Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors
by National Post
Thanks to Brian Burgess for the link.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=726616
Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors
Ontario physicians could be stripped of their right to exercise religious or moral conscience if a new set of guidelines is accepted by their regulating body next month, critics say.
Doctors across Canada are now allowed to opt out of such things as prescribing birth control or morning-after pills or doing abortions when it goes against their conscience. Physicians are also allowed to refuse to do referrals in such cases.
But a new draft proposal from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario could change that for doctors in the province.
"I'm really concerned with the new principle that the college is promulgating and that is that doctors do not have the right to be guided in the conduct of the practice by their conscience," said Joseph Ben-Ami, president of the Centre for Policy Studies, an Ottawa-based think tank. "That's a sweeping broad principle to establish -- and once you've established it the field is wide open for further changes."
For example, he said a doctor might refuse to help a same-sex couple to use reproductive technology to have a child.
"There are a lot of doctors who feel uncomfortable with this and think it's detrimental to the child's welfare down the road. The way were reading this draft document is a doctor could be hit with a misconduct" if the new rules are adopted.
Some of the provisions included in the draft document are:
• [A] physician's responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, [so] there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical services the require."
• "Physicians should be aware that decisions to restrict medical services offered ... or to end physician-patient relationships that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the Code and/or constitute professional misconduct."
• "Tell patients about their right to see another physician with whom they can discuss their situation and ensure they have sufficient information to exercise that right. If patients or potential patients cannot readily make their own arrangements to see another doctor, physicians must ensure arrangements are made, without delay, for another doctor to take over the case."
Rene Leiva, a Catholic family doctor in Ottawa, and a former board member of the Canadian Physicians for Life, said if the new rules were adopted it would make it nearly impossible for him to operate in the province.
"This would put a burden on physicians like myself to conform to a view that basically puts my conscience under somebody's else's power," said Dr. Leiva. "And the key aspect is moral integrity and the right of physicians to act in a way that does not harm the patient.
Jill Hefley, a spokeswoman for the college, said the reason for the draft was because of changes being made to the Ontario human rights system that could see doctors facing more complaints from patients who feel they are being discriminated against.
She said the draft document was a way of alerting doctors that they could be facing more legal issues from the human rights system.
But Mr. Ben-Ami said that explanation makes no sense.
"If this was just a matter of cautioning members of the college that there may be some problems in exercising their conscience that would be fair," he said. "They seem to go from that into a discussion about professional misconduct and then setting out guidelines about what is misconduct and that becomes very problematic to us because I don't think you can make a sweeping declaration that a doctor or any professional has to ignore matters of conscience in the conduct of their affairs. I don't think this has been thought through."
The Ontario Medical Association, the professional group that represents doctors, would not comment but said they are sending a submission to the college next week.
It is believed that Ontario would be the only province to change its conscience guidelines if the new rules are adopted.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=726616
Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors
Ontario physicians could be stripped of their right to exercise religious or moral conscience if a new set of guidelines is accepted by their regulating body next month, critics say.
Doctors across Canada are now allowed to opt out of such things as prescribing birth control or morning-after pills or doing abortions when it goes against their conscience. Physicians are also allowed to refuse to do referrals in such cases.
But a new draft proposal from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario could change that for doctors in the province.
"I'm really concerned with the new principle that the college is promulgating and that is that doctors do not have the right to be guided in the conduct of the practice by their conscience," said Joseph Ben-Ami, president of the Centre for Policy Studies, an Ottawa-based think tank. "That's a sweeping broad principle to establish -- and once you've established it the field is wide open for further changes."
For example, he said a doctor might refuse to help a same-sex couple to use reproductive technology to have a child.
"There are a lot of doctors who feel uncomfortable with this and think it's detrimental to the child's welfare down the road. The way were reading this draft document is a doctor could be hit with a misconduct" if the new rules are adopted.
Some of the provisions included in the draft document are:
• [A] physician's responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, [so] there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical services the require."
• "Physicians should be aware that decisions to restrict medical services offered ... or to end physician-patient relationships that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the Code and/or constitute professional misconduct."
• "Tell patients about their right to see another physician with whom they can discuss their situation and ensure they have sufficient information to exercise that right. If patients or potential patients cannot readily make their own arrangements to see another doctor, physicians must ensure arrangements are made, without delay, for another doctor to take over the case."
Rene Leiva, a Catholic family doctor in Ottawa, and a former board member of the Canadian Physicians for Life, said if the new rules were adopted it would make it nearly impossible for him to operate in the province.
"This would put a burden on physicians like myself to conform to a view that basically puts my conscience under somebody's else's power," said Dr. Leiva. "And the key aspect is moral integrity and the right of physicians to act in a way that does not harm the patient.
Jill Hefley, a spokeswoman for the college, said the reason for the draft was because of changes being made to the Ontario human rights system that could see doctors facing more complaints from patients who feel they are being discriminated against.
She said the draft document was a way of alerting doctors that they could be facing more legal issues from the human rights system.
But Mr. Ben-Ami said that explanation makes no sense.
"If this was just a matter of cautioning members of the college that there may be some problems in exercising their conscience that would be fair," he said. "They seem to go from that into a discussion about professional misconduct and then setting out guidelines about what is misconduct and that becomes very problematic to us because I don't think you can make a sweeping declaration that a doctor or any professional has to ignore matters of conscience in the conduct of their affairs. I don't think this has been thought through."
The Ontario Medical Association, the professional group that represents doctors, would not comment but said they are sending a submission to the college next week.
It is believed that Ontario would be the only province to change its conscience guidelines if the new rules are adopted.
Comments 51 - 100 of 229 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #232238 by Jesus86 on August 17, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Bluemosquito is a truebeliever. He spouts the comforting myths of Canadian defenders of socialized medicine, while ignoring the evidence.For example, he claims that "everyone has access to health care" in Canada. He means, if they don't die first. In Canada, medical care is not rationed with the price mechanism, it is rationed with the waiting-list mechanism. And because the price = $0, it is over-consumed and consumption patterns are grotesquely distorted.
