Climate Change and RAH

Opinion piece by Dr James Katsaros, Director of Plastic Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Climate change and RAH issues are different topics, but they are linked by a common thread. They have been needlessly politicized.

Professor Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth, Climate Change: The Missing Science” has alerted more Australians to the significance of astronomical, solar and geological factors as drivers of climate change. Plimer unapologetically relegates the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to a much lower position on his prioritised list of factors.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change rates CO2 much higher and our Federal Government has concurred by preparing expenditure for an Emission Trading Scheme. What if the IPCC is wrong and Plimer is correct? The waste of taxpayers’ money would be lamentable. Plimer backs up his claim with a 500 page treatise whose scientific rigour has yet to be seriously dented by his detractors.

What about the expenditure of $1.7 billion on a new railway yard hospital?
Can the S.A. Government say with honesty and conviction that it is a good idea to close the RAH? What process of logic and science was undertaken to arrive at that surprising decision?

We can dispense with a number of debatable issues which only serve to cloud the critical elements:

• the number of inpatient beds that will be built on each site (around 700 each)
• single rooms with ensuites (around 60% for each proposal)
• “superbugs” (they will be present at the new site just as they exist at QEH and FMC)
• Time frame for completion (who knows with the effects of global financial crisis?)
• Blow-out risk - $1.7bn to $3 bn – too much speculation

What is real, measurable and incontrovertible? There are two points of difference that cannot be ignored.

• $1 bn of existing RAH assets will be wasted
• The new railway yard hospital will not provide a co-located Royal Adelaide Hospital, University of Adelaide, IMVS and Hanson Research Centre.

The waste of $1 bn of existing assets speaks for itself but the absence of comparable partnerships with educational and research institutions will greatly diminish the new hospital. It takes a long time to develop a world class reputation in education and research (as QEH and FMC have discovered) and unless you have another $2 bn to move the entire Medical School, IMVS, Hanson Research Centre and Dental School to the railway site, you will not get the same product. Simply stated:

• Co-location means better research
• Co-location means better education.
• Co-location translates to better specialist care.

The Frome Road precinct provides a high quality service which is accessible to all. Compare this with what is offered in hope by this government. Minister John Hill in his opinion piece (Advertiser, 12 February 2009, page 18) wrote “Hospital facilities will be completely focussed on the needs and medical care of the patient” (are we simpletons?). In the same article, he insists “it will be Australia’s leading hospital”. Is this not a judgement for other people to make if and when the new hospital is built and if it proves to be the best? Do we want the custodians of our health to sound like Eddie McGuire talking about Collingwood?

With so called anthropogenic climate change and the RAH the stakes are high. The community can either delegate to government or it can take a leading role in decision-making. One hopes that the latter will occur because, by sheer weight of numbers, wisdom, science and enlightenment are more likely to be found in the general population.