An Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons survey goes horribly wrong.
Survey here: Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code
Let’s Play Doctor!
Survey here: Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code
Survey here: Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code
Either give concrete examples of how the HRC can determine:
“In relation to freedom of religion specifically, Courts will consider how directly the act in question interferes with a core religious belief. Courts will seek to determine whether the act interferes with the religious belief in a ‘manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial.’11 The more indirect the impact on a religious belief, the more likely Courts are to find that the freedom of religion should be limited.12”
BTW. the HRC is not a court. So that part is patently false. They do not use rules of evidence nor is a person innocent until proven guilty. Improve clarity by taking a firm stand for the rights of physicians against the atrocity known as the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The policy would be more clear if you gave concrete examples of how physician’s right have been violated in the past, instead of all the waffle language of:
“The law in this area is unclear, and as such, the College is unable to advise physicians how the Commission, Tribunal or Courts will decide cases where they must balance the rights of physicians with those of their patients.”
(that was one of my write-ins)
9. How should the expectations for physicians be revised? Are there any issues or topics related to physicians’ obligations under the Code that are not covered in the policy but should be? (Please feel free to elaborate on your answers above or touch on other issues relating to comprehensiveness.)
Take a strong stand defending the individual rights of physicians. Holding a medical license does NOT strip a physician of their human rights. BTW, including the right to free speech, which you already try to limit.
my response: Take a strong stand defending the individual rights of physicians. Holding a medical license does NOT strip a physician of their human rights. BTW, including the right to free speech, which you already try to limit.
See the other comment box for my other strong suggestions.
BTW, I am a lesbian, immigrant, so cast aside your possible prejudice as to the type of person who would write these comments.
(I added that last line to the above comment prior to submitting it to them.)
“…BTW, I am a lesbian, immigrant, so cast aside your possible prejudice as to the type of person who would write these comments…”
Vast majority couldn’t care less if you were a three-peckered Martian billy goat. But, I guess self-identification means a lot to some people.
The physician should be able to clearly communicate their objection and have it respected, not have to say that they are incompetent in order to get out of their moral dilemma. Claiming to be incompetent on treating some patients could easily be used against that physician later.
If a physician is pro-life and a patient’s medical history includes multiple abortions, that would be a lifestyle choice that is acceptable to discuss in turning that patient down as a member of the practice.
I have found that most of my political commentary is assigned to: old, white, male redneck, as an automatic response, then discounted, unless I identify. After I identify, it is seen as a race traitor type of thing, not a legitimate opinion, by the lefties.
I too am also a lesbian and an immigrant. But I don’t need to self identify as most folks would immediately peg me as an old white guy who digs chicks.
Look,
This example is from another profession though it parallels the arguments.
When buying a house, went to the lawyer from the neighborhood. The lawyer said that he does not do house buying stuff.
OK thank you.
Then he said just wait a minute, we do references, so here is another lawyer that will do it for you.
Should that constitute mental anguish situation?
Should that call for a counseling?
Should one call on victimhood?
Would that sound stupid?
The answer is self evident.
Three things.
First, and most important, this is a push by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to regain some gravitas and influence following their public drubbing from Mark Steyn et al. Bureaucracies never die, they just extend feelers in all directions until they find goodies.
Second, this is a tempest in a teapot. Patients pretty much never get turned down on moral/religious grounds. It just doesn’t happen in the regular run of things. Exceptions to the rule I’m sure exist, but you can probably count them on your fingers in the last 20 years.
Third, medical care is a SERVICE, not a right. It so happens that socialists have been riding this canard of “medical rights” since the insufficiently dead Tommy Douglas, and they seek to extend their grip on doctors by disallowing even the notion of conscience. This despite the fact that the issue arises as often as unicorns do.
But the more they tighten their grip, the more will squeeze through their fingers. Doctors are among the top echelon of intelligence in our society, the leading edge of the IQ curve. They will always find a method of maneuvering around whatever stupidity gets foisted on them by government. Usually this will be to the patient’s detriment, but one expects that in a government controlled system.
One positive sign I’ve seen is the use of “workplace safety” regulations to eject disruptive patients. You know the ones. They come in, they bully the staff, they throw their (usually considerable) weight around, they stand in the middle if the office and scream at the top of their lungs: “I’M GONNA SUE!!!!!!!!!!” Well, they have started getting bounced out of all kinds of places for creating an “unsafe work environment”.
This is the type of regulatory judo you’re going to be seeing a lot more of in future, as doctors with the urge to serve continue to retire or move on to other careers. The ones who are left see it as a job, not a calling. Perfect doctors for a bureaucratic socialist system.
If the Indians had the brains of a chicken they would build for-profit five star private hospitals on their reserves all over Canada, and offer medical tourism to the entire world. See a need, fill a need. They would clean up.
Survey completed; Identified myself as a retired senior citizen taxpayer. Checked off neither care to respond where appropriate.
Did ask the physicians to set an example in compensation expectations. Generous but not exploitive, after all do members of the medical professions think they are teachers.