In fact, some years ago the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec's socialized medical system involved an unconstitutional abridgement of Quebecers' right to life and security of person because it allowed people to die or suffer unconscionably on the waiting lists. The same challenge is presently going through the courts in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia.
Bluemosquito is correct that Canadians have the option of buying their medical treatments in the U.S. That is in fact what Canadian politicians do, even while they denounce those of their subjects who vote for political parties that would give them the option of buying private medical care.
The misinformation and hypocrisy of the self-styled "Friends of Medicare" is dangerous. Get the facts before buying this snake oil.
Other Comments by Jesus86
53. Comment #232246 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:29 pm
he claims that "everyone has access to health care" in Canada. He means, if they don't die first.
Well there wouldn't be much point in providing health care to a dead person now would there?
Sorry, couldn't resist... just being a smart-ass.
Other Comments by J Mac
54. Comment #232301 by BlueMosquito on August 17, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Jesus86 writes:"For example, he claims that "everyone has access to health care" in Canada. He means, if they don't die first. In Canada, medical care is not rationed with the price mechanism, it is rationed with the waiting-list mechanism. And because the price = $0, it is over-consumed and consumption patterns are grotesquely distorted."
The price is NOT $0 - this is a complete fallacy. The medical care is provided for through our taxes. So, just as a person in the US pays for his/her HMO - some of those services which he/she may never use. Often times this is deducted off a payroll cheque.
I pay for those services which I may or may not use as part of my income tax. (And yes... I'd ALWAYS like to pay less tax - but at what cost?)
A surprisingly large number of people on wait-lists do NOT die on them. Again, a very right-wing fallacy. Such wait list statistics refer to organ donation by and large - and this wait time is NOT governed by money - but by need and tissue type. Very few Canadians are waiting extremely long to access care, where it adversely affects their health.
Where Canadians are waiting longer to access services it usually boils down to a funding issue and/or the distance between communities.
If this were true we would see Canadians dying EARLIER than those in countries without socialized medicine. The actual statistics don't show this at all.
You may want to also factor in how many people survived or were treated, and recieved a better quality of life because they were able to recieve treatment - when they could not pay for it.
"In fact, some years ago the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec's socialized medical system involved an unconstitutional abridgement of Quebecers' right to life and security of person because it allowed people to die or suffer unconscionably on the waiting lists. The same challenge is presently going through the courts in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia."
The court cases were NOT brought upon by the citizens... they were, and are, being bankrolled by Pharmaceutical and Medical Companies. I am quite familiar with the one in Ontario.
I would also like a direct reference for this, because most provincial care systems are very similar - if it was found to be unconstitutional - it would have destroyed ALL provincial Health Care systems. But this has not happened.
The system is by no means perfect, and in fact, a two tiered system may work better - if of course you're priveledged enough to be born into a situation where you can access the "paid for care".
Am I am true believer in what Americans call "Medicare"?
Yes... I am. I will not apologize for such either.
Other Comments by BlueMosquito
55. Comment #232328 by Jesus86 on August 17, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Bluemosquito:You are being disingenuous when you say the price of medical treatments is not $0 because people pay through their taxes. This shows that the COST of medical treatment is non-zero; but the price faced by consumers is still $0. Consumers will have to pay their taxes whether they go to a doctor or not; the choice to use a medical procedure therefore is priced at $0.
I used the example of people dying on wait lists because it illustrates the problem most dramatically. But everyone on a wait list -- and there are hundreds of thousands of them in Canada -- is suffering or being less productive to some lesser degree. Otherwise, the treatment wouldn't be "medically necessary" and it wouldn't be covered by the plan.
You seem to think that illness-treatment is the only contributing factor to wellness outcomes. You need to investigate your assumptions here.
The legalities of the SCC decision in Quebec are complex, but the nub of it is this: Medical care is a provincial jurisdiction, and every province has its own, somewhat different, governing legislation. They also have their own levels of funding and their own definitions of what is "medically necessary." Therefore, a ruling in one province does not automatically apply to the others -- each case has to be tried on its merits. But the principles the SCC used to decide the Quebec case are clear enough to everyone but the Provincial Heath Ministers in the other provinces that it would be a big surprise if these other cases didn't turn out the same way.
You are wrong to assert that the cases in Ontario, Alberta, and B.C. are being funded by large drug companies. They are being supported by a small non-profit institution called the Canadian Constitutional Foundation.
Besides, are you implying that the (socialistic) SCC is in the pockets of the "large drug companies"?
Other Comments by Jesus86
56. Comment #232342 by AllanW on August 18, 2008 at 1:09 am
Catching up after a nights sleep.
Comment #232057 by Apathy personified
Probably all three but predominantly option 3 in my opinion.
Comment #232061 by Jesus86
'I'm disturbed by the latent fascism inherent in so many of the posts on this thread.'
You can diagnose fascism from that distance? Man, you must be a fantastically equipped expert. Or just jaw-droppingly inane. You make some decent, interesting points (subsequently blown-away by secondsoprano and Bluemosquito ) but consistently miss the point. See post # 42 by Mr. Forrest for the answers.
Comment #232065 by J Mac
'I think that goes a little beyond hyperbole into the realm of bullshit.'
Nice of you to say so but examine the facts; significant portions of society are religious. Significant proportions of those of a religious persuasion really do accept literal bible interpretation and support faith-healing. Of the non-Christian proportion of the population another large percentage support woo of all kinds from crystal energy to homeopathic remedies. So just how much of the population do you think can and should rationally juggle resource-allocation decisions for the medical services? Once you open the door to non-experts to decide what treatments are available or to set priorities for treatment and, even worse, research and development priorities, you end up with anarchy.
