醫者有社會責任去保障公眾健康，我們認為梁卓偉教授和陳家亮教授作為香港兩所醫學院院長責無旁貸。因此，我們呼籲所有醫護人員參與連署，懇請兩位院長履行社會使命發表聲明保障社會大眾的健康和人身安全。

連署連結: https://forms.gle/teMGNCiZPMYatVbh8
———————————————————————-
《致香港大學李嘉誠醫學院院長、中文大學醫學院院長的公開信》

梁教授、陳教授道鑒：

　　有鑑於在六月十二日、七月二日及二十一日，香港警察濫用武力以控制群眾。如此行徑實對公眾健康遺害無窮，我們一眾醫療人員對此極為關切。作為香港大學李嘉誠醫學院院長、中文大學醫學院院長，吾等懇請兩位院長細察香港警察控制群眾之手段，以保障公眾健康。

　　據多家本地及國際媒體報導，香港警察於六月十二日，發射多輪催淚彈、橡膠子彈及布袋彈，以驅散聚集在金鐘的示威者。報導提及，警方向示威者發射至少一百五十枚催淚彈，二十輪布袋彈以及數枚橡膠子彈，造成至少七十二人受傷。從多家媒體直播可見，橡膠子彈更直射一名教師眼球，創傷嚴重，對其視力之損害非同等閒。另外，警方亦曾以數枚催淚彈包抄示威者，堵塞其退路；而當示威者被逼退守至中信大廈，警方竟朝人群中央投以催淚彈，造成數以百計的市民受傷及呼吸困難，生死攸關，不容小覷。此外，警方向一名手無寸鐵的市民，近距離發射橡膠子彈，以致其下腹嚴重受傷，情況慘不忍睹。

　　據多份醫學期刊綜述──如《刺針》（Lancet）[1] 及英國醫學期刊（BMJ (Open)）[2]，橡膠子彈乃可致命武器。同時，橡膠子彈不易操控，準確性低，有引致重傷，乃至死亡之風險。多份期刊不約而同指出，橡膠子彈不適宜用於密集人群之管制。

　　然而，香港警察漠視上述已知風險，仍於七月二日及七月二十一日繼續使用此類武器。在七月二十一日，警察更於鄰近民居之地，向群眾發射多輪催淚彈及橡膠子彈，當中更殃及記者。此等武器之禍害影響深重，不單有損呼吸系統，更會導致燒傷、嚴重鈍物創傷及爆炸性創傷。據媒體報導，武器造成至少十四人受傷；更有市民懼於警方之搜捕行動，而未敢求醫，致使受傷數字難以估算。

　　人權醫療組織（Physicians for Human Rights）醫生哈爾（Dr Rohini Haar）在接受紐約時報訪問時指出，警方對市民使用不成比例的武力，實有濫用武力之嫌。早在二零一四年，潘冬平教授[3]亦對香港警察使用催淚氣體情況深表關注，擔心催淚氣體損害市民呼吸系統。可見，催淚彈、橡膠子彈及豆袋彈等武器危害不輕，對香港市民公眾健康的損害不容置疑。

　　兩大醫學學院一直致力培育杏林菁英，不遺餘力。一眾醫療人員亦謹承《希波克拉底誓詞》之教誨，不論病患身份職要，一直為全人類之福祉著想，嚴守不懈。學院循循善誘，吾等縷心刻骨。誓詞薪火相傳，代代不息；缺少對生命健康之尊重，醫療人員何以自立？故此，我們一眾醫療人員懇請院長，發表聲明，呼籲香港警察：

一、避免濫用催淚彈及任何類型子彈，以免導致人命傷亡及其他不可見之損傷。
二、在使用武力時，必須顧及市民安全，並保持專業克制。

　　醫療人員一直存仁心，行仁術；保護市民之健康，乃至生命，吾等責無旁貸。院長為學為醫，高風峻節，茍以吾等同心同德，捍衛市民之生命健康，必見杏林春暖。

　　謹祝
道安

一眾醫療人員謹上
———————————————————————


Dear Professor Leung and Professor Chan,

We are a group of healthcare professionals, some of us being also graduates from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. We are writing to express our gravest concerns over the persistent and serious threats to the health of members of the public posed by weapons deployed in crowd control by the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) on 12 June, 2 July and 21 July. We hereby urge the Deans of the sole Faculties of Medicine in Hong Kong to take actions in censuring the HKPF and the Hong Kong Government against the serious health risks in their crowd-control tactics.

On 12 June, as reported by multiple local and international news agencies, the HKPF fired multiple rounds of tear gas, rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds to disperse protesters in Admiralty. Over 150 canisters of tear gas, 20 bean-bag rounds and several rubber bullets have admittedly been directed at protestors which resulted in at least 72 injuries. As evident in the live reports from various media sources, a teacher suffered traumatic ocular injury causing significant vision loss when his eye was hit by a rubber bullet; hundreds of citizens suffered various degrees of injuries and respiratory distress consequential upon the numerous tear gas canisters shot at Citic Tower in Admiralty where protesters were trapped in a life-threatening space filled with tear gas; an unarmed man sustained injury in his lower abdomen when a rubber bullet was directed at him in a short distance.

