Ontario's human rights police seek to slap the cuffs on doctors - that's how Lorne Gunter titles his
National Post article. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happens in Canada's largest province. The new code of conduct, proposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and endorsed by the Ontario "human rights" commission will strip physicians of their right to conscientious objection. Those who refuse to conform to the secular fundamentalist concept of "rights" (even if the latter means performing elective injurious procedures that go against one's beliefs) would face disciplinary actions as well as "human rights" complaints.
The commission truly believes that "the freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them," especially when religious beliefs come in conflict with causes for which the commission sees itself as chief cheerleader, such as gay rights and reproductive choice. On today's trendy ladder of rights, freedom of religion is on the bottom rung. It is the first to get stepped on by ambitious rights climbers.
The commission's submission is full of talk about the need to accommodate -- everyone should try to accommodate everyone else's beliefs. But the commission doesn't believe its own bumph. Over and over again it states (rather than merely advising) that the obligation to accommodate falls only on religious-minded doctors in this case. The commission has never sought to balance the beliefs of the faithful with the demands of advocates for causes it itself champions.
Nearly a decade ago, the OHRC showed its true colours in the Scott Brockie case. Mr. Brockie was a Christian and a printer. A gay rights organization sought to prove a point by seeking out Mr. Brockie and demanding he print their stationery. Even though there were many printers closer to the gay organization's offices --and therefore both their printing needs and Mr. Brockie's beliefs could have been easily accommodated if the group had obtained printing services conveniently elsewhere --the OHRC said religious rights could be exercised only in the private sphere. When they entered the public realm, they were secondary to gay rights.
But persecution in the name of "human rights" is not something which is exclusive to Ontario. Ontario may be one of the champions, but other provinces are doing their best to catch up. In Saskatchewan, the
Court of Appeal will decide whether a man should be forced to pay $17,500 to a group of perverts who felt offended by the flyers he distributed.
When a man is ordered to pay $17,500 to people offended by flyers that he peacefully distributed, it sends a chilling message to all citizens: “Be very, very careful about what you say, and when in doubt, remain silent. Avoid the risk of a human rights prosecution that publicly brands you as ‘hateful’ or ‘bigoted,’ and avoid the risk of paying a hefty fine, and incurring massive legal bills.” This chilling effect on citizens freely expressing themselves undermines the quest for truth, the marketplace of ideas and democracy itself.
And that's exactly what the secular fundamentalists who run the Orwellian tribunals (known as "human rights" commissions) are trying to accomplish.
2 comments:
The OHRC was asked to submit comments on the draft policy of the Ontario College.
http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies/consultation/HumanRightsDRAFT_08.pdf
It is hardly suprising that they would comply.
And this issue is wider than the religious freedom of physicians.
From the earlier submission by the OHRC [one of two] --
The Commission’s concerns focus on the draft policy’s handling of discretionary decisions made by doctors in accepting patients, and in provision of care. As currently stands, the draft policy may in fact lead to confusion and to human rights complaints, in that physicians may see it as condoning practices that the Commission views as discriminatory. Particular issues of concern include:
When a practice is “open” or “closed”
Admitting patients to a “closed” practice
The concepts of “patient selection”, and “scope,” “balance,” or “focus” of a practice
Consideration of time constraints in deciding to accept a patient
Clarification relating to “clinical competence” to provide care
Refusal to provide services in general, or to provide particular information or health care based on religious or moral grounds
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/submissions/surgeons
I don't know it you are aware that physicians are starting to act like American insurance companies. Some physicians interview prospective new patients and reject those with chronic diseases and other troublsome ailments which would diminish the money/time ratio of their practice.
In dealing with this the College would be nutty NOT to ask for an opinion from the government institution set up to deal with discrimination.
<<The OHRC was asked to submit comments on the draft policy of the Ontario College.
It is hardly suprising that they would comply.>>
Did someone actually ask the Ontario College to become a volunteer enforcer of the HRC concept of "rights" by rewriting its policy? Their request for comments from OHRC seems more like "how am I doing, boss?"
<<I don't know it you are aware that physicians are starting to act like American insurance companies. Some physicians interview prospective new patients and reject those with chronic diseases and other troublsome ailments which would diminish the money/time ratio of their practice.>>
If that was the case, then there would be no reason for CPSO to mention religious beliefs. The policy would simply state that patients can't be turned down because of chronic diseases or disability.
But the draft policy specifically mentions religious beliefs as one of the prohibited grounds for refusing treatment. And it makes no distinction between essential and elective services. So even if CPSO had no intention to force physicians to perform elective injurious procedures that go against their conscience (abortion, euthanasia, so called "sex change" etc) - that's exactly how the policy could and will be interpreted. That's why it must be defeated at all costs.
And another thing: if you don't want physicians to turn down "time consuming" patients, then maybe we should revise the pay structure? Maybe it would make sense to pay more for an appointment which last longer than usual? Maybe it would make sense to bring in some competition, so that if a patient is turned down - he can go to a clinic across the street? Maybe it would make sense to revise the OHIP and to introduce Medical Savings Accounts as suggested by the Family Coalition Party?
But forcing doctors to provide services they don't want to provide, at the pay they don't find sufficient - that doesn't make sense. After all - we have 10 provinces in Canada and 50 states in the US. If CPSO goes too hard on Ontario physicians - many of them (and often - the best of them) will simply pack and leave.
Post a Comment