BTW nice comment #'s 51 and 54 Bluemosquito.
Jesus86, no-one is saying that medical practitioners shouldn't have choices. They just shouldn't be able to foist their own religious delusions on the public. See the points made by skip and others.
Other Comments by AllanW
57. Comment #232356 by John Desclin on August 18, 2008 at 2:09 am
to comment 42 above by Mr Forrest:you are absolutely right. That's what I was taught all along my medical studies (in Belgium), rather long ago.
Besides, female circumcision cannot be viewed as a medical act intended to promote health. What should be the reason for the doctor to perform it? The delusion of his client? (not patient!)
Providing medical care is not quite the same as providing any some kind of paid service.
Other Comments by John Desclin
58. Comment #232391 by k1mgy on August 18, 2008 at 3:08 am
"Imagine a pilot who for religious reasons refuses to fly on a Saturday. In the middle of the flight at 12:00AM the pilot shuts down the engines and lets the plane crash because he/she believes that his/her conscience is more important than that of the hundreds of passengers." ..It would happen only once.
Other Comments by k1mgy
59. Comment #232403 by Tycho the Dog on August 18, 2008 at 4:03 am
I don't understand the details here. Jesus86 seems to be saying that there is no provision for 'private' healthcare in Ontario, only what the state provides - free at point of delivery, and funded through taxation. Is this the case? Other Comments by Tycho the Dog
60. Comment #232423 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 18, 2008 at 5:24 am
Witness the final abortion of socialized medicine. I think we all know of one incident where doctors were told to lay aside their consciences.This sickens me beyond my capacity to say. On what, exactly, do we depend when we go to the doctor if not his conscience? And who's going to get the grand job of deciding what is and is not acceptable? In whom will the massive power of the collective conscience rest?
Forty-plus years ago there were those who knew where the socialization of medicine would go, and that this would be it's final outcome. They were ignored by fatuous, self-righteous fools. Well, here's the conclusion.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
61. Comment #232435 by Mr. Forrest on August 18, 2008 at 5:52 am
I find it interesting to note that the abolishment of personal bias from medical diagnosis and treatment is treated as if the doctors would now be free to cut up their patients at will with scalpels or conduct horribly unethical research.THIS IS NOT THE CASE!
All this legislation would do, as I see it, is to throw out considerations that have NO medical value. Would you want your doctor to decide your treatment based on his interpretation of The lord of the rings, Sherlock Holmes or the latest episode of The Simpsons?
I sure as hell wouldn't, and thats because I want advice not rooted in fiction but in FACT. and the only facts that matter in medicine should be MEDICAL facts. We dont build rockets or cars based on fiction, why should we treat diseases on that basis?
What this is, is the typical "you can't be good without religion"-fallacy.
Other Comments by Mr. Forrest
62. Comment #232445 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 18, 2008 at 6:13 am
All this legislation would do, as I see it, is to throw out considerations that have NO medical value. Would you want your doctor to decide your treatment based on his interpretation of The lord of the rings, Sherlock Holmes or the latest episode of The Simpsons?
I should not go to such a doctor, and nor would any reputable medical school pass him.
No, the issue isn't about religion, but about the mind. Do you really think you can force someone else's mind? And even if you could, on what would you count when you enter his office?
And to whom would the power of this collective conscience be given? I still have no answer to that.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
63. Comment #232451 by phasmagigas on August 18, 2008 at 6:27 am
I have to disagree. Should a doctor be forced to perform a female circumcision for a patient that desires it? Though a doctor could refuse in Ontario due to the legality of the procedure, a doctor practicing in Nigeria wouldn't have that excuse.
if i went to a doctor and said 'please amputate the end of my finger' they would of course refuse, if i said 'please remove my foreskin' they should of course refuse (both unnecessary procedures), these mutilations, along with female circumcision could be carried out by plastic surgeons and given no more import than face lifts and botox. No regular physician should have to perform reasonably unnecessary procedures, thats got nothing to do with beliefs.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
64. Comment #232453 by BlueMosquito on August 18, 2008 at 6:34 am
Tycho:"Jesus86 seems to be saying that there is no provision for 'private' healthcare in Ontario, only what the state provides - free at point of delivery, and funded through taxation. Is this the case?"
Essentially - yes. In Ontario, and mnay other provinces (I have lived in 2) the provincial government has a list of 'necessary' procedures - these are fully funded by the government, with no up front cost by the user. Other optional procedures (dentistry, some plastic surgery, etc) are paid for by the patient. The list certainly is imperfect, as mamograms are funded but PSA tests for prostate cancr are not.
I would argue that the cost is NOT $0. Many customers in the US on health insurance plans do not pay when they recieve services - as they have already paid into the health care plan. This is simply what Canadians do when we pay our taxes - a portion of our Federal AND Provinical income taxes go and fund these services.
So we do 'pay' for them. We just don't have to write a cheque when we go to the hospital.
Despite jesus86's claims the wait lists are NOT inordinately long. There are wait lists for certain things in ALL countries. Most wait lists in Canada are due to:
1) Specialist shortage. For example in my local metropolis there are only 4 dermatologists. Yet a relative recently had a suspicious spot removed, and had to wait 2 weeks. Hardly life endangering.
2)Funding. In Ontario hospitals now must raise a large proportion of their own funds for diagnostic equipment such as an MRI. Smaller, less affluent areas obviously will have trouble raising these funds. For example the next county over is raising funds for one - with a population of around 50,000. The county next door has about 10, and a population exceeding 1/2 million.