Did comment on the trend for Specialists to cocoon from family doctor referrals.
cheers;
I have to disagree with part of what you say, Phantom. Medical care IS a right in this country; it became such the very day Canadians were offered “free” public healthcare. And as a publicly compensated health professional, doctors should be asked (by government, not by individual patients) to perform whatever duties are expected of them in providing this “free” healthcare. It’s the nature of the beast, I suppose. I don’t like our system but it’s all we have at the moment. And until we have a different healthcare system where medical professionals can charge clients directly for their services, this is the hand they’re (ie. doctors) dealt.
PS – I’ve been telling every Indian band member I know for the past 15 years to build private hospitals on their reserves. I like your phrase “medical tourism”… I’m gonna use that!
The College of Physicians and Surgeons doesn’t need to review in respect of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
The Ontario Human Rights Code needs to be extirpated!
The College of Physicians and Surgeons is a SELF REGULATED PROFESSION; FULL STOP!
I wouldn’t want my physician to be beholden to a bunch of meddling bureaucrats, any more than they are already.
I would only add that “LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE!” should be capitalized.
This is another example of “bureau-crap-tivia creep” inserting itself into the patient/doctor relationship where it has precisely no business.
People go to the doctor because they have a TRUST relationship with the physician. Bureaucratic interference is a violation of that trust relationship.
“The law in this area is unclear, and as such, the College is unable to advise physicians how the Commission, Tribunal or Courts will decide cases where they must balance the rights of physicians with those of their patients.”
Yes, and the law should stay unclear because because most sane people will reject the OHRC jurisdiction in the patient doctor relationship.
Furthermore, the freedom of conscience and religion is a FUNDAMENTAL freedom and we don’t need another layer of dysfunctional bureaucrats to ‘mediate’ at great taxpayer expense what the doctor and patient can effectively resolve themselves with existing legislation.
Not only is the OHRC redundant, they are effectively USELESS.
At a minimum I expect my doctor to observe the restrictions of the Criminal Code, does not engage in torture or mutilation, is a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in good standing, and is avidly competent in the area of medicine in which they choose to practice.
Given my experience, with my unlearned ‘friends’ at Revenue Canada, a bureaucrat is the last person you would trust wrt to the patient/doctor relationship. I would sooner have them exercise their jurisdiction in Outer Mongolia.
The rest I can sort out for myself, but I still don’t understand why I have to wait until next November to see a specialist for my shoulder joint.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I mostly agree with you whole comment except for “this is the hand they’re (ie. doctors) dealt.”
If anyone can change this Soviet style system we have foisted upon us it is the doctors.
I’ve seen them use collective action when it comes to funding or influencing the system and they’re certainly capable of bringing about privatization by the same methods.
Problem is, most doctors I’ve met believe in socialized medicine, generally.
Well. I guess somebody has to say it…..the difference between God and a Doctor? God doesn’t think He is a Doctor.
And kyla…guess I’m a lesbian also,as I prefer or@l s3x with women. Oh wait. I’m a guy.
A doctor could refuse a certain procedure on medical grounds and STILL get punished.
Too much politics, not enough sense.
So…you’re discounted either way, right? Which says a lot more about the discounters than it does about the discounted.
The point is this: the validity of an informed opinion should be measured by the strengths of the arguments it supports and sustains. The lifestyle or birthplace of the originator matters not a whit. That stuff only counts on a federal government job applications.
Kyla the SuperGrrrrl said: “I have found that most of my political commentary is assigned to: old, white, male redneck, as an automatic response, then discounted, unless I identify.”
You are fully committed to playing life at the “Hard” setting, aren’t you? ~:) Is Marvel using you as the model for the new Thor?
I actually -am- an old white male redneck, but I have to say my experience of being dismissed out of hand parallels your own. Often times with some sneering and snickering for accompaniment. Never gets easier.
That’s why I decided to smile and say nothing whenever possible some years ago, after a lifetime of idiot liberals f-ing me over. Those people are inferior intellects. They can’t appreciate a well delivered argument, or even separate fact from wishful thinking. That’s why they are liberals. It suits their IQ.
As the saying goes,”Never miss a good chance to shut up.”
But that’s just for MeatSpace. In the Intertubes the best defense is to give ’em both barrels and reach for your New York reload. Because on the Internet, nobody can tell you’re in your jammies.
I believe the CPSO is asking for this survey to see what people feel if docs get sued by the HRCs, specifically with regards to “dying with dignity” or active euthanasia. The conscience issue with birth control and abortions have been well taken care of in the field without HRC help, BTW.
I think it won’t take long, but docs will be forced to self-identify if they will write prescriptions for and pharmacists will be forced to dispense drugs used for active euthanasia.
I completely agree. The argument itself should carry all the weight. I’ve seen way too many white men completely ignored, simply because of their race and gender.
One of the stupidest things ever, is that the very people who claim that we have to filter everything through the lens of race, class, and gender, will often teach classes claiming that race and gender do not really exist and are social constructs.
I would like to see Loki’s opinion on this.
Where “political correctness” is concerned, contradictory nonsense isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.