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 1 - 50 of 229 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #231878 by EvidenceOnly on August 17, 2008 at 8:58 am
The patient pays the doctor for services. The conscience of the patient therefore supersedes the conscience of the doctor. If the doctor refuses to offer the services, that doctor has effectively resigned from his doctor practice.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. Would you want such a pilot go get a pilot license?
Certain jobs come with job criteria. If you cannot live with the job requirements, don't do the job. You have no right to unilaterally change the job requirements.
It is that simple.
When I pay for a service, I have the right to assume that the service provider will offer the service that goes with that profession.
Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
3. Comment #231899 by NewEnglandBob on August 17, 2008 at 9:44 am
I guess this article should be pair-bonded with the one about free will for sub-atomic particles.The particles have free will, but Ontario physicians may not??????
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
4. Comment #231900 by Nick6742 on August 17, 2008 at 9:45 am
This can work both ways though. If you're a male provider and a muslim comes in and demands that only a female doctor may examine his wife or that he must be present for the entire examination and you send them elsewhere, that could be a violation of this guideline depending on your interpretation. Other Comments by Nick6742
5. Comment #231901 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:48 am
The particles have free will, but Ontario physicians may not?
How free are they supposed to be. Saying "Ontario physicians may not mutilate patients for no reason" is limiting their freedom, but I don't see a problem there.
Fuck their "free will" they have to do their job.
Other Comments by J Mac
6. Comment #231903 by Choronzon on August 17, 2008 at 9:52 am
Hey everyone! This is my first post on this site, though I've been lurking about for a year or so.2. Comment #231878 by EvidenceOnly on August 17, 2008 at 8:58 am
The patient pays the doctor for services. The conscience of the patient therefore supersedes the conscience of the doctor. If the doctor refuses to offer the services, that doctor has effectively resigned from his doctor practice...
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.
Other Comments by Choronzon
7. Comment #231904 by Szymanowski on August 17, 2008 at 9:52 am
For example, he said a doctor might refuse to help a same-sex couple to use reproductive technology to have a child.Yeah, but I feel uncomfortable, because I think it's detrimental to everyone's welfare not to punch bigots in the face.
"There are a lot of doctors who feel uncomfortable with this and think it's detrimental to the child's welfare down the road.
Still, I think doctors should be allowed to conscientiously object, to ward against potential slippery slopes (if you were a surgeon would you want to be forced by law to circumcise a child, for example?)
Other Comments by Szymanowski
8. Comment #231906 by Logicel on August 17, 2008 at 9:54 am
Physicians are also allowed to refuse to do referrals in such cases. _____
There is absolutely no excuse for such behavior. However, if I had the bad luck to go to one of these blinkered doctors, I doubt that I would trust their referral anyway.
Other Comments by Logicel
9. Comment #231907 by NewEnglandBob on August 17, 2008 at 9:55 am
Fuck their "free will" they have to do their job.
I was not advocating for them to shun their job, I was just pointing out an absurdity.
A blanket rule, like the one proposed, is not a good idea. I see it as equivalent to them saying that a consultation with the holy spirit is mandatory before treatment. Physicians must have some room to practice their skills. Mr. Ben-Ami's comment is apropos.
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
10. Comment #231910 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 10:02 am
A blanket rule like "Do no harm" is a good idea.The blanket rule proposed which includes the likes of "physician's responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first" is a good idea.
Saying physicians can consult their imaginary friends to decide if a patient should be treated is not only a bad idea, but it is dangerous and unethical.
Other Comments by J Mac
11. Comment #231912 by The Architect on August 17, 2008 at 10:04 am
Comment # 231903 by Choronzon"Should a doctor be forced to perform a female circumcision for a patient that desires it?"
The key words here are for "a patient that desires it". If the patient is fully informed about the health risks and 100% consenting and it's their own decision to do it than yes, the doctor should perform it.
Other Comments by The Architect
12. Comment #231914 by The Schuermannator on August 17, 2008 at 10:05 am
Let me take a different approach to this argument. How about if we allow doctors to refuse performing any type of procedure they feel violates their values, morals, etc. but they have to disclose those rejected procedures in any advertisement, and must post their objections no further than the front door of their offices.
