Also, when anyone claims something to be safe, then that person, organisation or government better be prepared to back that assertion by taking responsibility if that action proves to be not safe, even if that occurs to just one person. Otherwise all responsibility is being placed upon those least able to defend themselves if they become injured.

So Bridget Archer (The Examiner, August 19), you speak of responsibility. Therefore, if you and your government have full faith in an untested vaccine and, by coercion, force it upon your constituents without giving them an alternative to participate in society, it is incumbent upon you to provide insurance to them by way of indemnity.

If you have nothing to fear from this untested medicine, then you will have no reason not to provide this measure in lieu of choice. If not, why not? To not do so is undemocratic. Rapid antigen testing is that choice. Vaccinate or rapid antigen test, that is the answer, it provides choice, that is democratic, mandatory vaccination by way of an unproven medicine is not.

Time for our politicians to choose wisely, but be careful because "I was just following orders" has never been a good defence.

THIS adage was first written in Latin. It was better said by the Dutch philosopher Desiderius Erasmus in around 1500.

Time has not lessened the wisdom of the idea. It is a fundamental principle of modern health care today. So why is it so difficult to apply this same idea to the problem of violence and abuse of women?

The Escaping Violence Payment, the No Interest Loans Scheme and the CEASE program for offenders described in Wendy Askew's article (The Examiner, August 6) are welcomed.

But where are the programs to prevent it happening in the first place? Where are the rigorous programs to change community attitudes? What industrial policies are addressing pay and superannuation disparities? What is being done to stop the sexist, objectifying portrayal of women in the media and fashion industry?

What attempts are being made to stop stereotyping of gender roles in advertising, magazines, TV and film? Where is the comprehensive educational curriculum to teach young people about equitable relationships?

Where are the programs to train the employers, police, paramedics, doctors, lawyers and the general public in the recognition, understanding and opposition to the violence and abuse?

Where are the industrial, legal, social, political policies and strategies for all this to happen?

Treat the root causes of this problem. Save the millions that it costs Australia each year. Put millions into consolidated primary prevention programs and we might have a chance to stop this other pandemic.

THE recent story regarding medicinal cannabis and the fact that 30 per cent of chronic pain sufferers are unable to acquire it (The Examiner, August 18). Even though it is legal to do so, it sets a dilemma.

My doctor was reluctant to do so when I asked, and when I asked my Tasmanian chemist he was unable to supply it, causing me to ask him why this is? He told me that he had heard many good results and that if my doctor could be persuaded to write me a script, mainland chemists would fill it.

So the question remains, is the government stopping chemists from selling it? Or is the medical profession in Tasmania blocking it? And if so, what of the Hippocratic oath?

Preference is given to letters submitted via examiner.com.au and of 150 words or less. Letters can be edited for space, clarity or legal reasons. Submissions should include the name and address of the author and a phone number. Only the suburb of the author will be published.