Other Comments by BlueMosquito
65. Comment #232456 by Bonzai on August 18, 2008 at 6:38 am
The wait list is hardly an argument for private health care. In a for profit system they have a short wait lists because they don't allow those who don't have the money to get in the queue in the first place. It is hardly a proof of efficiency. Other Comments by Bonzai
66. Comment #232457 by phasmagigas on August 18, 2008 at 6:43 am
part of the problem here is that something as generally innocuous as giving birth control pills are put in the same bracket as termination. Other Comments by phasmagigas
67. Comment #232460 by AllanW on August 18, 2008 at 6:48 am
let me rephrase that for you, phasmagigas;
the problem here is that a religious view based on supernatural convictions is put in the same bracket as evidential science.
There, that's better.
Other Comments by AllanW
68. Comment #232468 by utelme on August 18, 2008 at 7:07 am
I once had an interesting conversation with a doctor when I made the point that he charged like a wounded bull for 3 minutes of his time. He made the comment that he treated his job as a business and that that was his main concern. This doesn't mean that he didn't do his job well, just that morality wasn't his only concern. A fat wallet can make you do your job better. One of the reasons touted for a dislike of socialized medicine is that when you pay for it you get a better service and that doctors in the private health system are of a better quality. I don't think that there is any evidence of that. Having tried both systems I've found the doctors that I've dealt with of a similar standard. Just try and mention to the practitioner in private practice that you're broke and see how much his morality comes to the fore. Personally, I think it's easy enough to use a telephone and find out if the doctor will help or can recommend someone who will. I don't think that forcing someone to abandon their personal principles will help you to obtain good medical help. I think that I would feel at least a little uncomfortable having a serious procedure done by someone that I suspected of having a serious dislike of performing it. Just as an aside, in my younger days I used anabolics and when the doctor wouldn't prescribe them I'd just find one that did. My wife had an amniocentesis procedure with my second child and the obstetrician stated that he would not abort if we were considering it in the case of chromosomal abnormalities in the child. I asked him if many chose that course in that event and he said that approx ninety percent of patients did. However, he said that he would refer me to someone that did the procedure if we required it. That was fine by me. He maintained his conscience and had we needed it, we would have received the service we required. System worked without any need of forcing anyone to do something they didn't want to do. My 2 cents worth.Other Comments by utelme
69. Comment #232478 by NewEnglandBob on August 18, 2008 at 7:34 am
41. Comment #232133 by skipDoctors who refuse to supply services because of matters of conscience currently have a luxury that many others in our society do not have. They are spoiled.
For example, imagine a hydro electric utility worker who feels it is against her conscience connect an abortion clinic to the power grid because of the implications. They are not allowed to refuse this work, so it gets done. End of story.
How about a City worker who refused to turn on the water system for an abortion clinic. They too would be disciplined and water would be turned on.
Your examples are wrong. The hydro electric utility worker can refuse. He/she will be fired but that is OK.
Using any example of a monopoly like city workers is not valid. There is no alternative for service.
If a plumber or electrician doesn't like your views on whatever and refuses to service you - that is fine, there are alternatives. When there are alternatives as there are for medical care, then indentured servitude is not necessary.
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
70. Comment #232481 by ZT on August 18, 2008 at 7:39 am
The Doc is in a position of trust to provide everything that is in the patient's best interests.
This is based entirely on their health not their desires or beliefs.
An individual who commands specific treatment should pay privately and a Doc who refuses treatment or advice because of personal bias shouldn't be a doctor.
Simple.
Take the following scenario-
Doc refuses morning after pill and referal becuase he views patient as a whore who deserves to burn in hell for having sex out of marriage and attempting to murder her unborn child.
Completely mental right!
anything that prevents this is good news for humanity.
say it was the following-
Doc refuses morning after pill and referal becuase patient is a young african carrabian women.
still mental but she could promptly sue the pants off the clinic and the doc for breach of professional responsibility, rasict abuse and ill treatment or something and get masses of compensation. Doc would get struck off and the surgery would get an unsavory reputation.
religion should have no pride of place in healthcare( or anywhere in the real world for that matter) just like racism or any other intollerant worldview.
Other Comments by ZT
71. Comment #232482 by irate_atheist on August 18, 2008 at 7:39 am
68. Comment #232468 by utelme -
It is the thin edge of the wedge. What if his clinic is staffed by people he has chosen for their particular 'moral' outlook? And you don't find out until it's too late?
What if an emergency abortion is required to save a mother's life and no other doctor can quickly be rushed to help and he won't? Perhaps he would be OK in this case, but he may be overly prejudiced to save the unborn fetus at the risk of the mother's life.
These are extreme cases, I'l admit, but since when did being a public servant include - at the very least - inconveniencing the public - or, at worst, endangering them because of supernatural beliefs.
When did that become acceptable?
The doctor not prescribing anabolics may have been better versed in their side-effects than the one that did and was concerned for the long-term well being of his patient. He may have read an article on the subject that raised concerns. The oher doctor may have read the same article but decided the risk-reward calculation was in your favour. I doubt either cated the way they did did it because doing so was prohibited or encouraged in Leviticus.
Would it be acceptable for a Jehovah's Witness to become a doctor and then refuse to give a life-saving blood transfusion resulting in someone's death? All because his fairy tale claims it is wrong to do so and, regrettably, at two in the morning no one else is around to do it instead?
The edge may seem thin - but the rest of the wedge is too thick to be allowed a way in.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
72. Comment #232489 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 18, 2008 at 7:50 am
I notice that there are certain smiling and self-righteous supporters of slavery here. Case in point:Doctors who refuse to supply services because of matters of conscience currently have a luxury that many others in our society do not have. They are spoiled.
For example, imagine a hydro electric utility worker who feels it is against her conscience connect an abortion clinic to the power grid because of the implications. They are not allowed to refuse this work, so it gets done. End of story.
skip who the hell are you to declare that someone is not allowed to refuse work? What are you going to do if they still refuse? Force them? Force someone to work? There is a name for this.
A man who's willing to work under compulsion isn't safe to be trusted in a stockyards, let alone an operating table. Who the hell are you to treat human beings, let alone human beings of this quality, like this?