According to multiple studies and reviews from high impact factor medical journals, in particular the Lancet[1] and BMJ (Open)[2], rubber bullets can be lethal. Their notorious inaccuracy and risk of severe injury and death render them inappropriate and unsafe means of force in crowd control.

However, despite the known risks of these weapons, the HKPF tenaciously deployed them on citizens on 2 July and 21 July. On 21 July, 55 canisters of tear gas, 5 rubber bullet rounds and 24 sponge bullets were admittedly shot, some without immediate warning, at protestors and even at journalists notwithstanding the numerous residential buildings and citizens in the vicinity. The use of these weapons has left members of the public with at the very least, various types of injuries and further, burns, blunt force trauma and explosive injuries. 14 injuries have by far been reported where others did not present themselves to the hospital in fear of the risk of prosecution.

Dr Rohini Haar of Physicians for Human Rights had in a recent interview told the New York Times that the force used by the HKPF was disproportionate and excessive. In Hong Kong, Professor Ronnie Poon had as early as in 2014 expressed openly his earnest concern over both the short term and long term health risks in the use of tear gas in particular to one’s respiratory system when the HKPF first fired tear gas at Hong Kong citizens [3]. It is indisputable that these named weapons put the health of Hong Kong citizens at serious risks.

Doctors have striven to stand by the Hippocratic oath that they remain members of society, the identity of which comes before their profession, with special obligations to all fellow human beings. The two medical schools in Hong Kong have been established accordingly for the nurture of healthcare professionals to serve the public with benevolent hearts and minds. This is the time to honour our oath that human life should deserve the utmost respect and to maintain by all means such noble traditions of the medical profession.

We, as healthcare professionals, therefore implore the Deans of the only Faculties of Medicine in Hong Kong, in the service of humanity with conscience and dignity, to take the lead in safeguarding the public’s health and to issue a statement to urge the Hong Kong Police Force to:

(1) refrain from using tear gas and bullets in any form on protestors to prevent further bloodshed and severe non-reversible injuries; and

(2) exercise due restraint over the use of force when handling protests and at all times, put the safety of Hong Kong citizens at the highest priority.

Regards,
A group of healthcare professionals
———————————————————
Healthcare professionals have a social responsibility to safeguard the health of members of the public. We believe that, as Deans of the faculties of medicine in Hong Kong, Professor Leung and Professor Chan bear a paramount obligation in this regard. We appeal to all healthcare professionals to join us in this petition to urge the deans to issue a statement to honour their obligation to defend the public from health risks.
—————————————————————
Petition Link: https://forms.gle/teMGNCiZPMYatVbh8
——————————
參考資料/References
[1] Mahajna, A., Aboud, N., Harbaji, I., Agbaria, A., Lankovsky, Z., Michaelson, M., . . . Krausz, M. M. (2002). Blunt and penetrating injuries caused by rubber bullets during the Israeli-Arab conflict in October, 2000: A retrospective study. The Lancet, 359(9320), 1795-1800. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08708-1

[2] Haar, R. J., Iacopino, V., Ranadive, N., Dandu, M., & Weiser, S. D. (2017, December 01). Death, injury and disability from kinetic impact projectiles in crowd-control settings: A systematic review

[3] Professor Ronnie Poon Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/138599119760/posts/10152753050039761?s=1014598371&sfns=mo

—————————————————————

[Science and Communication]
我還在讀本科時，年少無知，覺得做科學，應該不拘小節，論文、Poster、PowerPoint 等，只應在乎內容而非「格式」。只要內容好，科學準確，排版、字體、用色、甚至錯字都無所謂。

後來發現，科學領域內，傳訊十分重要，而且匯報是展現研究成果，注意細節，才是敬業樂業的表現。所以儘管本人視覺藝術天份奇差，也開始留意設計原理，也開始注意行內設計，才發現到處都是災難級的設計。

最近寫博士學位的期中報告，就Typography我已用了大半天參考不同文章。雖然對設計師來說可能見笑，但我這初哥已經盡力。最後Headings一致用無腦Helvetica，內文用Garamond，古典但優雅，讀起來才有可信、已確定(established) 的感覺，DNA序列用Courier，字距一致才容易做DNA並列對比。大家的論文又用什麼字體呢？（不才，懂設計的朋友請指教）

對於我這種設計白痴，中央聖學子的貼文都很啟蒙。從事科學的朋友，我們該好好注意自己的設計了，你的poster有犯這些錯誤嗎？

【Typography Matters】（營養長文!!!）香港美術及設計教育，一直以來都麻麻地重視 Typography（字體排印學）。近十多年遇着個別有熱誠有才能嘅教育工作者，偶爾會有小陽春，業界亦好視乎個別執業者取向；但整體上，香港地無論學院抑或業內，重視 Typography 嘅人，實屬小眾，practise 得好嘅，更係少之又少。個人電腦普及前，字體應用及排印，都必定交由專業人士負責，質素衰極有個譜；然而，差不多係人都識用 Word、Excel、小畫家等軟件打字、畫圖、列印、發佈後，因差劣 Typography 而引發嘅溝通錯誤及視覺污染——自文字及印刷術發明以來——係史上最最最最嚴重的。