Even with only 1 or 2 objections I can imagine how many people would be turned off to going there for something simple or routine, and watch how many doctors choosingly change their ways or decide to pursue another profession.
Other Comments by The Schuermannator
13. Comment #231925 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 10:21 am
My feeling is (and that is all it is) that when, for example, the abortion act was passed in the UK back in the '60s, the allowance for doctors to conscientiously object to authorising the procedure for a woman (and to not to have to give reasons why they object, or to have to refer the patient to a named doctor who would not object) was a pragmatic one: viz. if we demand that all doctors do as the law permits, and require that they go against individual conscience, then we will find that large numbers of doctors leave the profession.I don't have any evidence for this thought of mine - as I said, it is just my feeling - but if it were the case that many doctors would simply resign if required to carry out certain procedures, then it might be best to let them object, simply because we get them doing other medical work, and there may simply not be enough trained non-objecting doctors around to fill the gaps.
However, my girlfriend is a junior doctor in the UK and, given the dreadful way they seem to be fucked about by the government's endless and pointless reforms, I sometimes think it would be "fun" (in a nasty, "now what are you going to do, you arseholes?" kind of way) if a large number of doctors did turn around one day and say, ok, so we can't go on strike, but we can quit and become plumbers.
Other Comments by Sargeist
14. Comment #231930 by Naturalist1 on August 17, 2008 at 10:27 am
Commenting on the 2nd post by EvidenceOnly it needs to be pointed out that your opening sentence:
"The patient pays the doctor for services."
:is not correct in Ontario, the juristiction within which this article is set.
Here in Ontario the province pays the doctor for his services, not the patient. Ours is a system of socialized medical services.
I really must agree with this decision as it reinforces a secular medical initiative based on the needs of all Ontarians. The doctor is effectively an employee of the province and is told what medical services are legal with our juristiction. These moves by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario will simply remove a doctors option to withdraw services for some interventions based on religious or cultural superstition.
Just my 2 cents.
Other Comments by Naturalist1
15. Comment #231934 by Choronzon on August 17, 2008 at 10:32 am
11. Comment #231912 by The Architect
The key words here are for "a patient that desires it". If the patient is fully informed about the health risks and 100% consenting and it's their own decision to do it than yes, the doctor should perform it.
How can a pre-pubescent girl really understand the choice she is making? I have no doubt that many parents can convince their young children that having the procedure is the right thing to do.
I'm not an expert on the law, but I believe that in the case of minors it's the parents who must give consent. What if the parents ask for it at an age where the child can't object?
I think the absolute worse thing that can happen to the medical profession is to begin to force doctors to act against their conscience. The potential dangers far outweigh any benefit we might gain.
Other Comments by Choronzon
16. Comment #231949 by bubbaj30 on August 17, 2008 at 11:00 am
When a doctor says no to something the patient needs, are they not, by extension, violating the Hippocratic oath they hold so dear, when they refuse to help a patient? Especially when they refuse to give a referral? In my honest opinion, they should be stripped of their Doctors license!Other Comments by bubbaj30
17. Comment #231951 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 11:03 am
"they should be stripped of their Doctors license! "Thats the key right there. They can certainly opt out of whatever they wish, and they certainly have free will (as much as anyone else does anyhow). But they are responsible for their actions. No faith based get-out-of-jail-free cards.
Other Comments by J Mac
18. Comment #231956 by fizhburn on August 17, 2008 at 11:09 am
If different doctors have different ideas about what harms the patient and what does not, at least some of the doctors will be violating the hippocratic oath. What's needed is a standardization of what does and what does not harm patients. If particular people cannot because of religious convictions perform or refrain from performing certain actions that help or harm the patient, they should not be in a position to do so. So for example Catholic doctors should stay out of general practice or family medicine where they might harm patients because of their incorrect beliefs about what reproductive health measures are or aren't harmful to their patients. The oath says to first do no harm, not to do no ``harm'' as defined according to one's mythological text. Other Comments by fizhburn
19. Comment #231961 by AllanW on August 17, 2008 at 11:17 am
Nice try Choronzon but no win; you are raising a false dichotomy as you yourself acknowledge. The 'female circumcision' argument fails as it is illegal to perform it in your jurisdiction. Full stop. It may be a discussion point for jurisdictions that are not western democracies but let them decide their own rules of practice.