Would it be acceptable for a Jehovah's Witness to become a doctor and then refuse to give a life-saving blood transfusion resulting in someone's death? All because his fairy tale claims it is wrong to do so and, regrettably, at two in the morning no one else is around to do it instead?
Yes, it would, irate. It would be his absolute right. And it would be the right of the patient to go to another doctor, and it is also the right of a medical college not to grant a license to him.
There are, as I see it, two fundamental realizations that make up human adulthood: 1) Realizing that reality is what it is, that it is an absolute not to be escaped, and 2) understanding that no human life exists for the benefit of another.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
73. Comment #232493 by J Mac on August 18, 2008 at 8:01 am
Ah yes. Gotta love when someone sees something they don't like and they suddenly associate it with slavery or fascism.skip who the hell are you to declare that someone is not allowed to refuse work? What are you going to do if they still refuse? Force them? Force someone to work? There is a name for this.
Expecting people to actually work is evil! Waaaa, whine, cry.
Fuck that. Expecting people to work is a matter of responsibility. If they don't work no one has suggested taking them out for a few lashings or hanging them; but if they don't do their job they get FIRED!
Simple: do the job, or don't get paid.
This ultra-liberal bullshit about people wanting life served to them on a silver platter without ever having to lift a finger of their own to work just pisses me off.
People can choose to do or not do whatever they want, but they are not exempt from responsibility.
"also the right of a medical college not to grant a license to him. " Thats the idea were talking about here. Associating that with slavery is just absurd.
Other Comments by J Mac
74. Comment #232495 by irate_atheist on August 18, 2008 at 8:07 am
Fanusi -
So you are saying it is acceptable for a doctor to refuse life-saving treatment for a patient because of the doctor's personal beliefs resulting in that patient's death. How does a dead person go to someone else for treatment? Please explain.
I bet you follow a few company rules you'd rather flout under 'compulsion' than lose your job. Do you adhere to health and safety practices despite 'common sense' telling you there's no need to worry. Do you wander in to the office at any time of day becasue, well, you shouldn't be compelled to be there on time?
Why is it a doctor's right - someone paid to do a specific job - to take the money for doing that job but then refuse to do that job because of religion? Resign or do the job. It's a simple as that.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
75. Comment #232499 by MBC Morgan on August 18, 2008 at 8:17 am
Fanusi -Another consideration is that education is largely subsidized in Ontario, and that the same doctors who are taking advantage of tax dollars to receive their educations in the understanding that they will help everyone, regardless of belief or ethnicity, with what they need, as paid for almost entirely through government dollars, are neglecting to do so.
Although for some reason I think that you will see fault with subsidizing education as well as health care.
Other Comments by MBC Morgan
76. Comment #232500 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 18, 2008 at 8:17 am
I bet you follow a few company rules you'd rather flout under 'compulsion' than lose your job.
irate I can actually answer that: at a time of some considerable financial distress, I was told to remove a Star of David that I was wearing to commemorate Holocaust remembrance day. I resigned.
Why is it a doctor's right - someone paid to do a specific job - to take the money for doing that job but then refuse to do that job because of religion? Resign or do the job. It's a simple as that.
Of course. I never disputed that. If the doctor - say - in this question is working for someone, drawing his salary from a Hospital, for example, then, of course, it would be right and proper to fire him.
Termination of a contract for non-compliance is not force. Writing something into law is. That's the crucial difference.
Now, we are dealing with state-medicine, a government controlled business. This is exactly why I'm against socialized medicine; it inevitably means government control.
J Mac
This ultra-liberal bullshit about people wanting life served to them on a silver platter without ever having to lift a finger of their own to work just pisses me off
*dryly* That's the first time I've been called an ultra-liberal. I have never argued that you don't need to work to support your life. I have said that you are not entitled for force someone else to work. If you are running a hospital, you are entitled to employ or not employ or fire someone. That is your right.
The idea that trained doctors are ones who won't "lift a finger of their own" is just plain insane.
Morgan,
nother consideration is that education is largely subsidized in Ontario, and that the same doctors who are taking advantage of tax dollars to receive their educations in the understanding that they will help everyone, regardless of belief or ethnicity, with what they need, as paid for almost entirely through government dollars, are neglecting to do so.
Although for some reason I think that you will see fault with subsidizing education as well as health care.
Correct. This is what always happens with this sort of socialized nonsense. Government finance means government control. We are always told that 'no, no, it's got nothing to do with control'. Of course it does.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
77. Comment #232503 by J Mac on August 18, 2008 at 8:21 am
"Termination of a contract for non-compliance is not force. Writing something into law is. That's the crucial difference."No there is no law that will say that no one can refuse to give blood transfusions for example.
The law says that no DOCTOR can refuse such things. Aka no doctor being paid by state/government funds.
No force involved, its just clarifying the "contract" between the government and its employees.
If you are against socialized medicine fine; in fact I'm no fan either. But I would not call it slavery.
Other Comments by J Mac
78. Comment #232506 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 18, 2008 at 8:29 am
J Mac thanks, that clarifies my position greatly. Just from that last post, I don't think we have that many differences.My principle response was to Skip who said Doctor's are not entitled to refuse, and nor are construction workers, engineers etc. (see his comment about a hydroelectric dam).
Well, if it is a matter of clarifying the contract, that's something for political argumentation and deciding - and it's one of the problems with government control. I'd like to ask one more thing: What about private doctors are they, or are they not entitled to refuse?
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
79. Comment #232507 by irate_atheist on August 18, 2008 at 8:30 am
76. Comment #232500 by Fanusi Khiyal -
This is not analogous. Wearing the star probably didn't endanger anyone else's health. Specifically not wearing stars was - quite possibly - not in your contract. Wearing or not wearing the star had no bearing on the outcome for clients of your business.