科技賦予人類能力，但冇賦予知識。人人用電腦揀字款打字排版做所謂「文書處理」，但當中有幾多個懂得基本 Typography？或，當中有幾多個知道有「Typography」呢樣嘢呢？記得留學時老師講過，或許設計上有好多範疇都冇甚麼絕對黑白對錯，但係响 Typography 嘅領域，有唔少理論及應用係黑白分明對錯有特定準則的。「靚囉」好少會出自 typographer 把口。

早前有人留意到康文署有套經過精心設計嘅温文意雅告示標語橫額，甚為破格，引來網上小眾討論。今日陽光普照，離開鍵盤，到赤柱走走，畀我發現咗啲嘢。特意寫兩句與大家分享一下。🙂

［Layout］
求其粗疏地响聖士提反灣周圍𥄫𥄫，做咗個微型 visual audit，諗住學下嘢。Woow～！真係獲益良多，原來而家尖端標示設計嘅 typography 已經同我以前學嗰套好有距離。首先（見圖由上至下左至右），大大塊告示板，個 layout 唔似有 grid，相當 dynamic，四個主標示 zig zag 咁放，size 不大，語氣和善，活潑可人，綠綠藍藍與泳灘氣氛連成一片。

［Hyphen］
Typography 中，英語 punctuation（標點符號）往往最被忽略。「Please - No Kite-flying」三個字中有兩個 hyphens，「Kite-flying」嗰個冇咩問題，怪就怪在「Please」之後嗰個。因為 hyphen 一般用作 compound terms 或 word division，當破折號或冒號咁用好似比較罕見。

//
For most writers, the hyphen’s primary function is the formation of certain compound terms. Compound terms are those that consist of more than one word but represent a single item or idea.

In professionally printed material (particularly books, magazines, and newspapers), the hyphen is used to divide words between the end of one line and the beginning of the next. This allows for an evenly aligned right margin without highly variable (and distracting) word spacing.
//

同中文標點好唔同，英文類似破折號嘅短小橫線標點有三種：hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—)，長度不一功能各異，唔可以亂用。

//
The en dash (–) is slightly wider than the hyphen (-) but narrower than the em dash (—). The typical computer keyboard lacks a dedicated key for the en dash, though most word processors provide a means for its insertion.
//

長話短說，日常應用嚟講 en dash 多數用嚟當「至」咁用，如日期或時間，「2005–2018」，「9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.」。正統前後冇 space，但我覺得若嫌太迫，kern 疏少少都無傷大雅。至於當破折號（或冒號）以作補充之用就應該用最長嘅 em dash。

//
The em dash is perhaps the most versatile punctuation mark. Depending on the context, the em dash can take the place of commas, parentheses, or colons—in each case to slightly different effect.

Notwithstanding its versatility, the em dash is best limited to two appearances per sentence. Otherwise, confusion rather than clarity is likely to result.

Do not mistake the em dash (—) for the slightly narrower en dash (–) or the even narrower hyphen (-). Those marks serve different purposes and are further explained in other sections.
//

［Apostrophe］
Prime mark (') 同 apostrophe (’)，前者係小直劃，後者係升高咗嘅𢭃號，再想發揮創意都唔應該用錯。鍵盤碼點打，呢度唔多講嘞，自己 google 啦。

［a.m. and p.m.］
「a.m.」、「p.m.」係拉丁文「ante meridiem」同「post meridiem」嘅縮寫，所以正寫應該係細階兼有點點。但係設計上有時想省略簡化正寫達至美感要求，我覺得响意思唔被干擾下，可以接受。但時間數字與 am 或 pm 中間，應該有 space，連埋寫成一個字咁會怪怪，尤其出現於正統聲明。

［Title Case vs Sentence Case］
究竟幾時用 title case，即每個字頭都大階；幾時先用 sentence case，即只得第一個字大階？！我有啲亂。我嘗試觸摸個 pattern，可能我資質太差，花咗成日都徒勞無功。

［Text Justification］
忽左忽右，我估本 guidelines 肯肯定有說明點用法，只係我呢個路人未察覺箇中奧妙而已。「Dangerous Goods Store」，畀我會將「Goods Store」排埋一行，以意思 break line 嘛。不過人哋咁排法，一定有 concept。

最後，發覺大標示板係用 Helvetica，小標語則用 Arial，當中有咩精心佈局或創意我唔敢亂估，只覺得呢種字款運用嘅 fusion 很富本地混雜視覺文化特色，好可愛。☺️

… … … … … … … … …

早前相關康文署標示淺評：
https://www.facebook.com/…/a.1015316723…/10159910797350570/…

Source & reference:
http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/hyphen.html
http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/en-dash.html
http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/em-dash.html
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/…/HyphensE…/faq0002.html