Hippocratic oath first with guidelines on specific issues. These new rules second which I would hope would force medics to marginalise themselves through their own wackaloonery. Let's hope so anyway.
If you want the State to pay some of your wages then you do NOT get to choose who you treat or not treat. Set-up in private practice and exclusively treat other delusionals; let them pander to your prejudices not the general tax-paying public.
Other Comments by AllanW
20. Comment #231995 by Choronzon on August 17, 2008 at 11:59 am
9. Comment #231961 by AllanW on August 17, 2008 at 11:17 am
Nice try Choronzon but no win; you are raising a false dichotomy as you yourself acknowledge. The 'female circumcision' argument fails as it is illegal to perform it in your jurisdiction. Full stop.
It may be a discussion point for jurisdictions that are not western democracies but let them decide their own rules of practice.
Laws change. I think you have to examine each new power given to government, no matter how small. If the government in Ontario can force a catholic doctor to perform an abortion, then they can also force an atheist doctor to perform genital mutilation. Giving that particular power to the government may make it easier to obtain birth control and abortions, but the cost is too high.
I did acknowledge that a doctor in Canada wouldn't have to worry about that particular situation--but how does that change the morality of the situation? A claim was made that a doctor should always perform according to the patient's wishes, and I offered a situation in which doing so would be morally reprehensible to even most of the non-religious.
Other Comments by Choronzon
21. Comment #232019 by fsm1965 on August 17, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Hopefully this will be made part of the NHS charter.No opt-outs based on sky-fairies here...
Other Comments by fsm1965
22. Comment #232023 by AllanW on August 17, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I understand what comment you were reacting to; I would as well. I don't think doctors can or should be forced to treat patients. They should have choices. I just don't agree that the choices should be entirely free and dependent upon personal delusion. Norms established by the scientific professions are fine with me and if you can't operate within them then get out and find yourself an alternative that you can live with.So your example of a Catholic doctor being forced to give an abortion is equally false. They should have a choice; accept that abortions are available within certain strictly controlled guidelines as laid-down by the government and medical profession so either perform them or accept the consequences. That might only be to be removed from general practice where abortions are performed but it might be as strict as having the licence to practice medicine removed.
The morality of the situation is entirely hypothetical; you can come up with any number of ethical dilemmas (in fact medical ethics councils and meetings spend their time doing exactly that) but lets not delude ourselves that female circumcision on the national health service is one of the real dilemmas that a doctor in the west would face.
These powers are not 'new' as you imply. They are merely developing examples of clarification from the wide-ranging powers that governments and medical councils already enjoy; if they want to clarify specific responsibilities as situations demand then they are freely able to. There is no extension of government power in this situation; they have all the power they need already.
Other Comments by AllanW
23. Comment #232024 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 1:14 pm
"A claim was made that a doctor should always perform according to the patient's wishes"I agree that that claim was to simple, but it started right.
Could it be amended to state: A doctor should always perform according to the patients wishes to the extent allowable by law.
I suspect this version would be countered with the fact that laws are imperfect, but that is a reason to improve the laws, not a reason to allow doctors to do whatever they wish.
Other Comments by J Mac
24. Comment #232028 by AllanW on August 17, 2008 at 1:22 pm
The requirements of a doctor in general practice or in operation funded in any way by the state does not and should not, in my opinion, start with anything to do with the patient. The vast majority of patients are ignorant of medical science, that's why we have experts. They can, are and should be governed by the professional rules developed by the expert councils and ultimately enshrined in professional rules and the legal framework of the country; nothing else.Patients directing their own treatment? Only if you want to cause anarchy.
Other Comments by AllanW
25. Comment #232037 by Duff on August 17, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Anything that could possibly...nudge "superstitious" types out of medicine and into a more appropriate field would be a positive evolution. (pun intended.)I hear catholics make excellent plumbers and a friend tells me southern baptists are found in great numbers in the trucking industry.
Perhaps the 21st Century will finally be a thorough Enlightenment and we can push Religious Fuckwittery into the cellars and the church crypts where it belongs.
Other Comments by Duff
26. Comment #232039 by stephenray on August 17, 2008 at 2:00 pm
"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."No shit, sherlock. Sooner the better.
Other Comments by stephenray
27. Comment #232047 by aquilacane on August 17, 2008 at 2:19 pm
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.
