in to elaborate, support, improve, and approve an obviously important interest represented through the hearts and souls of our Institute’s champions. My interpretation of we means not only PHI members, but also whoever is grazing the pages of our EHR, en francaise, Salue! Bonjour mes amis et collegues quebecois et, certainemant, tous les PHIs preferant la langue francaise, and hello to my nonmember colleagues. Many of us may remember CIPHI International, Overseas Services, or International Health Committee (IHC) and other designations and acronyms referring to the Institute’s past and present interests in international public health. In some cases, the more compassionate PHIs developed and engaged in overseas projects such as Sierra-Leone and Belize and established connections at the professional level with colleagues from Russia and other international environmental and public health organizations. In fact, some ‘‘PHI pioneers’’ declared their endorsement and willingness to serve beyond the call of duty as far back as the spring of 1979. Some of those became prominent leaders and proponents for a ‘‘humanitarian cause without borders.’’ ‘‘Disaster Relief ’’ and related expressions have been in our vocabulary as early as the publication of the 1967 Major O’Hara’s (see CIPHI’s ‘‘100 Members of Distinction’’ booklet) Environmental Health in Disaster manual, confirmation of PHIs’ qualifications and successful participation in direct crises intervention in the early 1980s, in CIPHI National Conference presentations such as ‘‘Public Health is Crucial in Humanitarian Crises’’ in 2011, and more recently, under ‘‘Disaster Relief ’’ in the pages of our EHR. How this may relate to actually having PHI boots in the fields of despair is better answered by our present visionaries and our own scholars. With all the references in words and print to ‘‘disaster’’ and ‘‘crises’’ over the last decades, we may wish to compare the equivalence between words versus action on a list of ‘‘Courageous Deeds Accomplished.’’ Throughout the years, definitions of Overseas Services or CIPHI International conjure perceptions, perspectives, and concepts of confusing proportions. The issue is not unlike mandatory membership, where personal opinions differ on the extent of commitment. Increased focus helps to minimise scattered perceptions, scattered resources, fragmented services, and confused attitudes such as some already voiced by our peers.