justanoldcountrydoctor

The OMA’s AGM: Locked Out and Let Down

Old Country Doctor’s Note: In my last blog, I downplayed the technical glitches at the Ontario Medical Association’s Annual General Meeting (OMA AGM) because I only had a couple of issues. Turns out a lot of people had much more trouble. My thanks, to Dr. Paul Hacker for guest blogging for me today about those issues. Please sign his petition linked at the end of the blog.

Dr. Paul Hacker (pictured inset) is a former Vice-Chair of OMA Council, former co-chair of the GT20 Governance Transformation Committee and former OMA Board Member.

On May 7, a “record turnout” (according to the OMA) of members attended the Annual General Meeting of the OMA. This means that a record number of physicians cleared their weeknight schedule, put clinical obligations on hold, set aside family time and sat down at their screens at the appointed hour. I personally know of emergency physicians who felt attending this meeting was so important that they worked with colleagues, while on shift, to be able to participate in voting on important matters.

And nothing worked.

The purpose of the meeting was to conduct some routine business of the OMA corporation and to consider, debate, and vote on a number of proposals submitted by members.

The routine business went ahead, but the members’ motions were beset with technical snafus.

Even worse, this one annual event where members can hear directly from their leadership, obtain updates and ask questions was blocked for many who had difficulties registering and logging in. They were locked out of our organization’s most important annual event, on their own, with no way in and inadequate help from staff.

The Board’s Response: What It Says and What It Doesn’t

Let’s look at the response from the OMA’s Board Chairs (both outgoing and incoming):

“…we all left the meeting frustrated by the technical and procedural difficulties that occurred as the meeting progressed…”

“The AGM included a significant number of motions and proposals within a limited timeframe, and technical issues related to the hybrid format affected the flow of the meeting and prevented completion of the full agenda before members called for an adjournment.”

Firstly, there is no mention of the registration and login issues. The Chairs completely disregard this as an issue worth addressing to the many members who were shut out completely. (The silver lining for them is that they didn’t have to endure the “procedural difficulties” that have many saying they will never attempt to attend an AGM ever again.)

Second, the email subtly but firmly places the responsibility for the time pressures on members. Those motions were submitted by members, followed all OMA rules, and were duly accepted. The implication that their volume contributed to the problem is a subtle but pointed deflection. Where is the accountability for an organization that has held many members’ meetings in the past and should have a full understanding of how long it takes to properly hear and consider different viewpoints on the issues? Where is the accountability for the unusually cumbersome handling of motions and amendments, when these have been handled well in several past meetings?

A Legal Obligation, Not Aspirational Language

It is important to note that the OMA has a legal responsibility — under the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (ONCA) — to ensure that all members can participate reasonably in electronic meetings. This is not aspirational language. It’s a statutory obligation. The OMA is not a tech startup that gets credit for trying. It is a mature corporation with legal duties to its members. The fact that this happened at all, let alone to the extent it did, reflects a failure of preparation, not just execution.

“We Take This Seriously” Is Not Accountability

The OMA, as usual, frames this total failure as a learning moment, with no commitment to report back to members:

“We are committed to working with our CEO, Kimberly Moran, and the leadership team to understand what occurred, identify where improvements are needed, and ensure physicians are well supported for the followup meeting.”

“We want to thank our colleagues for their patience, and continued involvement throughout the evening. Even in moments of disagreement and frustration, physicians continued to demonstrate how deeply we care about the OMA and its governance.”

Well, there is at least that last bit. Members do care about how the OMA goes about its business. Members do care about who represents them at all levels of the organization. And unfortunately, due to the ongoing shredding of the fabric of our health care system, something the OMA has failed to significantly impact, members are quite familiar with disagreement and frustration. We are a resilient bunch, but there are limits. When our organizations are not accountable, not transparent, not fair and truthful about their responsibilities, members lose faith. Many, including myself, have lost faith multiple times.

Members Have Power — And a Petition

But members have power. Members have their own voices. Members have shown, in the debate that was allowed to occur at the AGM, that they can push back on unfair, opaque governance. Similarly, we can push the OMA to own and be transparent about its own failures.

The OMA responds to organized member pressure. That’s one lesson of this AGM. We can apply that pressure to get answers — to ensure the OMA is accountable not just for the things it wants to be accountable for, like ‘technical difficulties,’ but for things like failing to meet its obligation to ensure members can participate in their organization, and then not even acknowledging these issues in its communications.

I have created a petition to demand that the OMA conduct a full survey of members to determine how many had issues, how many were excluded, and how this event has impacted member attitudes towards the OMA. It’s been over three years since the OMA last surveyed members to ask them “how are we performing on your behalf?” If one truly positive thing can come out of this AGM debacle, maybe it can be the resumption of the OMA doing some asking of members, not just telling them.

The petition can be accessed here: https://tally.so/r/44A225

You gave your time. The least the OMA can do is count you.

AGM Shows That Front Line Physicians HAVE Power Over the OMA

This year’s Ontario Medical Association Annual General Meeting (OMA AGM) was more exciting than usual. There’s much to talk about. But to my mind, it appears that members have once again exerted a degree of control over their association. That is a good thing.

The meeting got off to a very inauspicious start when both Board Chair Cathy Faulds, and CEO Kim Moran blatantly misled (at best), or at worst, lied to the members. Both of them repeated how the OMA secured agreements with the government to provide significant funding increases for physicians. This is, of course, patently false. An independent third-party arbitrator imposed an award that the OMA and government have to abide by.

It is true that after the money was awarded, some aspects of the byzantine physician services contract were negotiated. Many others, including the much-hyped FHO+ program for family physician, were arbitrated. To suggest this represents an agreement with the government that was acceptable to everyone is insulting to members and outright false.

The highlights of the meeting were two speeches. First, by outgoing president, Doctor Zainab Abdurrahman (whose last name Dr. Faulds still couldn’t pronounce properly). I think she’s done a very good job as being spokesperson for the profession, no more so in her advocacy around trying to fix the outdated and incompetent OHIP billing system. Doctor Rebecca Hicks, the incoming President also gave what I thought was a truly inspiring speech. This bodes well for how she’s going to represent the profession in the future. And, it’s the first time the OMA has had two female presidents in a row – which is well overdue.