But we come to the crucial part; You resigned. A doctor can do just the same. QED.
Edit: What if all doctors were privately employed - what if they all - unregulated as they would be in your ideal world - decided not to treat anyone called Fanusi? Or anyone with a father called Fanusi? Would that be OK?
Other Comments by irate_atheist
80. Comment #232509 by jenlaferriere on August 18, 2008 at 8:31 am
I belive that I was refused medical service in Ontario, based on religious consciousness...
When I was 17, mymother and I went to the doctor together to get me onto birth control. The doctor refused to do it. In ontario you need to be 14 in order to make your own medical decisions, yet he would not prescribe, even with my mother conscenting.
I am therefore, very much in favor of this new legislation...
Other Comments by jenlaferriere
81. Comment #232511 by J Mac on August 18, 2008 at 8:38 am
"What about private doctors are they, or are they not entitled to refuse? "It depends on the the system and the laws. In most nations a private practice quack can do whatever they want and refuse whatever they want for any reason they want.
But if they are to be licensed by the state, medical college, or other such association, then they must abide by the rules of that association. Abide by the rules, or resign/relinquish their license.
A construction worker cannot refuse to do construction and still keep the job. A plumber cannot refuse to do plumbing and keep his job. A doctor cannot refuse to practice medicine and still keep his job.
If the word "doctor" is to mean anything at all there must be some system of standards. Those who refuse the standards should not use the title.
In contrast homeopathic practitioners in america require no license, training, nor brain cells. I could open up a homeopathic shop in my garage tomorrow and claim to be a homeopath. These practitioners are certainly free to refuse whatever treatment they wish.
Other Comments by J Mac
82. Comment #232514 by MBC Morgan on August 18, 2008 at 8:45 am
Fanusi - In Ontario, all doctors are employed by the state, so as there are no private doctors, this question is moot.As to your rejection of socialized systems, that is all fine and dandy. Stay in the US. We, in Canada, by-and-large, however, value different things than our neighbours to the South, such as equal access to basic health care, and to having an educated population.
Other Comments by MBC Morgan
83. Comment #232517 by Tyler Durden on August 18, 2008 at 9:00 am
Comment #232514 by MBC Morgan
We, in Canada, by-and-large, however, value different things than our neighbours to the South, such as equal access to basic health care, and to having an educated population.And the winner, by knockout...
:)
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
84. Comment #232518 by William1w1 on August 18, 2008 at 9:01 am
I don't understand how someone could be for the privatization of health care. Everyone in a society should be looked after and treated as an equal when it comes to his or her health and safety. Suggesting that we Canadians should privatize health care is akin to suggesting that we privatize police or fire service. Imagine you're about to be murdered by your neighbour, and you dial 911. Before the operator sends help, however, she asks first if you have adequate insurance/funds to cover the police service. This is obviously ridiculous, as is refusing help to a terminally ill child because of a lack of funds.Americans may indeed have better and speedier health care for those that can afford it, but here we strive to treat everyone equally in the same way that preference would not be given on who to save if two houses were burning down.
Other Comments by William1w1
85. Comment #232522 by AllanW on August 18, 2008 at 9:09 am
There is a very interesting difference between the discussion on this thread and the one on pharyngula about the same topic. Most commenters here are from the UK or Canada and subscribe to socialised healthcare; on pharyngula where most of the commenters are american, the basic flavour is ' how can you force a doctor to provide anything in a free market?'. Although some people have mentioned the different starting-points, most don't understand how fundamental a difference it makes, as summarised nicely by MBC Morgan and William1w1 above. Other Comments by AllanW
86. Comment #232523 by J Mac on August 18, 2008 at 9:10 am
"akin to suggesting that we privatize police or fire service."Actually this has been done, and has worked wonderfully.
I don't disagree that privatized systems have flaws, as do the socialized systems. You can't compare the best of one to the worst of another. Each works to maximize its own strength and minimize its own weakness.
From what I know of canada's system it works great. But the universal health care proposed by americas democratic candidates is sickening, there are few things I am more opposed to.
Other Comments by J Mac
87. Comment #232524 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 18, 2008 at 9:10 am
In Ontario, all doctors are employed by the state, so as there are no private doctors, this question is moot.
*nods* And there you have it. This is exactly why socialized medicine is immoral. And impractical. I still have not heard an answer to this question: Are you really willing to trust your medical care to someone willing to work under compulsion, with his mind throttled and abrogated? Are you really willing to entrust your life to that?
That, incidentally, is what's wrong with the following argument:
What if all doctors were privately employed - what if they all - unregulated as they would be in your ideal world - decided not to treat anyone called Fanusi? Or anyone with a father called Fanusi? Would that be OK?
Actually, yes, that would be their right. Now, which is more likely: that I am going to come face to face with a world where all doctors, unaccountably, refuse to treat me? Or that you will meet - in the offices, on the operating table - only those doctors willing to work under compulsion? That isn't safe if they resent it, and still less if they don't.
I'll worry about your hypothetical if it ever comes to that. You'd be better placed to worry about this situation now.
But if they are to be licensed by the state, medical college, or other such association, then they must abide by the rules of that association. Abide by the rules, or resign/relinquish their license.
Scatch 'state' and I agree entirely. That's the point. In the same way that we hope to send our children to the best Universities, because we know that the degrees they get mean something, it is entirely and completely moral for a private organizations of doctors to lay down ground rules and to rescind their certification if someone violates those basic standards. And the individual has the ability to look, and check up on these different groups and see which organization has the best track record.
Oh, just returning to Morgan:
We, in Canada, by-and-large, however, value different things than our neighbours to the South
Such as being able to force other people to work, and to force those on whom your life depends to act against their mind and their conscience. Again, what do you think you are counting on when you go for medical checkup?