This is a good example of why this law is needed. It is not up to a Doctor to decide whether or not it is right for same sex couples to have a child, but whether they are fit enough to. They have the right by law, the doctor's opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Never mind that there are several studies that show similar or greater success rates for children raised by same sex couples.
If a doctor doesn't want to follow all of the rules of reproductive health, they shouldn't be in reproductive medicine. Just as a heart surgeon who doesn't believe in pacemakers or artificial hearts, because they are machines or something, shouldn't be a heart surgeon.
Likewise, a doctor should only be able to refuse medical intervention if it is harmful to the patient, like circumcision; which should only be performed by a doctor for medical reasons, as it is a medical procedure.
In other words, a doctor must be forced to deny their religious or personal opinion if it counters the legal rights of the patient, as well as be empowered to override religious or personal beliefs of the patient if they promote non-medically needed procedures.
Any form of body deformation, such as earrings, should be illegal for people under the age of consent. I consider baby piercing a form of child abuse.
Other Comments by aquilacane
28. Comment #232052 by 8teist on August 17, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Shop around, get a proper Doctor,I`ve had to do that more than once. Other Comments by 8teist
29. Comment #232057 by Apathy personified on August 17, 2008 at 2:35 pm
What i don't get is why people are trying to bring in these provisions now - What has suddenly changed, from say 10 years ago, that warrants codes like this being drawn up?Is this just a case of: -
1. Society becoming too bureaucratic
2. Patients becoming more aware of their rights, or
3. A general increase in people (in this case doctors) asserting their religiosity?
Other Comments by Apathy personified
30. Comment #232061 by Jesus86 on August 17, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I'm disturbed by the latent fascism inherent in so many of the posts on this thread. Here's how it came about in Canada: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.
Second, let's take away a qualified person's right to practice private medicine.
Third, let's tell every practitioner within the government monopoly which services they are required to provide and which they are prohibited from providing, regardless of the wishes of either the practitioner or the patient.
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.
Taking away everyone's freedom does not justify taking away even more of everyone's freedom. Given freedom, some people will make choices some others consider to be bad ones. Given no freedom, everyone will be saddled with bad choices in the end. Take you pick.
Please, do yourselves a favour and go back to:
12. Comment #231914 by The Schuermannator on August 17, 2008 at 10:05 am
Other Comments by Jesus86
31. Comment #232065 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 2:45 pm
AllanW-"Patients directing their own treatment? Only if you want to cause anarchy. "
I think that goes a little beyond hyperbole into the realm of bullshit. Patients absolutely should have a say, that does not cause anarchy. You make it sound as if all treatments should be mandated, government can decide if someone is ugly enough to warrant cosmetic surgery, but the patient has no say. Someone will knock on your door and say "You're ugly, you will have to come in for treatment." If the patients in your idea of a hospital have no rights then you are a sick person indeed and I will go no where near such places.
Apathy-
Of your 3 items I suspect #3 is closest although the other two are certainly factors. Society is becoming polarized: the religious and the secular, each side is fighting for their way.
Other Comments by J Mac
32. Comment #232069 by ridelo on August 17, 2008 at 2:47 pm
11. Comment #231912 by The Architect on August 17, 2008 at 10:04 am
Comment # 231903 by Choronzon
"Should a doctor be forced to perform a female circumcision for a patient that desires it?"
The key words here are for "a patient that desires it". If the patient is fully informed about the health risks and 100% consenting and it's their own decision to do it than yes, the doctor should perform it.
And when the patient asks him to cut his head?
Other Comments by ridelo
33. Comment #232070 by Apathy personified on August 17, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Jesus86,Thanks for the background.
So it's the bureaucratic socialist monopoly on health care that has caused this to arise - and in the true tradition of governments they do all they know how, which is send a constant stream of codes, legislation and reforms at the medical profession, until it can no longer operate effectively.
Am i being too cynical here, or do i have the measure of it?
Edit:
J Mac,
Unfortunately, i've noticed a polarisation begin - subtle at first but it's becoming more pronounced. I think it's a defensive mechanism - each side becomes slightly more 'anti' the other and then the other side responds, and then it repeats.
