[...]
Among other things, the draft policy from the College said doctors will have to set aside personal beliefs "to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical services they require."
[...]
For example, doctors not only can refuse to prescribe birth control pills, but they also do not have to make a referral to someone who would or even discuss it as a viable option. The same thing might go for referring a patient for an abortion or helping a same-sex couple get fertility treatment.
Read that twice and think about it. In a tax-payer funded system, The OMA wants its Members to be able to refuse services to taxpayers because whatever fictitious deity they feel the need to grovel in front of tells them that some of those tax-payers are going to a fictitious underworld when they die to burn in a lake of flame for all eternity.
The new College of Physicians document doesn't say doctors have to perform abortions, mind you, it says it is their duty to tell women where they can get an abortion rather than drop to their knees and fire off a prayer to the swami on the mountain, or wave a bunch of fucking beads.
19 comments:
You wanting to rant here or discuss? Because your dismissive characterization of religious people does not promote discussion and sounds mighty intolerant from here.
Yes, patients need to be protected, but doctors shouldn't lose their freedom of religion because of their profession. Completely dismissing the concerns of religious makes it impossible to deal with this complex issue properly.
Didn't the Western World remove slavery quite some time ago? Are these doctors getting a bit uppity with their Liberal Mas'ers?
You Liberals are really dangerous.
So, what if a girl needs birth control pills for another reason? Some do you know...like regulation with monthly and some have taken them to try to control acne? Then what?
You know, the religious right in the US and Charles McVety are now affecting us.....do we really want a Bush government here?
If a doctor can't reconcile the ability to provide equal care to all of their patients because of their religious beliefs, then it is perfectly acceptable to "dismiss" those concerns.
Since the religious are constantly concerned with slippery slopes, should this same law apply to real estate agents assisting buyers? How about store clerks in stores that sale condoms? How about pilots?
Your right to religion ends when it becomes a license to discriminate.
Period.
Since the religious are constantly concerned with slippery slopes, should this same law apply to real estate agents assisting buyers?
The loony libertarians like Dante actually believe this. They think anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone for whatever reasons they want. And thus, magically, a harmonious society will be brought into being.
The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons has an obligation to regulate the medical profession to ensure that Doctors provide the best quality medical care they are capable of. If someone is refusing to prescribe the drugs the patient needs, or to recommend the procedure the patient needs they are not doing their job and can be disciplined. It has nothing to do with religion... it has to do with the standard of care we expect of professionals. Their motives are irrelevant.
Usually "conservatives" wouldnt want anyone to receive special treatment. If it would be medical negligence for a non-religious person it should be negligence for a religious person.
Speaking of slippery slopes it is a slippery slope to assert that one should be automatically exempted from the normal penalties associated with poor performance in the employment context. Its called "REASONABLE accomodation" for a reason.
We can't have professionals running around not doing their job. I can only imagine the outrage from some right-wingers if a lawyer who was a member of a non-Christian religion that prohibited usury neglected to ask for pre and post judgment interest in an action because it was against their freedom of religion.
Should an ER doctor refuse to give a patient a blood transfusion because it goes against his/her medical beliefs? Seriously, what competent hospital administration would hire someone whose religious beliefs prevent him/her from performing their job. These doctors are working within a public health system where their number one priority is to provide universal access to care identified by the health act. Suck it up or go practice in the US. Plus, as others have said, there are already reasonable accomodation practices in place.
As for that blow hard, extremist lobbyist, I will only refer to him as PM Harper's spiritual adviser Charles McVety from now on. And when is Canada Revenue Agency going to investigate his tax exempt status?
I second kc's comment.
Actually, I'm encouraged by the remarks reported from the College head, "Preston Zuliani" in response to the OMA's kvetching.
This issure in larger than religiously biased treatment; physicians are starting to act like American insurance companies. Some interview prospective new patients and reject those with chronic diseases and other troublsome ailments which would diminish the money/time ratio of their practice.
In it's initial [of two] responses to the College's request for guidance, the OHRC set out the scope of possible discriminatory actions --
The Commission’s concerns focus on the draft policy’s handling of discretionary decisions made by doctors in accepting patients, and in provision of care. As currently stands, the draft policy may in fact lead to confusion and to human rights complaints, in that physicians may see it as condoning practices that the Commission views as discriminatory. Particular issues of concern include:
When a practice is “open” or “closed”
Admitting patients to a “closed” practice
The concepts of “patient selection”, and “scope,” “balance,” or “focus” of a practice
Consideration of time constraints in deciding to accept a patient
Clarification relating to “clinical competence” to provide care
Refusal to provide services in general, or to provide particular information or health care based on religious or moral grounds
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/submissions/surgeons [Feb 2008]
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/submissions/physur [second submission]
" Hello Dr. Josef Mengele,..."
I believe ti-guy was teasing you there, Dante.
I wasn't teasing Dainty. I was trying to out-stupid him. But with the Dr. Mengele reference, I realised I'm dealing with the Master here.