OMA Past President Dr. Zainab Abdurrahman

Unfortunately, the meeting went downhill from there. I will not blame the technology. I’ve attended many virtual meetings for many different organizations. The technology for the software is expanding much faster than the server resources are allowing, and so there are always going to be significant glitches. I also need to point out that the parliamentarian who was hired to run the meeting did an excellent job given all the limitations that he was facing. And I want to give a shout out to the frontline OMA staff who diligently tried to keep the technology moving.

Sadly, my criticism is going to be directed at many of the physicians who did their best to obstruct motions that were duly presented, met all the timelines, and followed the bylaws. Unfortunately, we physicians are sometimes done in by a small number of our colleagues who seem to think they know better than the rest of us, and can’t have us expressing our contrarian views. This was never more evident than last night.

Immediately after Dr. Conte’s first motion (to change the bylaws to remove non-physician Board Directors) came up, there was a motion to defer for one year. This was to let the Board create committees to “study the implications” of the motions. This is, of course, nonsense. One of the things the OMA did do fairly well is they put out a package on the implications of what would happen if these motions passed and if they failed. It was very thorough. It was available to every member who attended the meeting. The fact that some people chose not to read it is a reflection on them.

More suspiciously, the people who spoke out for the motions to defer were the usual suspects (double entendre intended for a couple of select friends of mine). The type that sign up for every committee and collect their stipends from members dues. Thankfully, the majority of attendees were going to have none of this, and deferral failed.

Unfortunately, this did not stop more shenanigans. There were all sorts of attempts to block this motion, questions about process, points of order – too many to remember really. But eventually, fifty-three percent of members at the meeting supported his first motion. However, the motion needed 67% to pass as it was a bylaw change.

This brings back shades of the motion of nonconfidence in the then Ontario Board Executive in 2017. That motion also required sixty-seven percent, but got fifty-five percent at council. The Executive eventually did the right thing and resigned. One hopes that the non-physician Board Directors, who by all descriptions are decent people with integrity, will see the writing on the wall and resign.

The fact that this motion actually had majority support sent supporters of the current leadership structure into a state of panic. The next motion, which would have removed the non-physician Board Directors, but at the end of their terms, only required fifty percent plus one to pass. This meant that this glorious structure that had been put together where the OMA chose candidates for board and not the members themselves, and the OMA could manipulate the elections to satisfy a select few was in danger. More motions to delay, more procedural gimmicks. More “we haven’t had time to study this.”

Eventually, as the meeting was running over time, the decision was made to defer the rest of these motions to another meeting that will occur within six weeks. This puts the OMA in the same kind of limbo that it was in after the board executive of 2017 was rejected but refused to resign. Not a good place for an organization to be.

More importantly, however, despite what I’m sure is being said about people like Drs. Conte, Hacker and yes myself, these events actually show the true power of the governance transformation. As the guy who was tasked with giving the speech to the then OMA Council to convince them to go down this path, let me state clearly that the driving force behind the transformation was always to give front line physicians power to control the organization if they felt it was not serving their interests. It has not been easy, or quick, and will drag on due to the shenanigans at the AGM, but members are exerting a level of control, and pressure over the OMA that they have every right to do. It may very well be painful for those in charge (they didn’t get their way) and it may very well require members to invest more time (yet another meeting), but it is a very good thing.

Ontario physicians deserve a strong and responsive OMA. This year’s AGM, as messy and complicated as it was, is a step in the right direction.

If you have any questions about the meeting, and what happens next, I encourage you to sign up for the OMA Webinar on May 13th at this link.

Animal Farm and the OMA

I was thinking about what to write about the current state of the Ontario Medical Association (OMA). Being of a certain age, my mind went back to the classic George Orwell book, Animal Farm. It tells the story of how a group of animals were not well represented by Farmer Jones. They wound up rebelling against Jones and took over the farm.

In the aftermath of the revolution, attempts were made to reform the farm so it could advocate for and protect all animal citizens. The guiding principles were the seven “commandments” that every animal agreed to abide by. The most important being, “All animals are equal.”

However, some vested interests began to manipulate the situation. The pigs eventually took over the running of the farm and bent the rules to their own advantage. When the rest of the animals went to complain, they found the most important commandment had been re-written to “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

It would of course be ridiculous to suggest that the OMA is a drunken, abusive farmer. It would be even more ridiculous to suggest that the staff of the OMA have the malevolence of Mr. Jones. The staff there are well-intentioned, good people. However, as my friend Greg Dubord pointed out to me, there is something that’s inherent in all organizations known as the “iron law of oligarchy.” Essentially, organizations eventually think of themselves first, not their members.

So it is with the OMA.

Our “revolution” did not have Old Major, or Snowball, or Boxer. We did, however, have Dr. Shawn Whatley, who famously resigned from the Board when he recognized that the association was going off the rails. We had Dr. Nadia Alam who inspired a legion of physicians by her activism. We had 25 brave Council delegates who successfully called for the first ever vote of non-confidence in the leadership of the OMA. There were a lot more but you get the point.

In the aftermath of the revolt that booted out the Board Executive in 2017, there was a strong desire to modernize and improve the OMA. A significant change in the governance structure was enacted. To this day, I support a lot of the principles and rationale behind that change. And there was a strong desire to ensure that the membership had the power to oversee the association and correct it if things went wrong.

We never encountered an evil character like Napoleon the pig. Rather the “iron law” principle itself became our nemesis. Organizational desire to protect itself, not members, began manipulating processes that were put in place into something much different than intended by the rebel physicians.

Nowhere can this be seen more obviously than in the selection process of non-physician board directors. Initially (2021), there was a genuine open election. Non-physician candidates competed alongside physician candidates and were subject to the same member vote.

However, only two years later (!) the process began to diverge. Non-physicians directors seeking a further term were presented for “ratification” as a reappointed director, as opposed to running for a competitive re-election like physician Board Directors are required to. This year the process evolved further. The AGM materials confirm that rather than a standalone ratification vote, non-physician reappointments are woven into the AGM business as a simple “yes/no” matter.

The OMA’s own communications make it clear. What began as a fully competitive open election process for non-physician directors has gradually shifted to a board-managed reappointment track. But physician directors continue to face competitive, multi-candidate elections chosen by the membership. (The physician candidates were also screened by a supposedly independent third party before being “allowed” to run, but I‘ve already gone over that in a past blog.)

In essence, some Board Directors are more equal than others.

The OMA also realized that by changing this process, they could have a stronger hand in selecting non-physician board directors. They could select board directors that on paper had significant skills, but would perhaps be more in line with a corporate philosophy.

