In today's Telegram - Russell Wangersky addresses an important point. "Covering all the bases" deals with assumptions and reviews.
Last week Sue's Blog asked the following question?
"Why are all independent reviews guided by Nalcor's numbers and projections?"
Be it Manitoba Hydro or Navigant - in completing an "independent" review - they were restricted by defined options and defined assumptions.
I have no doubt that I and many other interested individuals - if tasked with the same body of work - would come back with the same conclusions.
If you have inaccurate assumptions going in you may have an inaccurate finding coming out.
Then based on the possible inaccurate conclusions you then present two possible options for resolving what may be non-existent problem.
Wangersky's column starts to deal with this mess.
Let's compare this to a health issue. A patient presents to a physician with a distended stomach. The physician proceeds to measure the stomach - touch the affected area - and question the patient on how they are feeling.
From there the physician says you have a tumor and here are your two options. We can cut it out - or we can radiate. The physician then spends significant time explaining the potential risks and side-affects of each treatment. From there the patient is asked to make a decision.
The patient instead asks the doctor to get a second opinion. The physician sends to a second and third physician the conclusions and treatment options. The other doctors are advised that no other treatment options can be considered and the original findings of a tumor have to be accepted based on the tests of the original physician.
The following problems exist:
1. The diagnosis was based on a limited number of tests and therefore may not be sufficient to determine the real cause of the distended stomach.
2. The treatment may be inappropriate as the problem and causes were incorrectly diagnosed.
3. Even if the diagnosis of a tumor was accurate - limiting the choice of treatment options does not allow another doctor to recommend a treatment that may be superior to the other two and may in fact cause less distress and provide a better health outcome for the patient.
This is exactly the problem we have here.
Sue's Blog - does have a recommendation for an independent review - Stay tuned for next post.
1 comment:
Sue, your analogy is indeed correct but nothing, it seems, will sway NALCOR or the government. The PUB will be similarly restricted and the outcome is peordained unless Mr. Wells decides to act on principle.
It is most frustrating that we cannot even consider a comprehensive review of all options and get an accurate picture of the true cost of MF power.
Post a Comment