Other Comments by Apathy personified
34. Comment #232074 by Nogodscanuck on August 17, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I looked up this "centre for policy studies" it is a pro-life fundy group. I think they have their own agenda.Other Comments by Nogodscanuck
35. Comment #232078 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:02 pm
"Unfortunately, i've noticed..."I agree with everything after that. Though I wouldn't say it is unfortunate. Our society, our world, will face some growing pains no doubt, but I think in facing this schism head on we will grow and rational thought will have an opportunity to thrive... either that or we'll all die at the hands of rabid religiots. Either way there will be no more having to hide in the shadows.
Other Comments by J Mac
36. Comment #232085 by Pattern Seeker on August 17, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Some of the "other" provisions included in the draft document are:• [A] physician's responsibility is to not be a raving lunatic who believes in imaginary god(s) and attempt to pass moral or ethical judgments on their patients.
• "Physicians should be aware that 'The God Delusion' is treatable and that it has been proven "safe and effective" for millions of non-believers. See your doctor for a free trial.
Other Comments by Pattern Seeker
37. Comment #232086 by Apathy personified on August 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm
J Mac,I agree with everything after that
Ha - I was only trying to make it clear that i'm only basing this on my personal opinion - i wasn't implying that i'm some sort of epically astute reader of contemporary society.
I guess you are right, it's a fight that will need to be fought at somepoint, i hope i'm being metaphoric there as well.
Other Comments by Apathy personified
38. Comment #232088 by Jesus was a zombie on August 17, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I read an article not that long ago (it may have been on this site) about a rape victim that was refused the birth control pill by a catholic doctor. She remarked that the way the doctor refused the treatment made her feel as if she was morally inferior to even consider taking such measures. Doctors are instructed to do no harm, what about the psychological damage that could be done to people in those kinds of situations? How can this not add to the feelings of guilt and self loathing that sometimes envelope a person in such circumstances.
I realise that there is probably no easy solution to the question of whether or not we should legislate on this matter, but the thought of a rape victim being made even more distressed by the actions of their own doctor makes me feel sick to my stomach.
Other Comments by Jesus was a zombie
39. Comment #232123 by William Kaiser on August 17, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Gee.. as an Atheist Doctor I feel it is my moral obligation to treat patients who believe in deities as if they were terminally ill, incapable of recovery and in extreme pain.I must follow my conscience and humanely euthanize them.
The sign outside my practice will read "Walk in with a god, be carried out on a slab." ;-)
WK
Other Comments by William Kaiser
41. Comment #232133 by skip on August 17, 2008 at 4:32 pm
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.
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.
In this case Doctors think they are special and that they should get paid while refusing to do the same work that the rest of society already has accepted as worthwhile. Society makes these rules as the college of physicians seems to understand well.
Religious Ontario Doctors, it is about time you did your job properly. End of story.
I am proud to be a Canadian
Read my story at http://members.shaw.ca/jdolsson/
Jeff Olsson
Other Comments by skip
42. Comment #232136 by Mr. Forrest on August 17, 2008 at 4:38 pm
This is really rather simple:1. Any political, religious or other opinion should be kept out of any medical treatment/recommendation. The doctor has NO right to base his treatment of medical conditions on such opinions.
2. The sole basis for medical treatments/recommendations is and should be medical knowledge.
3.If a patient desires a treatment detrimental to their wellbeing or general health, the doctor should have the option or even the duty to object to any such course of action, to the point of not performing said treatment.
4. If multiple treatments are possible, the doctor has the obligation to explain each one to the patient, including risks and benefits and include their own recommendation. When this has been fully done, the patient should be given the choice of treatment, including the right to refuse treatment. In emergencies where informed consent is not possible the doctor should always use the treatment likely to yield the best results.
5. In the case of minors the parents should decide. HOWEVER if the parents choose a treatment likely or certain to cause harm to the child the doctor should have the right to overrule their wishes. (no more JW children dying due to the stupid fucking superstition of their parents without being given the chance to live)
At least thats how I see it, comments?