One senior OMA executive told me that in the corporate world, there is no running for elections on Boards. The organization recruits who they feel is best and “people of that calibre” don’t submit themselves to votes. “I certainly wouldn’t.” I’m happy for that executive, and wish them luck. However, all those other organizations are not member driven organizations, they are corporate organizations beholden to shareholders.

In a member driven organization like the OMA, there needs to be some degree of political and strategic oversight of the staff. This is not a bad thing. Again, the staff are well-intentioned and want to help physicians. But they need a strong, independent Board to guide them and set strategy. To let them know what will not work for members.

This cannot happen if a block of Board Directors are non-physicians, and worse, have been selected by the OMA (I don’t buy the independent third party bit and neither should you). The voting Board Directors need to be truly independent practicing physicians. This is why Dr. Paul Conte is making four motions at the Annual General Meeting on May 7, with the goal of eliminating the positions of non-physician Board Director, so that once again, all Board Directors will be equal. If successful, this would constitute a sort of “mini” revolution after the big one in 2017. (Full disclosure – I’m seconding all the motions).

Since there are no proxies allowed, I would once again encourage all Ontario physicians to register for the AGM by clicking on this link. You can attend virtually, and make your vote count.

At the end of the book version of Animal Farm, the animals realize that despite their best efforts, they are once again subjugated and really no better off and live in despair. The 1954 movie version changes the ending into something somewhat more hopeful. The animals are once again able to unite, and launch a second “mini” revolution, like Dr. Conte wants to.

Will the OMA follow the path of the book or the movie? We’ll find out on May 7.

Why Does The Old Country Doctor Hate Non-Physician OMA Board Members?

My last blog supported Dr. Paul Conte’s four motions that he is presenting at the upcoming Ontario Medical Association (OMA) Annual General Meeting (AGM). At the heart of the motions is a strong desire to course correct the governance changes at the OMA that have gone too far. The OMA is taking physicians authority to govern themselves away. Dr. Conte’s motions are excellent and I am very proud to be the seconder on all four of them.

However, the questions I keep getting asked about in that blog all pertain to the non-physician Board Directors. What exactly do I have against the non-physician Board Directors? Why do I not like them? Is there a grudge of some sort? Do I not recognize that they can contribute skills to the Board that most physicians just don’t have?

I guess that’s a symptom of some of the “spin” that is likely quietly being put out there about the motions and the blog. It’s easier to portray this as someone with an axe to grind rather than encouraging people to read the blog. My previous blog clearly stated that as the founding Chair of my local Family Health Team – I absolutely ensured and supported having non-physician members on our Board. They really provided some valuable guidance during the formative years of the FHT.

To be completely fair, a casual look at the resumes of the current three non-physician Board Directors, suggest some very impressive backgrounds. I’m obviously not on the Board, but on paper it sounds like they could contribute to many of the discussions there and bring different, but important perspectives.

Here’s the thing. The OMA Board ALWAYS has had experts in areas where physicians didn’t naturally have proficiency. The best example would be the negotiations counsel. They are experts in their field. They frequently present to the Board on how things are going with the negotiations process. At the Board level they inform the discussions and yes, they do try to persuade the Board to make certain decisions. All of which is fine as far as I’m concerned. That’s they way things should work and this applies not just to the negotiations counsel, but to a whole host of other experts who present at the Board.

But.

The one extremely important distinction is that at the end of the day, the negotiations counsel does not have a vote at the OMA Board (nor does any other external expert). They can persuade, cajole, entice and coax all they want. But the Board will ultimately have the final authority on whether to accept their recommendation (which is also as it should be). There were times when I was on the OMA Board where we did reject their advice (much to their chagrin).

This to me is the BIG difference. Currently, all three of the non-physician Board Members will not only provide advice based on their expertise, but will then vote, and thus, have a degree of authority and control over physicians.

The OMA Board is currently comprised of seven elected physician Board Directors, the OMA President, and the three non-physician Directors. The manner of how the three non-physician Directors have been chosen has evolved far away from what was intended. Initially there was an election for the position. Then last year we were told that one wasn’t needed for a non-physician Director if it was just a term renewal. Then this year a preferred candidate (preferred by whom??) was presented to the membership for “approval”.

These three NON-physicians, selected and recruited by the OMA as an organization, and NOT by the members, can effectively hold the balance of power in decisions that determine how the OMA advocates for physicians livelihoods. Having been on the Board and seeing diverse opinions amongst physicians, it is not at all hard for me to envision a scenario where 5 physicians oppose a staff recommendation, 3 are in favour, and then the 3 non-physicians would line up as a block to support a staff recommendation. In essence, despite a MAJORITY of physicians on the Board opposing something, it would still get passed.

This is just wrong, and was why I had advocated (and lost) from the start that non-physicians should not vote on the Board. Dr. Conte’s first two motions will correct this mistake.

What Dr. Conte’s Motions will NOT do

Just as important to realize is what Dr. Conte’s motions do NOT do. There is an argument to be made that having non-physicians on the Board on an ongoing level is a good thing. It will allow them to see the full dynamics of what goes on at the Board, and provide ongoing advice. Fair enough. The Georgian Bay FHT that I chaired certainly benefitted significantly from just that same concept. And there is nothing in Dr. Conte’s motions that will prevent the OMA from enacting a similar structure for their own Board.

At the Georgian Bay FHT, we called those Directors “ex-officio”. For some reason that I never understood that term was frowned upon by OMA Legal and the consultants that we hired during the governance transformation. Fine. Create a new position. Call it “Board Advisor”. Call it “Board Mentor”. Call it whatever you want. Have three of those positions available. Bind the candidates to Board confidentiality rules. Let them talk at the Board.

But do not let them vote.

Only physicians should have voting authority over matters at an organization whose main goal is to advance the interests of physicians. Only physicians inherently and intuitively understand the challenges faced by physicians. Yes, they should hear out external voices and weigh their opinions thoughtfully. But only they should be making decisions.

Since proxy voting is not allowed, I once again encourage all Ontario physicians to attend the OMA General Meeting and support Dr. Conte’s motions. You can attend virtually. Just click here to register, and let’s correct this mistake and bring voting authority at the OMA back where it belongs.