Sensei Dantei...teach me the way of TEH STOOPID.
Let the state control the acts of doctors then.
Hello Dr. Josef Mengele, your job now is to experiment on people.
Fucking historical retards
Right... talk about red herrings. Godwin's law raises its ugly head again. Invoke the Nazis in an absurd context and you are the one who loses the argument.
There is a clear difference between the state actively forcing someone to do something and telling them that if they are going to do something they have to do in accordance with the standard of care of the profession. No one is forcing anyone to practice medicine.
The proposition that one should be able to represent himself to be a medical profession and carry on his business however he damn well pleases is just as frightening to the proposition that the state exercise absolute control.
The fact is that if an individual demanded that they not be accountable for their malpractice for any reason other than because of their religious beliefs most people would simply tune them out. I dont see why religious beliefs should be so privileged.
When a doctor is strongly opposed to a medical "procedure" it is ridiculous to expect them also to promote it. It's ludicrous.
Barbara Hall and the OHRC is striking out again. Stern letter from Babs to follow soon.
It isn't outrageous to compare the idea to that of the nazis. I'm not calling anyone a Nazi. Has everyone's brain in the liberal left gone to such mush as to not realize that history can teach us what not to do. Nazism was statism. What is proposed is an act of statism. You can't be half pregnant here. You either believe in individual rights or you believe the state should be the dictator of individual affairs. Don't moralize with me about the evils of invoking memories of the Nazi historical fact. I'm not a rabid leftist retard who calls people Hitler. I am certainly no activist but I would most certainly become active if such individual freedoms were threatened. It is among the most frightening government proposals I have heard of in my 40 something years on this earth
"Should an ER doctor refuse to give a patient a blood transfusion because it goes against his/her medical beliefs?"
No doctor who objected to blood transfusions would ever end up in ER.
"Seriously, what competent hospital administration would hire someone whose religious beliefs prevent him/her from performing their job."
Are you daft? That's what job interviews are for.
"These doctors are working within a public health system where their number one priority is to provide universal access to care identified by the health act."
Universal access has never been in question. Infringing on doctors Charter rights is the issue.
"Plus, as others have said, there are already reasonable accomodation practices in place."
Agreed. So why is the busybody OHRC poking its nose where it doesn't belong again?
Nazism was statism.
But statism doesnt necessarily imply nazism. Its kind of like comparing someone to Charles Manson because they both like blueberry pancakes.
I am certainly no activist but I would most certainly become active if such individual freedoms were threatened.
Individual freedoms are threatened all the time--from draconian drug policies (particularly marijuana policies) to human rights commissions policing political debate and this is the then thing that would cause you to get active?
It is among the most frightening government proposals I have heard of in my 40 something years on this earth
You should read the news more often then.
You can't be half pregnant here. You either believe in individual rights or you believe the state should be the dictator of individual affairs.
Thats absolutist claptrap. Even libertarians (as much as they hate to admit it) are not in favour of absolute freedom. Unfortunately the complex interplay between the value of freedom and the need for rules to govern human interaction cannot be aptly encaptured by reductionist comparisons to gestation.
When I take my car to the mechanic I expect them to do what they can to fix it, when I go to a lawyer I expect the lawyer to do whatever they can to help me, when I hire an electrician I expect that they are dillegent in their work and the same applies to doctors. Medical negligence--including failing to provide your patients with all the information to make an informed choice about their physiological state--would not be tolerated for any other reason and it shouldnt be tolerated because of some belief in the sky fairy.
The regulation of professions and trades is a reasonable limit on absolute freedom that has been going on for a long time. If you're just realizing that now you are a little behind the curve. The tort of negligence and contract law go a long way to protect people from dealings with incompete people providing services but they aren't sufficient. We need a system (like there is in Ontario with the College of Physicians and Surgeons) to protect individuals from negligence before it occurs rather than dealing with it after the fact.
I'm not a rabid leftist retard who calls people Hitler.
No you're definitely not a leftists.
Denying the implications of your own words in this case doesnt fool any one.
Nazism was statism.
Sensei Dantei: When I snatch this pebble from your hand, will I be a Master of TEH STOOPID?
Seriously, boys..(KC, you too) You're arguing history when it's quite apparent you know zilch, niente, nada, nichts about history.
Seriously, boys. Read a book.
Ohhh the all knowing king Ti-Guy speaks. Seriously the best argument you can ever come up with is "you dont know what you're talking about". If you have anything material to add then speak up. Otherwise shut up because you are an embarassment.
Seriously the best argument you can ever come up with is "you dont know what you're talking about"
It's not the best argument. It's the only argument when it comes to you and your pre-verbal/post-literate generation.
Y'all don't know anything. I'm surprised you can even wipe your own arses.
You're arguing history when it's quite apparent you know zilch, niente, nada, nichts about history.
Nice argument moron. You so regularly demonstrate such profound idiocy with your trite responses, I feel a need to read a book to add even more space to the light years of intellectual distance I already have you.
Please stop. "I" am feeling embarrassed for you.
Post a Comment