Other Comments by Mr. Forrest
43. Comment #232157 by SmilingAtheist on August 17, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Being an person who grew up in Ontario and now lives in Australia, another government based medical system, I must say that I agree with what the college proposes. There has a been an increase here in Australia of Catholic churches buying hospitals (we have private hospitals as well) and implementing their 'ethos' on the patients who go there. I'm going to assume that this has happened in Ontario as well and that the college wants to put a stop to it. I'm all for this type of thinking. Health should never be religous based. Don't like it don't be come a doctor. Period. We all have things to do in our jobs that we don't like, that's just part of life. Other Comments by SmilingAtheist
44. Comment #232162 by ~manic-depressive on August 17, 2008 at 6:26 pm
"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."
No shit, sherlock. Sooner the better.
How true!
And to hear a Papist talking of "moral integrity" is like hearing an Islamist talking of honour or nobility. ("Honour" killings... the "Noble" Qu'ran etc.)
Other Comments by ~manic-depressive
45. Comment #232167 by Godfree Gordon on August 17, 2008 at 6:48 pm
"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. "
Hey, Dr. Catholic, your conscience is already under someone elses power, baby.
How do they never see the idocrac of their commentary?
Other Comments by Godfree Gordon
46. Comment #232174 by Jesus86 on August 17, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I'm all for this type of thinking. Health should never be religous based.
Can't anyone on this discussion thread see the enormous leap from "X is not good, IMHO" to "X should be banned by the all-powerful, benevolent State for everyone everywhere"?
If people voluntarily choose "religious-based" health care, provided by people who voluntarily choose to practice it, and they don't expect anyone else to pay for it -- what business is that of yours??
Compare: children are indoctrinated into all kinds of things, theistic religion and socialistic political philosophy being just two of them. It is a huge leap to propose that parents should be banned from teaching their children any form of theistic religion, and forced to teach them free market economics. Perhaps more damage is done to the institution of the family by an all-intrusive State than is to be gained.
Here's a question everyone here should have a feel for: If the Government is benevolent and all-powerful, why is so much evil committed in its name?
Other Comments by Jesus86
47. Comment #232196 by secondsoprano on August 17, 2008 at 8:17 pm
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.
Doctors who "think it's detrimental" to children to have same-sex parents are ignorant of the evidence and unfit to practice reproductive medicine.
Any doctor who bases a clinical decision on whether the doctor "feels uncomfortable", as opposed evidence as to to whether it is appropriate for the patient's welfare, d*mn well should be hit with a misconduct ruling.
There would quite properly be an outcry if a doctor refused AI or IVF to a mixed-race couple because s/he "felt uncomfortable". Why should same-sex parents be any different?
Other Comments by secondsoprano
48. Comment #232208 by secondsoprano on August 17, 2008 at 8:39 pm
If people voluntarily choose "religious-based" health care, provided by people who volutarily choose to practice it, and they don't expect anyone else to pay for it -- what business is that of yours??
1. It's my business as a same-sex parent, because I owe it to my daughter to challenge ignorant people who say her family is "detrimental"
2. It's my business as a taxpayer (at least in Australia) because religous-based health services receive taxpayer subsidy even if they are also privately funded
3. It's my business as a healthcare customer, because even if I don't deliberately choose religious-based care myself (a) I might accidentally choose a fundie doctor and (b) the practice of medicine generally is debased if it becomes acceptable for clinical decisions to be made for other than evidence-based reasons.
4. It's my business as a citizen, because children are affected - see the horror stories about "faith healing" for example.
5. It's my business as a woman, because I don't want my society descending into the anti-woman, anti-abortion morass that seems to be the norm in some fundie US areas.
Other Comments by secondsoprano
49. Comment #232210 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:43 pm
"If people voluntarily choose "religious-based" health care, provided by people who voluntarily choose to practice it, and they don't expect anyone else to pay for it -- what business is that of yours?? "Were not talking about "religious-based" health care payed for by the church. If that were the case it would be slightly less disturbing (but still troublesome.)
Say a church did that, the church made a faith-hospital and only treated people of their faith with methods their faith approved of. Sure, I suppose I would not have a problem. But the "doctors" there would have no grounds to desire a license from the state. Also they could have no complaints when I opened an atheist only hospital and refused to treat theists.
Other Comments by J Mac
50. Comment #232212 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Such selective medicine is just a passive form of genocide. Other Comments by J Mac
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
1. Comment #231876 by lol mahmood on August 17, 2008 at 8:51 am
Beggars belief that such a thing is in any sense 'news'.
Other Comments by lol mahmood