Local Medical Schools Will Help Address Doctor Shortages

Old Country Doctors Note: I was a teacher with the Rural Ontario Medical Program for three decades. It was founded by Dr. Peter Wells, and based on the principle that putting trainee doctors in smaller communities will enhance the chance of them working there. It’s been wildly successful. On that same note, Dr. Butt feels that putting a Medical School in Barrie will help increase recruitment to smaller centres, and I think he’s right. His Letter to the Editor appeared in the local press, and he’s given me permission to reproduce as a guest blog here.

Dr. Atif Butt (pictured inset) guest blogs for me today. He’s one of these ultra smart characters who not only has and MBA (McMaster 2003) but also and MD (McMaster, 2011) and a CCFP (EM). He’s retired from the Military (Major) and works in ER in Alliston, and Urgent Care in Barrie and does sedations in an endoscopy clinic in Innisfil. Apparently he’s quite the dancer too.

Barrie has been home to my family and I since the fall of 2013. It is a wonderful area to raise a family and offers everything that a mid-size community requires but also the peace and quiet lacking in larger urban areas. It is also the gateway to cottage country.

I am surprised at how fast the city is expanding as demonstrated by the numerous condo buildings and townhouses being erected, especially on the Barrie/Innisfil border. A growing city will result in many consequences, some positive (e.g., more cultural diversity, more revenues for local businesses, etc.) but also some negatives (e.g., traffic headaches). It will also mean a growing population that will place greater demand on local health-care resources.

I have been practising medicine in several health-care organizations in the Barrie/Innisifil/Alliston area since 2013. I am impressed by how much demand is placed on local health-care organizations, yet they continue to persevere through. The success is fundamentally thanks to the heroic work of the health-care workers including physicians, nurses, and other allied health-care workers who band together to serve patients, often sacrificing their own nights and weekends. But we all have our limits and simply cannot do more.

Currently, almost six million Canadians (out of which over two million are in Ontario) do not have a family doctor. More specifically, it is estimated that over 55,000 people in the Simcoe County area do not have a family doctor. Almost every day, there are news reports of lengthy wait times in the ERs, which are frankly longer than plane flights from Canada to Pakistan. Attempts have been made to address such shortfalls by the use of nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists and I am grateful for the work they provide. Nonetheless, physicians cannot simply be replaced by non-physicians and more are needed. That is why I am proposing that either a new medical school be created in the Barrie/Innisfil area or, preferably and more cost-effectively, seats from an existing Ontario medical school be expanded to our area.

I am encouraged to see that some efforts have already been made to expand medical school seats in Ontario. Examples include the 2025 opening of the Toronto Metropolitan University medical school and the upcoming opening of the York University medical school in 2028. I appreciate that such endeavours can be costly. For example, the federal government just announced almost $2 million to expand medical seats and services for the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. While this will greatly support the north, sadly, Barrie and the surrounding area seemed to be left out.

Despite investments in new medical schools, the demand far exceeds supply. For example, the newest medical school at TMU had 6,416 applications in 2025 but total projected class size in 2026 is 94. That means 1.5 per cent of applicants got accepted. Most medical schools in Ontario roughly seem to have on average about a three- to five-per-cent acceptance rate. While adding medical seats in Barrie/Innisfil maybe a drop in the bucket, it will hopefully lead to an ongoing pool of locally trained physicians that will want to practice in our area. Return of service contracts, where physicians have to practice locally for four to five years after training, can be a condition for acceptance into a medical school here.

Canada in general and Ontario in particular have a lot of talent, yet we are losing out. On a regular basis, I come across undergraduate students who have high GPAs/marks, extraordinary extra-curriculars and experiences, scored high on their MCATs, have applied multiple times to Canadian medical schools, yet are unable to even get an interview (let alone acceptance) into a Canadian medical school. Their families are often spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (in U.S. dollars) to send them abroad to the U.S./Caribbean/Europe so that they can pursue their dreams of becoming a physician. Even after they graduate from an international medical school, there is no guarantee that they will obtain a residency spot in Canada since preference is given to Canadian-trained grads. Hence, they may be forced to practise elsewhere like the U.S. Would it not be better if we could retain and train such talent who invested their tuition locally and then stayed to practise?

Intuitively, when medical trainees train in a particular geographical area, many will choose to stay and practise in that area. While in Barrie we have the Family Medicine Teaching Unit for training family medicine residents and the expansion of some ER residency spots at Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre, I believe that the next logical step is to have medical school seats in the Barrie/Innisifil area. This will allow us to recruit and retain future physicians in the local area.

I find that the simplest goals are often the most achievable and realistic. A brand-new expensive medical school with new infrastructure may be a costly pill for any government to swallow. Thus, simply expanding, say, a dozen seats, from an existing Ontario medical school to our area using existing hospitals or other health-care facilities may be much more palatable. Students will be able to virtually watch online any didactic lectures that are delivered at main campuses to obtain theoretical knowledge. Any practical knowledge and skills can be completed with assigned preceptors and through core rotations (e.g., ER, family medicine, obstetrics, general surgery) and elective (e.g., plastics, radiology, etc.) at several of the amazing and existing local hospitals and health-care facilities from Orillia to Barrie and Alliston to Newmarket. After doing three to four years of medical school and assuming they do a two-year family medicine residency in the Barrie/Innisfil area, I suspect many will choose to stay and practise in our wonderful area.

I have already reached out to several governing officials including the Office of the Premier of Ontario and the provincial minister of health to share my proposal. While their offices have provided some appreciative yet general responses of their broader investments, I truly believe that it is through greater and ongoing public support and engagement that expansion of a medical school in Barrie can be achieved. In other words, while I as a physician can write a prescription and explain the risks and benefits of the medicine, it is up to the patient to actually take the prescription. In this case, my prescription is the expansion of medical school seats to the Barrie/Innisfil area and I am asking you, the patient, to engage the government in filling this prescription.

Why the OMA Annual General Meeting Matters This Year

I was thinking about what to say about this years OMA Annual General (AGM) meeting. As a die hard Star Trek fan, my thoughts went back to the excellent Next Generation episode, “The Drumhead“. After foiling the ambitions of a Federation official to twist things for her own benefit, Captain Jean Luc Picard reflects that “vigilance is the price we continually have to pay.”

It’s the same for the OMA. Things go off the rails IF members don’t pay attention. Given how big, complex and convoluted the OMA is, well, members do tend to ignore some of the goings on (I am just as guilty of this as other people).

