Tuesday, May 5, 2009

HRC Tyranny - What Could It Look Like

Here's quite a realistic scenario:
You walk in the door and you approach the receptionist’s counter.
“Hi, I’m here for my son’s 9AM appointment with Dr. Smith.”

“I’m sorry”, the receptionist says quite sheepishly, “Dr. Smith is no longer practicing.”
The receptionist notices your look of shock. It’s an expression she is now well accustomed to and she has the next line ready to deliver:
“Dr. Smith is no longer permitted to practice medicine in the province of Ontario because he refuses to refer patients to abortionists or give counsel about artificial insemination between same-sex couples or sex change operations.”

You laugh nervously and blurt out incredulously, ”This must be some kind of sick joke, right?”
No, apparently it’s no joke. The receptionist calmly explains to you that it’s the recently enacted code of ethics of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. The law of Ontario will also soon be changing to come into conformity with the Ontario Human Rights Act and the Star Chamber Tribunal who adminsters it. Doctor’s must comply with the new law regarding “reproductive rights” whether it tramples on their consciences or not. It doesn’t matter that the service is offered by other medical professionals. ALL medical professionals must comply with the new sexual regulations.
Some may dismiss this scenario as "alarmist", yet ban on professions has always been an effective way to suppress the opposition. If new laws or new regulations effectively prevent Christian / traditionalist family doctors from practicing medicine - that will not only clear the way for the socially perverse crowd to dominate the profession, allowing them to present their ideological dogmas as medical facts, but that will also leave the opposition financially and professionally crippled. All those who choose to stand by the medically correct (yet controversial) opinions on subjects like fetal development or sexual behavior, will be just too busy making ends meet to be able to organize and fight back.

A ban on professions is also a great way to send the message to the dissenters' children: don't follow your parents' footsteps unless you want to end up flipping burgers for the rest of your life. With so called "progressive" culture becoming more and more repugnant to anyone who grew up with traditional values, fear could become the only mean for the governing elite to force its perverse values on the lion share of the next generation.


John said...

A doctors job is to provide medical care. If they can't do that, then they are not qualified to practice.

Refusal to provide information about abortion, etc. can result in the patient doing something dangerous.

Leonard said...

Abortion on demand has nothing to do with medical care. It's an elective injurious procedure. None of the existing abortion techniques are ever used when a mother's life is in danger and when there's a genuine attempt to save both lives. Therefore there's absolutely no reason why a physician, who knows all the basic facts about fetal development and who is well aware of the side effects of surgical and chemical abortions, should ever agree (let alone - be forced) to refer patients to the abortion facilities.

If anything - those who oppose abortions despite possible reprisals; those who stand by known medical facts and won't agree to compromise the truth for the sake of a powerful ideology - they are the ones best fit for the practice. Expel them and the next thing you get is a family doctor who won't dare to mention the side effects of a highly-promoted prescription drug, because he's afraid that the pharmaceutical company may get back at him.

As for your statement about the patient "doing something dangerous" - willfully taking away life of a baby is not a right, so demands like "give it to me - or else" make no sense in this case. It's same like saying "refusal to provide the keys to your front door to a burglar can result in him doing something dangerous". Well, if he does and gets injured in the process - whose fault it is then?