George Grant believed Canada risked being swallowed by America. He said North America was being universalized and homogenized by unreflective faith in progress. Technological progress replaces local flavour in a modern world. And Canadians live beside the most progress-driven, technological, modern society ever.
Grant wrote Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, 40th Anniversary Edition
Warning: it’s a classic, not a modern, magazine-style read.
Homogenized Care
Medicine faces the same challenge. We drop traditions amputated by evidence based medicine. And so we should. If medical tradition harms patients, get rid of it.
But as Grant lamented about Canada, how can we expect to retain the nature/ethos/tradition of medicine in the face of unrelenting homogenization of treatment? Is there even a tradition of medicine worth saving?
Lament for a Nation inspired many to prove Grant wrong. Critics insisted Grant was confused. A culture can retain its distinct character despite adopting technology, commerce and societal change from its neighbour. Canada can have its progressive cake and retain its culture too.
Was Grant right?
Today, Canada shares enormous similarities with America including entertainment, travel and commerce. But as a society, Canada mimics socialist Britain more than individualist USA. We do not value freedom and self-reliance anywhere near as much as Americans.
Queue “I am Canadian”:
Resistance is Futile?
George Grant lamented the impossibility of conserving Canada. He said that uncritical acceptance of the newest and latest inevitably leads to homogenization. Progress accepts uniformity. It’s fine if everyone and everything is the same as long as we’re all modern.
With WWII less than 20 years before, Grant assumes legitimate worry about homogenization and universalization given the experience of totalitarian parties in Germany and Russia. Cold, hard science has been unkind to citizens when applied by large, unfeeling bureaucracies.
What would Grant say about Medicine today? Champions of uniformity in the name of science and ‘evidence’ sing much more loudly than champions of personalized care or patient service. Uniformity saves money. It’s efficient and safe, or at least that’s what they say.
Lament for Healthcare
A lament falls between despair and certainty. Those convinced of hopelessness do not lament; they commit suicide. On the other end, saints assured of providential design must not lament.
“A lament arises from a condition that is common to the majority of men, for we are situated between despair and absolute certainty.”
A lament assumes imperfect understanding. Maybe we don’t hear laments for healthcare because everyone remains so convinced of their own opinions? Those convinced that Medicare is unsustainable keep quiet mostly; they sit and wait for it to fail. Pundits certain of Medicare’s perfection speak up all the time, but only to correct the painful ignorance they see in those who disagree with them.
A lament implies that something good remains. Will anyone lament for healthcare in Canada?