The governance changes at the OMA are a great example. What started out as well intentioned (and badly needed) changes to modernize the organization, in the aftermath of the debacle of the mid-2010s, has been turned into something worse than what was intended. For a bunch of reasons, I personally continue to think that it is still better than the previous structure – but a course correction is needed. We’re now in a situation where the staff seemingly control everything, regardless of what members want. Because, let’s face it, as a whole, we physicians didn’t pay enough attention to the OMA. Thus, the organization was able to repeatedly put changes in place that benefited the organization, ahead of the rights of front line physicians.

It’s gotten so bad that two OMA Board members, Drs. Paul Conte and Paul Hacker, resigned their roles early. These are not just ordinary Board Members. Dr. Conte is a former Board Chair, and also Chaired the Governance and Nominations Committee of the Board. Dr Hacker Co-Chaired the Governance Transformation Committee when all of these changes were put in place . They are absolute experts in the field, and if they say something is wrong with what’s going on, well, you can bet it is.

This is why you should all virtually attend the OMA’s Annual General Meeting (AGM). Dr. Paul Conte has come up with four motions (which I am seconding) to present to try and get the organization back to where it should be. There is some wordy legal jargon in the full motions so I’m only going to list what each motion hopes to accomplish and why. The full motions should be in the meeting package you receive when you register.

Motion 1 and 2: Removal of references to non-physician members and increase physician directors to 10

Some background. I was the founding Chair of the Georgian Bay Family Health Team. When we put the team together we knew that there were some skill sets, information and knowledge that physicians just didn’t have. Finances, negotiations, business plans and so on. So we had non-physicians on the Board of the team to help provide those insights. But we also realized that you cannot have a situation where non-physicians governed physicians . As a result, those non-physicians were what we called ex-officio Board Members. They could contribute and offer suggestions at the Board level, but they were not able to directly make decisions.

When the OMA began the necessary governance transformation process, I begged the staff of the OMA and the consultants to do the same thing with non-physician directors. They refused. I was told “Board Members had to vote” under ONCA (Ontario Not for Profit Act). This is twisting things. If you really want a non-voting person on the Board you can create a separate category – say “Board Advisor”. But the staff and consultants just didn’t want to, regardless of what the duly elected representative of the profession said. Then Covid got in the way, and ……….

By passing these motions we will eliminate non-physicians from having voting authority at the Board Level. The OMA can still have them there as consultants if they want – but non-physicians will not have the ability to govern physicians anymore.

Motion 3: Removal of the Screening Process for Board Directors

This year’s election process was an absolute travesty. Not only did the OMA unilaterally screen and short list candidates for Board Director, and only allow members to vote for the candidates THEY felt appropriate, they impugned the reputation of one of the President Elect candidates, by putting up a subjective opinion of their social media posts. It’s up to each individual physician to judge a candidate, NOT the OMA.

By doing so, not only did they harm a reputation, they’ve bastardized the whole election process and by default have tainted the victory of Dr. Haroon Yousuf.

This motion will put a stop to this nonsense.

Motion 4: An end to the Nadia Alam Rule

When I was on the OMA Board, it was quite obvious to me that many of the Board Members were extremely jealous of the popularity of Dr. Nadia Alam, who pretty well skyrocketed to fame because she spoke up and inspired others (including a certain grumpy curmudgeon who was going to sit the dispute with the government out). As a result they forced the implementation of a rule that says that anyone who held the role of President can no longer run for Board, even if they have less than 6 years on the Board (the current term limit).

Dr. Nadia Alam

The stated rationale for this goes something like “we give our presidents all sorts of publicity and it’s an unfair advantage if they run.” This is, of course, a load of cow manure. There are a whole lot of Past-Presidents who got lauded by the OMA and would get exactly one vote if they ran for anything ever again. This rule assumes the membership is too stupid to recognize who can inspire them and who can’t – and really is telling the membership they aren’t smart enough to know who to vote for.

Furthermore, Ontario is THE ONLY Provincial Medical Association that has this rule. (For that matter, no other Provincial Association screens Board candidates like this or puts subjective comments on election packages.)

Time to end this rule as well.

What happens if members don’t show up and the Motions Fail?

As members, we have a choice. We can spend a couple of our hard earned hours investing in and attending the AGM, hearing arguments both pro and con, and voting in the best interests of physicians. Or we can sit passively by, in which case the motions will likely fail, and the OMA will be emboldened, and continue to make choices for us, rather than the other way around.

Since my friend Paul Conte prefers the other, far inferior space franchise, this will be akin to the end of Revenge of the Sith, where Padme Amidala realizes:

Let’s not let that happen

If you are an Ontario Physician, I urge you to register for the AGM here:

https://web.cvent.com/event/c17ccc6c-d186-4ab8-985f-2e48127b4ffb/summary?sfmc_id=7563168

Springing Forward Into Stupidity: How British Columbia Traded Science for Convenience

There’s a particular kind of modern arrogance required to look a room full of experts squarely in the eye and say: “Yes, yes, very interesting, but have you considered that people find it inconvenient?“

The Government of British Columbia has that arrogance. In a bold act of democratic self-determination, BC has moved to lock in permanent Daylight Saving Time (DST), essentially agreeing, as a society, to spend half the year pretending the sun rises an hour later than it actually does. No more fussing with clocks twice a year! No more groggy Monday mornings in November! Progress, at last!

In fairness, that decision is partially based on some good evidence that there is no need to change clocks twice a year. It does not reduce energy consumption as previously thought. It’s overall harmful to people’s health. BUT, in a trend that has been growing ever since the Covid Pandemic, there appears to be more and more ignoring of the actual science, in the name of convenience.

The scientific consensus on this is about as settled as it gets outside of climate change and vaccine safety. Study after study links permanent DST (as opposed to permanent Standard Time) to increased rates of depression, cardiovascular events, metabolic disruption, and a general dimming of the human spirit that no amount of “extra evening light” can compensate for. The medical community has been remarkably consistent: Standard Time is the one that actually aligns with human biology.

But BC picked the wrong one because the evenings feel nicer.

The 10,000 Lux Future We’re Sleepwalking Into

Here’s a prediction: within a decade, the market for bright light therapy lamps that blast 10,000 lux of artificial sunlight directly into your face, will quietly explode across British Columbia. Families will gather around them at breakfast, bathing in simulated dawn while the actual sun crawls reluctantly above the horizon sometime around 9 AM in December. It will become as mundane as having a coffee maker on the counter. A morning ritual for a society that engineered itself into needing one.