Incidentally, I'm not American. But I would observe, that if your citizenry is so educated, how come America keeps running rings around you and the rest of the world in every single field of science and technology?
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
88. Comment #232526 by NewEnglandBob on August 18, 2008 at 9:15 am
Jmac said:This ultra-liberal bullshit about people wanting life served to them on a silver platter without ever having to lift a finger of their own to work just pisses me off.
This is NOT something that any liberal says, ultra or otherwise. This is something that right wing conservatives fabricate when they have no real argument. It is a Karl Rove tactic.
Most of the other stuff that jmac says here is equally nonsensical (i.e.: plumber can not refuse work) and not worth discussing.
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
89. Comment #232529 by millsm on August 18, 2008 at 9:22 am
The qualification by the OMA is that recognized medical procedures needed by a patient cannot be refused by a physician...this does not require that a physician fulfill medically unnecessary demands or to perform illegal procedures such as female genital mutilation. The danger of religious dogma overriding medical need was graphically demonstrated when I was a RN in a Roman Catholic hospital in Canada. This hospital is in the center of downtown Vancouver where there is a high HIV incidence. The hospital administration issued a letter to all physicians practicing in the hospital informing them that if they prescribed or recommended the use of condoms to HIV infected patients, they would lose their privileges to practice in the hospital. This outrageous, lethal prohibition was placed upon physicians who had patients in a publicly funded primary care facility. The lying hypocrisy of religious control is a clear and present danger to public health and wellbeing.Other Comments by millsm
90. Comment #232530 by J Mac on August 18, 2008 at 9:25 am
Thanks for the insults Bob. But saying that someone cannot refuse to work and keep their job is not nonsensical.If you'd site any other background for your insults it would sure be more productive.
"Some of J Mac's statements are nonsensical; therefore all his statements are nonsensical." Even if you could prove the first half the second half does not follow. If you disagree with my statements say why. Either that or shut your fucking cock holster.
See how unproductive insults are.
---------------------
Fanusi I'm actually finding myself in agreemet with most of your more recent posts. However one point:
"Are you really willing to trust your medical care to someone willing to work under compulsion, with his mind throttled and abrogated? Are you really willing to entrust your life to that?"
While governments can be pretty screwed up I would rather have a doctors mind "throttled" by a regulatory agency staffed by other medical professionals than by a religious dogma that is not subject to question or review.
Other Comments by J Mac
91. Comment #232532 by J Mac on August 18, 2008 at 9:30 am
Ironically bob the quote of mine you referred to was meant as satirical or insulting. Even more ironic is that it was responding to fanusi's statements that doctors could refuse to work or else they were slaves.I met one hyperbole with another. But along with that I also added content to the discussion which I invite you to do.
Other Comments by J Mac
92. Comment #232534 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 9:34 am
Comment #232524 by Fanusi KhiyalAre you really willing to trust your medical care to someone willing to work under compulsion, with his mind throttled and abrogated?
Piffle. I have a local NHS surgery that is wonderful. My late father was treated with great skill and compassion in his last days.
You are just talking out of your bottom, I am afraid.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
93. Comment #232535 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 18, 2008 at 9:37 am
J MacWhile governments can be pretty screwed up I would rather have a doctors mind "throttled" by a regulatory agency staffed by other medical professionals than by a religious dogma that is not subject to question or review.
Well, you're pushing at an open door with me. That's another reason. Imagine the US employs this kind of socialized fiasco - say, under the Obama administration or whatever - that Morgan's so in favor of, and then the religious right again gets back in power. And they'll say: "Government has the power to override doctors' consciences? Okay, then: no more birth control. No embryonic stem cell research. Maybe even no blood transfusion." What're we going to do once we've dug that pit?
In a private system you can go elsewhere. You can't do that in a socialized one. Here's a hypothetical: say there's a really good Catholic heart surgeon. I'd go to him for heart surgery. However, when I need birth-control, I'd go elsewhere.
EDIT: I trust noone will think less of me if I don't engage with steve's infantile rhetoric, given his track record of reasoned debate with me so far. I will confine myself to saying that I could tell you no end of horror stories about the results of socialized medicine in the NHS, its effects both on doctors and patients. And even that's small potatoes compared with some of the things I've seen in other parts of the world (you can ask South African doctors what they think about socialized medicine).
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
94. Comment #232536 by J Mac on August 18, 2008 at 9:43 am
You make a reasonable point. Part of it gets at one of the reasons I am against such systems. However I think you are overstating the case: regulation does not need to mean BAD regulation."And they'll say: "Government has the power to override doctor's consciences?..."
No "government" should not have that right. Evidence based medicine and scientific research should have that right. "Government" should not be the dictatorial body you characterize it as. It should be a means of communication; those with the evidence and facts collected before them discussing and debating what treatments are ethical or not and appropriate or not. I DO support such regulation over willy-nilly every doctor for himself.
Taken to the extreme the idea of freedom of each doctor makes the whole profession meaningless. Yes a patient could research which doctors are good or bad. But to be fully educated on a doctors ability, in the absence of any regulatory bodies, the patient would have to have the equivalent to a doctors education to make the decision.
Other Comments by J Mac
95. Comment #232602 by Nairb on August 18, 2008 at 11:36 am
When I see a doctor it is not for his "moral wisdom"/"conscience". I dont give a f*** about his morals. It is for his scientific expertise regarding my physical health that I visit a doctor.
If his "concience" is a criteria for not doing his job then what next? His crystal ball, tarot cards ... :-)
His job and the reason he/she gets paid is to help people medically according to the rules, recomendations and best scientific knowledge of the profession.
Socialized medicine - (not sure what it means) seems to be getting a bad press.
My impression is most if not all countries have some element of solidarity built into their healthcare system.
In Europe I would say a large part of the cost of healthcare is supported by governemnet money and government run medical institutions.
In general these systems in Europe perform well.
