Dr Cam Calder MP
It is somewhat ironic that Cam Calder will probably be sworn in as an MP today, while David Shearer can’t be sworn in until the writ is returned in the by-election on the 24th of June.
Dr Calder is is the third medical doctor in Parliament – all of them in National. He replaces a non medical Dr Worth.
The Herald profiles him, including one incident:
New MP Cam Calder’s decision 25 years ago to quit being a dentist and become a doctor instead was confirmed soon after by a freak accident in which he lost the sight in one eye.
It takes some persuading before he reveals details, but eventually out comes a tale of a trip to the beach with some friends in France and bottles of corked beer. He insists it was an “abstemious” occasion, but warm beer was put in a bucket of ice and then Dr Calder knocked the bucket and one of the corks shot out and hit him in the eye, blinding it.
Ouch.
He also takes credit for being among those “importing” petanque to New Zealand, setting up the NZ Petanque Association.
He discovered the sport’s pleasures on his big OE in the 1970s, when he hitchhiked around Australia, then travelled through Europe to Britain, where he lived for 13 years.
Further to this, Murray Deaker on ZB last night was praising Calder as the best correspondent he had dealt with, in any code. High praise indeed.
His decision to enter politics was because he was concerned about the future his children would inherit. He chose National, partly because he saw John Key as being inclusive.
He says he will do whatever the powers tell him, but has a particular interest in men’s health. One of his wishes is for men to be offered “man-ograms” – similar to the breast-screening scheme – to increase testing for prostate cancer.
Prostrate cancer is indeed a silent killer.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I would hate for Cam to get off on the wrong foot – and I thought he came across superbly in yesterday morning’s Radio NZ interview with Sean Plunkett – but if indeed he lost his eye to an angry cork, why then did he describe the tragic event on radio yesterday as being the result of a “windsurfing accident”?
As a politician it pays to just say it how it is, or was.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I’m delighted that SOMEONE is going to take up the issue of prostate cancer. It is a disease which kills significantly more New Zealand men every year that breast cancer and cervical cancer combined kill women. However, because the men are predominantly elderly, the deaths are accepted, and there is little political or emotional mileage to be had – elderly men are essentially expendable.
My father died as a result of prostate cancer, so I have a personal stake. With metastatic disease in the spine, he died a painful, ugly death. Such deaths can be prevented by early detection – a screening sytem such as that advocated by Cam Calder would be a huge step forward.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:07 am
“He chose National, partly because he saw John Key as being inclusive.”
Jeezus, what’s wrong with the National Party’s principles of smaller government and individual freedom?
June 16th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Yet another stark reminder of the gulf in talent between the Govt and Labour. Losing Worth and gaining Calder has strengthened National’s backbench further.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am
petanque..!..petanque..!
..he is one of the cultural/sporting visigoths who infected the country with (that vile/mindless) petanque..?
..and he boasts about it..?
..whoar..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 16th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I’d love to meet you Fool – in the woods, armed with a length of rope and a petanque set. I’ve never cared for the game either, but as I say, those heavy orbs could be put to good use, you mindless idiot.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Petanque, petanque, that French surrender monkey game, disgraceful.
We should stick to rugby which we are good at, whoops, forget it I’ll get me coat.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:55 am
“He says he will do whatever the powers tell him, but has a particular interest in men’s health. One of his wishes is for men to be offered “man-ograms” – similar to the breast-screening scheme – to increase testing for prostate cancer.”
>30% of men will, upon autopsy, be shown to have prostate cancer BUT wont have died from it. Only 9.5% of those 30% will have been diagnosed. Prostate cancer is usually slow growing, and many will die from unrelated causes before their latent prostate cancer becomes an issue. I hope these “man-ograms” if they came about would only be offered to the reatively elderly as it would be of little benefit to younger males (for whom watch and wait treatment would be prefered since treatments have side effects – andorgen depletion (obvious), prostatectomy (1% death rate up to 21% incotinent, up to 80% erectile dysfunction after surgery)).
June 16th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Jcw (22) 0 1 Says:
June 16th, 2009 at 11:55 am
“>30% of men will, upon autopsy, be shown to have prostate cancer BUT wont have died from it. Only 9.5% of those 30% will have been diagnosed. Prostate cancer is usually slow growing, and many will die from unrelated causes before their latent prostate cancer becomes an issue. ”
True, but that doesn’t mean that prostate cancer shouldn’t be sought out and treated appropriately.
“I hope these “man-ograms” if they came about would only be offered to the reatively elderly as it would be of little benefit to younger males (for whom watch and wait treatment would be prefered since treatments have side effects – andorgen depletion (obvious), prostatectomy (1% death rate up to 21% incotinent, up to 80% erectile dysfunction after surgery)).”
Actually, it’s the younger males who are more likely to be offered radical treatment with the hope of cure. The statistics you quote look very suspicious. Robotically-assisted nerve-sparing surgery has reduced the incidence of those nasty side effects. And androgen depletion is a consequence of treatments that tend to be offered to the relatively elderly.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I wasn’t saying that thosee issues meant that there would be no benefit, BUT would it be cost-effective? Or would that money be better spent on treating/prevention fo somethign else?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
(re Jcw @ 1:59 PM) Fair question. I don’t know the answer. It may change over time, as treatments become more effective and their side effects are reduced, and testing (one hopes) becomes less expensive. I’d expect that screening could be managed with less bureaucracy than in the national cervical screening programme.