The irony is exquisite. They rejected a scientifically sound way of avoiding clock changes in the name of convenience. Now the next generation will be purchasing expensive medical devices to compensate for what their own circadian rhythms are desperately trying to tell them. The body, it turns out, doesn’t care what the clock says. It cares about the sun. When you spend six months of the year eating breakfast in the dark because a legislature decided that post work golden hours were more politically palatable than morning light, well your body will not be happy. Fatigue, depression, and the nagging sense that something is profoundly off will follow.

Where Were the Adults in the Room?

This, of course, raises the obvious question. Why didn’t anyone listen to the science? The honest answer is that our political culture has largely burned through its reserves of thoughtful, deliberate governance. This was exemplified by the Covid pandemic, when large swaths of people decided to reject the consensus that Covid was airborne , because they just didn’t like wearing masks. Political prices for following evidence that the general public didn’t like were paid. Politicians noticed.

Governments now seemingly use a cocktail of impulsiveness and ideology to make decisions. The boring, unglamorous work of actually reading the evidence, consulting experts, and acting accordingly is rejected. Into this vacuum has rushed something far less useful, the politics of framing. Instead of a straightforward public health question, “which system produces better health outcomes?”, we now have debate on what sells well with the general public. “But I like to golf at night!” “I want to sit on my patio till late!”

In that environment, experts might as well be speaking ancient Incan.

Governance today often seems to attract people operating at an almost feverish pitch. Rather than slow deliberate study of an issue, we have reactive, ideologically committed decisions allergic to nuance. Political culture now treats careful consideration as weakness and impulsiveness as authenticity. In that environment, it’s not surprising that a decision with clear scientific guidance instead got made on the basis of “vibes.”

How Did We Get Here?

That’s perhaps the most unsettling question of all. This is happening in all fields, not just public health. Urban planning, the aforementioned climate change, immigration policy, you name it. Experiences and facts say one thing. Politics, convenience, or ideology says another. Convenience wins. Our society absorbs the consequences.

This has been particularly fuelled by the rise of social media. At its worst, social media is well known to promote a culture of instant gratification. Which has profoundly impacted decision making. “Oh, I may get Covid tomorrow, but I don’t feel like wearing a mask today”. “Maybe I’ll be depressed in six months, but I want to golf tonight.” Etc.

The sad thing is that I think that deep down, most of us know this. We know that good governance requires scientific literacy, patience, and a willingness to accept inconvenient truths. We know that political culture has drifted away from those qualities. We know that we are, collectively, making ourselves worse off.

But we allow governments to do it again anyway.

The Clocks Are Wrong, and So Are We

There’s something almost poetic about using time itself as the canvas for this particular failure. Time is the one thing nobody can argue doesn’t affect them. Every person in British Columbia will experience the consequences of this decision in their own health, every dark winter morning, without exception. The evidence on that is pretty clear.

So go ahead and enjoy your long summer evenings. The light really is lovely. In November, when the alarm goes off and the sky outside is pitch black and your body is quietly staging a protest you can’t quite articulate, you might find yourself idly browsing light therapy lamps from online stores.

They work pretty well, actually. The science on that is solid.

Not that it’ll stop us from ignoring the experts next time.

Open Letter To Dr. Cathy Faulds and Ms. Kim Moran: Why Should Members Bother Voting?

To: Dr. Cathy Faulds, Board Chair, and Ms. Kimberly Moran, CEO, Ontario Medical Association

Dear Dr. Faulds and Ms. Moran,

I’m writing to express my extreme displeasure about how the OMA has handled the elections process. The past couple of years have seen more and more that the OMA, as an organization, has sought to limit the ability of front line members to choose their representatives. This has had the effect of further disenfranchising the hard working physicians whom you are supposed to serve.

In the past couple of years, the OMA as an organization has put in extremely restrictive rules on candidates, particularly for Board Director. Candidates were not allowed to “campaign”. Candidates for Board and President can only offer up a brief statement that answers certain questions, and not much else. Town Halls were controlled with Orwellian like micromanagement. All candidates could only submit a pre-approved list of skills. No one is allowed to let their personality show through.

Even asking candidates a question, like I did last year, is verboten. The penalty for daring to ask candidates to answer a difficult question was to have your career and livelihood threatened by a code of conduct complaint.

This year, the elections process is markedly worse. Instead of letting members choose who they wish, you shortlisted candidates. (NB – please spare me the nonsense about hiring an “independent” third party to review the candidates – we all know that “independent” consultants get guidance from the organization they are hired by. They just do the dirty work of the hiring organization).

I will NEVER criticize a candidate for running (I may criticize their position or views – but not for choosing to run). It takes a lot of guts to stand up and bear the slings and arrows that inevitably come your way. BUT, the blunt reality is that your “shortlisting” process is by default going to create an entirely bland, non-confrontational and non-outspoken Board. It will create a Board that will not provide appropriate oversight to the OMA.

For example, one of your approved Board candidates was asked on Social Media if elected they would commit to change the direction of the OMA so that it would stop speaking out against expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists and others. (The questioner has been very vocal that allied health care providers can do much more). Your approved candidate replied with a response (I’m paraphrasing):

“I will always be on TeamPatient. We need to follow the evidence where it leads.”

The questioner was quite happy and obviously didn’t realize that the exact same response could be given if someone had asked the candidate: “Will you get the OMA to be MORE forceful in preventing expansion of scope of practice to allied health care professionals.” It’s the type of bland, non-specific, non-controversial response that is often taught in various “Leadership” courses and “Director” courses. You know, the type that is designed first and foremost to not offend anyone, while making everyone on both sides think you agree with them in the hopes that this will somehow make you able to enact change.

(I’m not naming the candidate because truth be told, overall I actually like the person and if it wasn’t for the shenanigans that the OMA has been doing, would likely have voted for them – It was just too good an example to illustrate my point to pass up).

What’s worse is how you have treated the current list of candidates for President Elect. While I absolutely would agree with doing a social media search (along with other reasonable background searches for a position of such importance) – the decision should simply have been one of if a candidate is appropriate or not. And if not – they should not be allowed to run, and the OMA should deal with the consequences.

