Rules bear suspicion Society's regulations should benefit citizens, not hinder chances at hope By Angelo Persichilli In a civilized country, respect for the rules is a citizen's primary duty. We mustn't forget, however, that the purpose of rules is to safeguard the interests of citizens and not of people who made the rules in the first place. I don't know if, in the case of Dr. Di Bella, respect for the rules was invoked with the aim of defending the interests of patients or doctors. The rules we are talking about these days are the same ones that once made us breathe DDT because it was said to kill flies. Only later was it discovered that the DDT was killing us as well. These are the same rules that have allowed Canadian citizens to be transfused with infected blood, causing the death of thousands of people; rules which to this day make us breathe exhaust fumes from cars and drown us in acid rain. These are the same rules that allow the use of toxic gases which have created a hole in the ozone layer, which protects our planet, and the same rules that artificially inflate athletes' muscles, enlarge women's breasts and allow the definition of 'extra virgin olive oil' to be applied to oil extracted mainly from soy seeds. These are the rules that also protect the right of young people to kill themselves with smoke but which do not grant those who are dying of cancer the right to choose an alternative therapy when the official methods have failed. Di Bella's therapy is not harmful and a terminal patient has nothing to lose. Dr Victor. Fornasier said that "patients also have nothing to gain." A woman whose mother is dying of cancer answered that statement by saying: "We gain the right to hope." Perhaps this is too little for Fornasier and his colleagues, but it means a lot to those who are dying. To invoke the respect of rules that are inherently flawed but which suddenly become iron-clad when it comes to blocking a proposal by a serious doctor who is at least offering some hope does not sit well with me.