See attached link to NYTimes on a comparison of countries.
http://www.mendocinohre.org/rhic/200708/nyt_medicalcare_20070812.pdf
I think the bottom line is how well the system is managed not whether it is "capitalist"/private or "socialist"/public.
***Edited fo clarity
Other Comments by Nairb
96. Comment #232623 by Sargeist on August 18, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Steve,Thanks heavens you said that. I thought I was starting to go mad, having wandered into some barmy world where none of the comments were making sense.
Other Comments by Sargeist
97. Comment #232682 by Border Collie on August 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Doctors should not be forced to do or not do anything. If they don't want to do a procedure for whatever reason the patient can just be referred to a doctor who will do it. How difficult is that? I don't see the problem. The problem becomes worse than the problem when a bunch of government wanker functionaries start telling doctors how to practice medicine. Do any of you want some government jerk-off telling YOUR doctor how to practice medicine on you? Other Comments by Border Collie
98. Comment #232691 by skip on August 18, 2008 at 1:45 pm
"skip who the hell are you to declare that someone is not allowed to refuse work? What are you going to do if they still refuse? Force them? Force someone to work? There is a name for this." - Fanusi Khiyal"Skip, Your examples are wrong. The hydro electric utility worker can refuse. He/she will be fired but that is OK." - NewEnglandBob
Ok my (American?) friends, let me explain this carefully and slowly.
In Canada the Ontario Human rights Code has no hierarchy, any one violation is as extreme as another. Therefore if a Doctor were to refrain from providing a referral to (let's say) an abortion clinic for religious reasons, they risk losing their medical licence.
They can either do it or lose the ability to practice medicine. They can lose their provincial medical licence. In that sense of the word they are "forced" to do it. There is no where else for them to work after they lose their medical licence. They would have to appeal in Ontario and move to another province and apply there, meanwhile they face bankruptcy etc.
A utility worker faces the exact same problem, they too can be fired for refusing to do such work because it too would be a contravention of the Ontario Human rights code. Of course they can still find work as an electrician,or plumber, (their indentured trades).
They are also "forced" to to it in the same sense, facing firing or discipline, but with less of a consequence than a doctor.
It is apparent that neither of you understand Canadian law. C,mon up for a visit we'll treat you nicely here. Of course you are free to refuse...
Other Comments by skip
99. Comment #232699 by eh-theist on August 18, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Being from Ontario and aware of what is going on here, I think the point is being completely missed.
Doctor's are not being forced to do anything. They have been given the ability to NOT do things based on their "beliefs" and the government is now seeing how wrong it was to give them that option.
Doctors are not being asked to do things which solid science backs as being unsafe for the patient. The new changes are simply stopping MDs from HARMING or putting their patient in danger of potential harm by objecting on moral or religious grounds. (The "moral" objection is a religious injection that is to imply that morals only come from religion. "Religious" is used because we, as caring Canadians, provide undue respect to such.)
Doctors are currently able to "object" and leave it at that. It has worked, quite well, in getting their "way" as many communities in Ontario are under serviced (I say this because I do work with the local healthcare professionals recruiting team) and patients can't really turn to other Doctors.
In my community a local "clinic" has made it clear that they are "not against" referring patients for abortions and that they will "consider" birth control options for patients. Some public backlash has happened - local Doctors (sky-fairy believing ones) have called for a government audit and for the public to boycott the clinic.
Unfortunately the clinic is now to a point where it is almost impossible to get in (I guess Doctors thought that they didn't have to worry about supply and demand :) )
During a recent meeting with local Doctors (who support our quest to find other practitioners), one of them said "If the government didn't give us an option to object, we'd be better off. I have to object because if I referred one of my patients and someone in my church found out, I'd be ostracized." The reality is that we have Doctors who feel that they are being FORCED to OBJECT!
The new requirements would force true objectors to refer to someone who would be more interested in the patient's needs than in their own personal beliefs. At that point, Doctors would simply prescribe birth control or refer patients for service where it was the best solution for the patient. We are headed in the right direction.
Other Comments by eh-theist
100. Comment #232702 by AllanW on August 18, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Many thanks for your comments eh-theist. Always good to get first-hand knowledge. Intersting to hear that some of the 'religious' medics feel the most pressure to conform to the inanities of their church doctrine; maybe it'll push them to reconsider their stance on these issues. Other Comments by AllanW
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
51. Comment #232218 by BlueMosquito on August 17, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Jesus86 wrote:"First, let's take away the citizen's right to purchase private health care from a qualified physician of his or her own choice, and force everyone to obtain their medical services from a monopolistic government provider."
Actually - no one in Canada is/was forced to NOT purchase private health care. In fact many do - they go to the United States. Regardless - the public health care system was instituted by Tommy Douglas to PROVIDE health care for ALL Canadians.
Prior to this access to health care was something only afforded to by the rich - and Tommy Douglas would have had a leg amputated if not for a specialist offering to do the operation for free as long as it could be attended by students.
This has led to an increase in doctors in many remote areas of Canada. While this is still a problem today, as professionals cluster in urban areas, everyone has access to health care.
It has also detached the Canadian medical scene from the heavy influence of the pharmacy companies south of the border, in driving up medical costs because of HMO's.
"Second, let's take away a qualified person's right to practice private medicine."
This is/was NOT done. Medical degrees from certain countries are not recognized. While I recognize this as VERY imperfect, it is done in other fields as, at times, standard differ from country to country in professions.
"The result is that in Canada, dogs generally have access to better and more timely medical treatment than humans, because veterinary medicine is provided in a free market."
Ridiculous and inflammatory comment. As a whole Canadians live longer and healthier lives than most countries in the world who have 'private' healthcare systems.
I personally do not see the furor. Perhaps I read the threads wrong - but doesn't the proposed changed allow a doctor to NOT perform a procedure, but instead require them to refer the patient?
Other Comments by BlueMosquito