Instead, the OMA, under your leadership, has chosen to promote a document that characterizes one of the P/E candidates in a negative manner. (Yes this was the third party view – but you already know what I think of third party views). This negative characterization can, and should, open you up to legal action (whose defence will be paid for by my dues – which I find even more objectionable). Attaching subjective comments to the profiles of eligible candidates is outside of established governance norms.

ALL of these actions smack of the OMA as an organization self selecting candidates that the OMA finds suitable (not the members). It reeks of the organization wanting a complacent Board, a Board that simply rubber stamps what “experts” bring in front of it, rather than a Board that provides true oversight. True oversight demands that the Board ask hard, uncompromising and uncomfortable questions of the staff when appropriate. I can’t see a thing in your Board vetting process that would suggest you let candidates with these skills through.

You are undoubtedly aware that as a result of the actions of your current leadership, both Dr. Paul Hacker and Dr. Paul Conte have publicly resigned as Board Directors. Historically, the last Board Director that resigned under similar tumult was Dr. Shawn Whatley in 2016 . That was the same time as the disastrous tPSA fiasco. He was one of 25 (ish) physicians, or 4% of the physician Board Directors. You’ve lost two of 8 physicians – or 25%. That’s a critical blow. (Dr. Alam resigned a month early as well – but that was with much less fanfare).

What’s worse is the calibre of Directors that resigned. Dr. Hacker co-chaired the Governance Transformation committee of the OMA. Dr. Conte not only chaired the Governance and Nominating Committee, but was Board Chair. Having worked with them, I can tell you that both members have extremely high levels of integrity and both are extremely well versed in governance. They are absolute titans of good governance principles. They KNOW when governance is going off the rails, and for them to take this steps speaks volumes about your leadership.

In summary then, it appears the OMA, as an organization, has taken well meaning attempts to reform it, and make it more member responsive, and instead turned it into a way to only allow certain, pre approved members to be in charge. Outspoken, critical voices are not allowed. Strong opinions (however well stated) are unwelcome. Independent thought must give way to complacent behaviour.

All of which is my long way of asking, given that you have undemocratically preselected candidates, and impugned those you find wanting, why should any member bother to vote?

Yours truly,

A very very annoyed Old Country Doctor.

Which Pharmacy Should You Use?

My patients are increasingly expressing unhappiness with their pharmacy. I’m not surprised. A recent study by JD Power showed a 10-point drop in customer satisfaction with brick and mortar pharmacies in 2024 alone. This is attributed to problems with systemic pressures, health human resources challenges, burnout amongst pharmacists, increasing drug shortages, and competition from online pharmacies. (N.B. I know this was a US survey but I believe the results would be similar in Canada as many of the pressures are the same).

In the past, I would tell patients to choose whichever pharmacy they want. The College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) has some pretty strict rules around who/what I can recommend to patients. They are particularly stringent if there is even a perception of a conflict of interest. This would be why I never insist patients use the pharmacy in the medical centre I work at. Most doctors are very reluctant to run afoul of their licensing body (and I’m no exception).

However, the actual CPSO rules around prescribing drugs states:

“Respecting Patient Choice When Choosing a Pharmacy

13) Physicians must respect the patient’s choice of pharmacy.

14) Physicians must not attempt to influence the patient’s choice of pharmacy unless doing so is in the patient’s best interest and does not create a conflict of interest for the physician“

It seems like I can give some advice to patients. The short version: Stay away from “Big Box” pharmacies.

To understand why I give this advice, it’s important to know what I think of the role of pharmacists. This will surprise those who have been critical of my position on expansion of pharmacists scope of practice, but I actually truly believe that pharmacists are an essential part of a patients health care team. In my area, the smaller, independent pharmacists and their staff all know the patients well. They feel very comfortable messaging me with issues. I often get updates from them about changes to medications a specialist has made (often before I hear from the specialist!). And I’ve always gotten great advice on what alternatives are out there for medications that aren’t unavailable (an increasing problem these days).

The smaller pharmacies always flag drug interactions well (for me and the patient), know which patients react to which medications (even the over the counter ones), have provided great individualized advice on how to take medications. If for some reason, I’m doing something “off label” – they have been very supportive of that.

I (and more importantly, my patients) get that level of support, because the small pharmacies have consistent staff, who have, over time, built up great professional relationships with our mutual patients.

In contrast, dealing with some of the big box pharmacies is getting worse all the time. Some issues are just plain annoying. For example, I generally give a one year supply of medications for patients of mine who have stable medical conditions (three months for diabetic patients). I cannot tell you how many times I’ll get a message from one of the big box pharmacies (the red ones in our area are particularly bad) asking for a renewal three months later, even though we clearly have an electronic record that shows those pharmacies got, and downloaded, a one year prescription. Essentially, the pharmacy refuses to give needed medications to my patients, because of their error inputting my prescription.

It’s gotten so bad that my replies to the pharmacies have, over the past couple of years, gone from informing them of their error, to asking them to fix their internal process, to being rude. I haven’t quite hit unprofessional yet – though the pharmacists may beg to differ.

The big problem with big box pharmacies is that their staff are under pressure to first and foremost, generate profits for their chain. Patient care is actually secondary.

Shot of a mature pharmacist expressing stress while working in a pharmacy

It’s been reported (by pharmacists and staff) that corporate pressure from Shoppers Drug Mart (SDM) head offices led to their pharmacists doing unnecessary MedCheck reviews (and billing the taxpayer $75 per review). Shoppers head office of course denied the accusation and stated all MedChecks were necessary. Yet just one month later the CBC wrote “Shoppers Drug Mart says it doesn’t have medication review targets, but records show it does.“

The Toronto Star had an excellent report in November 2024 outlining just how much pressure corporate pharmacy staff were under. The report showed that:

pharmacists were asked to rush through minor assessments for their new expanded scope of practice in under 5 minutes (Kathleen Leach, a Hamilton pharmacist recognized that this would degrade care)
85% of pharmacists felt compelled to meet service quotas
there was strong concern about how the big chains had stripped back support staff from pharmacists, affecting care
It also outlined how patients were encouraged to have health assessments, even when not necessary, to try and increase revenue

This appears to be a Canada wide problem. The Ontario College of Pharmacists is exploring legal options to address allegations of corporate pressure. The BC College of Pharmacist 2024 report on Workplace Practice clearly showed that pharmacists in corporate and franchise settings experience more time pressure than independent pharmacists. The Toronto Start article above also indicated the Saskatchewan Pharmacy College recognized that focusing on business targets leads to errors and increased patient risks. In New Brunswick a pilot program for expanding pharmacy care fell apart, in large part because a virtual care company that SDM had heavily invested in (Maple), overwhelmed pharmacies with referrals.

Kristen Watt, who’s the current Vice-Chair of the Ontario Association of Pharmacists, wrote a blog in the Medical Post strongly supporting expanded scope of practice for pharmacists. While I have, and will continue to, fundamentally disagree on that, I was struck by her comment in that blog:

“Granted, the government roll-out video, shot in a noticeable big box pharmacy, didn’t help us. There are lots of cries of foul about billings going to shareholders of large corporations.”

It’s the kind of statement that clearly suggests some awareness of issues, without getting oneself into hot water. And certainly left me wanting to know more.

As I mentioned previously, a good pharmacist, and their staff, are integral parts of your health care team. They need to know you as a patient. They need to know some of your medical history. Over time they need to develop a professional relationship with you to provide you with the best advice. At the Big Box pharmacies, you are often getting different pharmacists and different staff every time you visit. Due to some of the corporate pressures above, there is a lot of turnover in those pharmacies.

At a small local pharmacy, you’ll get someone who knows you and says “Dr. Gandhi always gives a one year supply of medications, so I’m sure you’ve got refills.” Whereas at a big box, you’ll get some new staff who mindlessly will tell you “Ok, I’ll message him, you’ll have to come back in 48 hours” because the previous person didn’t enter data properly. Or you’ll get advice from different people at different times, which is NOT the same as having a consistent relationship with one pharmacist.

So my advice, to you dear reader. Find yourself a nice small pharmacy. Make sure they are independently owned. Ensure they have a consistent staff. Build a professional relationship with them. Your overall health deserves it.

Bonus: Red Flags When Searching for a Pharmacy:

Pharmacies that sell groceries.
Pharmacies in department stores or grocery stores.
Don’t fall for “points” schemes – not worth sacrificing good health advice for
They have different pharmacy staff every time you go

Artificial Intelligence is Naturally Stupid

Over the past two years, there has been an explosion in the amount of artificial intelligence (AI) software available, not just to healthcare professionals like myself, but to the general public. In many ways, AI has been quite helpful. I myself have been using AI scribe software in my office for close to a year now. The software listens to the conversation I have with my patient, and automatically generates a clinical note.

The AI scribe has been an enormous benefit to me. My medical notes are much better (also somewhat more detailed). I also save one hour of admin time a day (!) As an aside, this is actually a reason why the government should fund AI scribes for physicians. Under the new FHO+ model, we are paid an hourly rate for administrative work. Surely, saving five hours of physicians time a week is worth the government purchasing a scribe for physicians.

There are also some significant benefits for patient care. Another piece of AI software I use (that’s restricted to health care professionals) helps me with challenging cases. I am able to put the symptoms and test results into the software and it generates a list of potential diagnoses, and suggestions for next steps. It can also recommend treatments for rare conditions.

The general public can also benefit from AI. I recently had a little bit of trouble with my trusty 13-year-old SUV. I put the make and model of the SUV into a commercially available AI, put the symptoms in, and it generated a list of potential causes based on known issues about my SUV.

To be abundantly clear, I would never attempt to fix a car myself. Just as, with all due respect, patients should never, ever attempt to implement a treatment plan for themselves. What AI did do is give me the ability to have an intelligent conversation with the auto mechanic about the situation. And, dare I say it, allowed me to ensure that the mechanic was not trying to pull the wool over my eyes. (My vehicle is now fixed and running very smoothly.)

But along with the many benefits of AI software, there is, of course, potential for harm. This can range from ludicrous to dangerous.

The phenomenon of AI scribe hallucination is well known to physicians like myself. I have seen it in my own software, and it is the reason why I always read the note before I paste it into the patient’s chart. Admittedly, some of that is laughable :

Hopefully this is an AI hallucination of my skills, as opposed to the software’s judgement!

Additionally, the reality is that AI scribes can’t often put a patient’s lived experience (which is so important to building a relationship with a patient) into a note. My colleague Keith Thompson had a superb post on LinkedIn talking about how the AI scribe failed to recognize his personal interactions with an Indigenous patient, particularly with respect to understanding generational trauma.

Sadly, there have been cases where actual harm has been caused by AI. Grok is currently being investigated for generating sexualized images without consent, including those of minors. This causes severe emotional distress and real harm to the victims. There have also been concerns that AI chatbots are helping or suggesting people harm themselves. No one wants any of this stuff to happen, including the people who write AI software. But it has happened.

All of which reminds me of something that my computer science teacher in high school was fond of saying. (Note to my younger readers, and particularly my sons if they ever read my blog: Yes, there actually were computers when I was a teenager. I am not that prehistoric!)

How I’m viewed by my younger colleagues and my children!

The redoubtable Mr. Williams always implored:

“Do not forget, computers and software are actually very very stupid. They can do some things very fast, but they can only do what they are told.”

It’s a piece of wisdom that still holds true today.

With processing speeds almost infinitely faster than when I took computer science, computers can do multiple calculations very very fast. My desktop computer, which is a few generations old, can run 11 trillion operations a second. Heck my phone, which itself is 4 years old, could probably run a fleet of 1980s Space Shuttles. Speed is not the problem now.

The problem is that these computers and software still don’t actually have the ability to “think” outside of their parameters. They only do what they are programmed to do. If for example, they are programmed to answer questions asked by a user, but they are not given specific rules to avoid illegal answers, well, they will answer the questions directly. If the programming contains an inadvertent error (someone entered a “0” in the code, instead of a “1”), well, then the software will NOT be able to realize that was a mistake, and will carry out calculations based on the wrong code.

It is true that software is increasingly being taught to “look” for errors. But again, the software can only see the errors it is programmed to look for. It can’t find inadvertent errors and it can’t “think outside of the box.” They are, for lack of better wording, too stupid to do so.

All of which is my fancy and longish way of saying that while these new tools are great, at the end of the day they simply cannot replace the human experience. Just as the software couldn’t recognize the generational trauma of an Indigenous patient, there is a lack of “gut instinct” present. That feeling you have when you are missing something, and you know a patient is sicker than they may seem. It’s a trait that seen in our best clinicians, and one that no programming can replace.

Using an AI tool is just fine. But for my part, I’m going to agree with Mr. Spock: