Ethical Patriarchy

From LifeShite: Canadian Doctor Rallies Colleagues Against Tyrannical Attack on Conscience.

Dr. Martin Owen, a Calgary family doctor, has taken on the task of rousing his fellow practitioners to the danger posed to their integrity by policies being pushed by professional regulators in several provinces.

“My conscience is on the line,” Owen said in a chain e-letter. “If I lived in Ontario, I'd probably move my 7 children to another province so I could avoid the tyranny over my professional medical judgment and my conscience.”

Appalled by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons’ new requirement for all doctors, regardless of moral objections, to do or refer abortions,  Owen has launched a website, freedomofconscience.ca, with Ezra Levant just before the latter’s Sun News Network folded, and sent chain e-letters to colleagues asking them to vote in a “poorly worded” CBC poll about the issue. And as with a chain letter, he has asked his recipients to pass his message on to 10 colleagues.

“The time has come when doctors now need to fight for the right not to perform abortions, prescribe birth control, or refer patients for controversial procedures,” the email stated. 

The campaign, called Freedom of Conscience is backed by Campaign Life, evangelical church groups, and the Christian Heritage Party.

Beyond the clip at the site from Sun News (Feb. 4, 2015), it is not clear that Ezra Levant has any ongoing association with it.

I was curious about this Martin Owen, so looked him up on LinkedIn. Here's his summary.

Firstly, to be a witness to the transforming love of Jesus Christ in my marriage, fatherhood and medical practice. Secondly, to promote the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death by opening my self to be an instrument of Christ's healing power in the world. Thirdly, to bring unity to the international natural family planning community through education and healing of the past wounds, so as to be a sign to the world of Christ's promise to unite His flock.

That's not bad for a summary. Anyone want to help?

Owen is listed at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA), as "postgraduate trainee" from July 2010 to July 2012, and as "general registry" since August 2012. He claims also to be a member of College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario, but I couldn't find him in its registry.

So, he seems to be a relatively new doctor, though with seven children [!].

Things got quite a bit more interesting when I went looking for him on Twitter.

I found this fella.

Martin Owen is not a terribly unusual name, but the initial "G." corresponds to his CPSA listing. Also, how many medical doctors in Calgary named Martin Owen have seven children?

I've asked DocVemma twice if he is the same person associated with Freedom of Conscience and have had no response.

The Twitter profile page lists a website and, of course, people he's following. I scanned those 122 people.

There are body building and weight loss products, entrepreneurs for same and entrepreneurs in general, plus Dr. Oz, Tony Robbins, and Bill Gates. There are a few Christian and Catholic organizations and groups too.

Quite heavily weighted towards entrepreneurial pursuits of the health sort.

Lots of "Vemma" related accounts.

What is this Vemma the good doc is promoting so hard?

It is a nutrition company that sells "insanely healthy energy drinks" and weight-loss products through a pyramid scheme.

Wiki:

Vemma (/ˈviːmə/) Nutrition Company is a privately held multi-level marketing company that sells energy drinks, nutritional beverages and weight management products. The company, based in Tempe, Arizona, was founded in 2004 by Benson K., Lauren, and Karen Boreyko. In 2013, the company reported US$221 million in revenue. Most distributors are in their twenties. The company has been accused of being a pyramid scheme by U.S. media, business analysts, and former distributors, and was fined by the Italian government.

Some more about the company and its practices.

I don't doubt Owen's sincerity in objecting to "tyrannical" demands that he actually, you know, respect his patients' rights.

But I do doubt his judgement in getting involved in a pyramid scheme selling "nutritional" products. I wonder how hard he promotes these to his patients.

Previous DJ! posts on patient rights.
The CPSO consultation.

Christian Medical and Dental Society launches suit.

Meet a Christian OB/GYN.



UPDATE (April 3/15): Joyce Arthur at Rabble, "Christian doctors angry they can no longer abandon their patients."

Dear Christian Medicos: The 21st Century Is Calling (And Suggests You Take Up Podiatry)

The old-guard patriarchal medical establishment has come out swinging against the new Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO)'s referral requirement for treatments too icky for their sensitive Xian souls.

No 21st-century medicine, ethics, or standards of patient care for them, thank you very much.

And look how they're framing it.

BOOGA BOOGA! DEATH PANELS! DOCTOR DEATH!

With physician-assisted suicide on the horizon, the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada [CMDS] is asking the Ontario Superior Court to declare that a new regulatory policy infringes upon doctors’ freedom of conscience.

The society, which represents close to 1,700 members [nationwide], filed documents in court on Friday regarding the CPSO’s Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy that was announced on March 6. The policy means doctors who refuse to refer patients for services on religious and moral grounds, including abortions, could face discipline from their regulating body.

“Our big concern is euthanasia, which is right around the corner,” said Larry Worthen, CMDS executive director.

Bollocks.

First, the Harper government is far too busy ramming through completely egregious Jihadi Terrorists Under Every Bed legislation and rushing off to a very likely illegal war with Syria to be bothered crafting any new legislation on doctor-assisted dying.

Next, the new soul-searing CPSO requirements would ask doctors to refer patients to practitioners who will provide the services that the patient seeks and that CMDS member is too gord-fearing to offer. In rare instances, a duly sworn and licensed medical practitioner in the province of Ontario may be required to SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE, by doing something they don't like.

These earth-shattering new rules are the result of a painstaking consultation process set off when some Ottawa women trying to get birth control from a walk-in clinic were turned away.

Birth control. Not abortion. Certainly NOT euthanasia.

I think any doctor refusing to participate in modern, non-judgemental medicine should have his or her license yanked or else shunted into a specialty or practice where they have nothing to do with lady parts.

Dermatology or podiatry would be good.

But as a simple expedient, this morning on Twitter I had a suggestion.

@fernhilldammit I'm sorry but I'm not at liberty to divulge the names of our members.

— CMDS Canada (@CMDSCanada) March 26, 2015

Easy-peasy no? Just tell us who you are so we can avoid you.

But no. Not only do Christian MDs' conscience rights trump patients', their privacy rights do too.

So, I started nosing around the Christian Medical and Dental Society's website and started posting some names I found there: Michelle Korvemaker, Diana Haak, Dan Reilly, Shalea Piteau, Sandy Tigchelaar, James Warkentin, Joel Emery, Corina Gotschling, H. Elmer Thiessen, Donato Gugliotta.

I invited Twitterers to post other known CMDS members' names or names of MDs who had refused requests for birth control.

Well.

Shit hit fan. The fetus freaks smelled blood. They had me -- a pseudonymous blogger -- in a MASSIVE GOTCHA!

I was "outing" people -- licensed medical practitioners, mind -- from behind my pseudonym!!!!!!!

Andrea Mrozek of the Focus on the Family Astroturf Blog demanded twice on Twitter that I reveal my real name, then she whipped off a blogpost with the same demand.

Because my desire to list the MDs who would waste our time -- funny but patients' time is valuable too -- and presumably OHIP's money in futile visits was some kind of despicable hypocrisy, while these MDs' insistence on their right to run people around, deliver moral lectures, and bill OHIP for it was not only totally okey-dokey, but Noble and Principled.

The whole thing is hilarious of course, but it reveals what the agenda is.

The gord-botherers know exactly how ridiculous their stand on birth control and abortion is and are trying to divert the reasonable new requirements into a SHRIEEEEK-FEST over euthanasia.

Julie Lalonde of the Radical Handmaids made an appearance on a CBC Radio phone-in show that had the above-mentioned Larry Worthen of the CMDS as the full-hour guest.

She was subjected to the euthanasia GOTCHA! and responded gracefully that that wasn't yet an issue and frankly no one yet knows how it will be handled.

In private conversation afterwards, she said: "I think the assisted suicide issue is a red herring that is meant to dredge up support for their cause because they know that their views on birth control and abortion are in the minority. But since assisted suicide is a relatively new public discussion in Canada, they're trying to piggy-back on top of it to get people on their side."

Diversion, red herrings, smearing, shrieking. Check, check, check, check.

The fetus freaks are fighting a rear-guard battle and the poor dears know it.

They just can't accept it yet.

ADDED: Martin Regg Cohn's excellent column: Why Doctors Shouldn't Play God on the Job.


UPDATE: Link to ensuing shitstorm.

First, do no harm...

Upon successfully completing their basic training, and before they take on the years of residency that will allow them to practice their science, skills and craft in a medical specialty of their choice, medical students pledge to the principals of the Hippocratic Oath*.

In Ontario, the specific application of that pledge came under scrutiny in the last year with regard to women's reproductive health rights. In its modern form, the Oath is centred upon patient care. "... Above all, I must not play at God."

DJ! has been covering this issue from the outset, here, and here. 

Ontario’s new policy is unlikely to put the discussion to rest, said Carolyn McLeod, professor of philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. Patients, particularly women, will undoubtedly find it troubling if a doctor refuses their request for birth control. Doctors who object to abortion might feel uncomfortable or complicit providing patients with a referral, but setting out a clearer policy could help connect patients to care providers who can best serve their needs, Prof. McLeod said.

“To receive abortion care from somebody who is morally opposed to abortion, I think, is harmful,” she said. “I think for patients’ sake, if for no one else’s, there should be the ability for the provider to give the referral.”

Ontario’s new policy has not yet been finalized and could still be changed, depending on what the college hears during the feedback period.

Marc Gabel, former president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, said doctors could face disciplinary action if they do not comply with the new guidelines and cannot use unfounded medical reasons to withhold birth control, abortions, vasectomies, blood transfusions or other treatments.

“What we’re trying to do, I think, is set a tone to remind physicians and the public we will act professionally in ensuring their access to care and their safety,” Dr. Gabel said.

From here.

This vivid graphic

accompanied anti-Choice Pro-lies groups spin on the 'debate'.  This is their response to regulatory bodies reminding anti-Choice physicians of their professional obligations, responsibilities and duties.

No matter how the fetushists and their acolytes spin their concerns, the basis for their shrieking is fundamentally religious. Yes, a professional can abstain from engaging in activities that compromise her/his beliefs. There are nonetheless job requirements that require that she/he assist a patient in finding a practitioner who will care for, and address the needs of that patient in a timely manner. 

If Gawd-worshippy physicians won't do this, let them move on to a medical specialty or a practice where they won't be tempted to play at being Gawd.

*In my research, I came across this interesting opinion piece about the Oath. There's a relevant point about abortion.

Turnabout: WE Have Conscience Issues Too

This is good.

An Edmonton teenager and her mother have successfully filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, alleging the Edmonton Public School District’s use of a Christian fundamentalist abstinence education program infringed upon their rights as non-Christians.

And it should start a trend.

@fernhilldammit @Auragasmic @01CindyLee @blueskies366 "...infringed upon their rights as non-Christians." WHY HAVEN'T MORE PEOPLE SAID THIS?

— MsBlack (@InternetPerson6) July 10, 2014

A similar objection to sex-ed taught by religious nutbars, who, by the way, run fake abortion clinics in the schools' neighbourhoods, was based on the lies and distortions typically offered in such courses.

Why bother with facts and science and tolerance? Let's just cut to the chase and use their tactics against them.

In other words, you have fucking conscience issues, nutbars? So do we.

Take your Christian Sharia crap and stuff it.

UPDATE: CBC interview at 7:00 mark here.

UPPITY-DATE: Victory! Edmonton School Board will look for other providers. Squeaky wheel wins!

UPPITY-DATE 3: Power and Politics panel (50:43 mark) destroys any semblance of justification for religion in publicly funded schools.

Birth Control: Deeply Moral or Inconsequential?

You can't have it both ways.

Either birth control is a highly moral issue on which physicians must be allowed to impose their "conscience" or it is a trivial matter with negligible consequences that can be easily dealt with.


"A doctor at a Calgary walk-in clinic is refusing to prescribe birth control due to her personal beliefs."

This caused a ruckus starting on Facebook and a comment was sought from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (bold mine).

Under the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta’s policy on Moral or Religious Beliefs Affecting Medical Care, doctors can refuse to provide medical services, but must ensure the patient is offered timely access to those services from another practitioner.

Trevor Theman, registrar with the CPSA, said the policy does not require Westglen to have a doctor on hand who can prescribe the pill.

He did not specify what “timely” meant, but said a delay in receiving a birth control prescription is “not likely going to disadvantage a patient in a serious way.”

“There’s a degree of urgency but it’s not like life or death today kind of urgency,” he said, adding most women should be seeing a family doctor about their sexual health needs.

“In an ideal world, women who need birth control or are seeking birth control will have a regular doctor and won’t just be dropping into a walk-in clinic to get a prescription for birth control pills.”

Yabbut, this is not an ideal world

Pam Krause, president and CEO of the Calgary Sexual Health Centre, said she’s aware of doctors who morally object to making abortion referrals, but refusing to prescribe birth control is virtually unheard of in Alberta.
...
Personal beliefs should not interfere with a professional responsibilities, she said, adding that the birth control pill is one of the most highly demanded prescriptions.
...
In fact, one in five Calgarians ­­— 200,000 people — is without a family doctor and rely on walk-in clinics to serve their medical needs.

So, which is it? Big fucking hairy deal? Or minor matter that non-irresponsible women should sort out on their own?

And that reminded me of the messed-up recall of the birth control pill AlySena in April 2013.

“Although this recall is currently a Type 2 recall and does not require pharmacy to contact patients, due to the potential seriousness of the recall, and in an abundance of caution, care and concern for our customers, London Drugs has chosen to be proactive in advising our customers and patients of the recall,” the blog post read, linking off to the urgent notice.

Class 1 situations require “reasonable probability” that the use of the drug will cause serious health consequences or death. Class 2 could lead to “temporary adverse health consequences,” Health Canada explains on its website.

The maker, Apotex, seemed to consider the issue serious. Health Canada not so much.

The lot was identified as LF01899A and distributor Apotex issued a voluntary recall to wholesalers and retailers on April 3. The affected packages were removed from store shelves on April 5, when most pharmacies received the recall.

But patients were not required to be contacted until April 8, when Health Canada upgraded the recall to Type I, the most serious level.

Health Canada says this type of recall is reserved for “a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, a product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”

Again, an unintended pregnancy seems to strike some in the medical community as a mere "temporary adverse health consequence." Much like the fetus fetishists who insist pregnancy is hardly any bother at all. And women who reject it are selfish bitches.

Gawd, we women and our reproductive systems require a lot of policing, don't we?

Here's a radical idea: Why don't we leave such decisions entirely up to the person most affected? And leave the damned panty-sniffing gatekeepers -- whether MDs, pharmacists, or Health Canada -- out of it.

Let us know if a product is safe and effective, then shut the fuck up.

Reminder: In Ontario, a similar kerfuffle over the "morality" of birth control prescriptions drove the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to seek public input. Go have your say. The process is open until August 5.

Should Ontario MDs Be Allowed to Refuse Basic Healthcare to Women?

There was a spot of bother a few months back when "at least three" Ottawa family doctors refused to prescribe birth control because such an act would violate their Gord-given right to control women.

The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, feeling the heat, has decided to revisit its policy on human rights and is inviting public input.

The site says the questionnaire will take only a few minutes and it does, but first you should read the existing policy.

It's not all bad but does provide some pretty wide wiggle-room for anti-choicers.

After citing some "general principles" from the Ontario Human Rights Codes, all good in my opinion, the policy offers this (bold mine).

College Expectations
The College has its own expectations for physicians who limit their practice, refuse to accept individuals as patients, or end a physician-patient relationship on the basis of moral or religious belief.

In these situations, the College expects physicians to do the following:

Communicate clearly and promptly about any treatments or procedures the physician chooses not to provide because of his or her moral or religious beliefs.

Provide information about all clinical options that may be available or appropriate based on the patient’s clinical needs or concerns. Physicians must not withhold information about the existence of a procedure or treatment because providing that procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs.

Treat patients or individuals who wish to become patients with respect when they are seeking or requiring the treatment or procedure. This means that physicians should not express personal judgments about the beliefs, lifestyle, identity or characteristics of a patient or an individual who wishes to become a patient. This also means that physicians should not promote their own religious beliefs when interacting with patients, nor should they seek to convert existing patients or individuals who wish to become patients to their own religion.

Advise patients or individuals who wish to become patients that they can see another physician with whom they can discuss their situation and in some circumstances, help the patient or individual make arrangements to do so.

OK, what's with the namby-pambyness? "In some circumstances"? Should be "in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES refer a patient to a practitioner whom the referrer KNOWS will provide the needed service." They can't get away with waving their hands and saying, "See someone else."

The situation is particularly problematic in under-served areas. What if there is only one OB-GYN for a large area and he or she refuses to prescribe contraception (or some forms of it), insert IUDs, or perform abortions?

What if one or more of a small number of GPs for a region refuses to prescribe birth control or refer for abortion?

How far do they expect women to travel to get basic everyday healthcare?

I don't know how it could be implemented, but the special circumstances of under-served areas require some creative thinking on the part of the College.

In any event, referrals must be mandatory. No exceptions.

We'll say it again. Women's rights and women's healthcare are NOT fucking conscience issues.


Public Service Section
Here's the survey. If you have a few minutes and care about this issue, please give them your thoughts.

Also on its invitation page is a quick poll, one question.

Do you think a physician should be allowed to refuse to provide a patient with a treatment or procedure because it conflicts with the physician’s religious or moral beliefs?

Yes or No.

Currently there are 1090 votes, 984 of which say religion trumps patient care. That's 90%. And that's hard to believe.

LifeShite is directing readers to the survey and quick poll. Gee, do you think they're freeping it?

Since we know most casual, i.e. non-frothing, fetus fetishists have the attention span of a gnat, that's probably as much as they're going to do.

So, certainly answer the one quick question, but if you can take the time, please do the survey.

ADDED: There's also a discussion board. Some interesting stuff there, but lots of whinging from the usual suspects.

Tea Bagger Misogynists Target Liberal Party

Look out, Liberals!

Not only are the fetus fetishists gunning for you in a testerical new petition whinging about Trudeau's discriminatinon against Xians, they have other plans as well.

They are going to reprise their attempted take-over of the party from 30 years ago.

In particular, they're targeting the new ridings.

Here is Campaign Lie's Jim Hughes:

“Nomination meetings for those 30 new ridings will be held by each party. If we have a large number of card-carrying pro-lifers in each of these 30 new ridings it consequently increases the chances of being able to elect 30 new, pro-life MPs. Our goal is to have a large number of party members in every riding of the country,” says the website.

At the moment, there are only four or five remaining anti-choice Liberals. Karygiannis is turning to municipal politics and maybe some of the others will take the hint and decline to run next time.

Nonetheless it spells trouble for the Liberals.

Mr. [Nik] Nanos [of Nanos Research] compared organizations like the Campaign Life Coalition to the Tea Party in the U.S. where they play a critical role in determining the outcome of nominating their party’s candidates but have a less important role in Congressional elections. 

“They don’t necessarily play a significant role in the outcome of elections but they can punch above their political weight in a nomination race where 50 members can tip the balance in favour of one particular candidate or another. That’s the risk. It’s unlikely that those voters would have an impact on the election writ large,” said Mr. Nanos.

“This is the variation of the Tea Party impact. The Tea Party cannot affect the outcome of the U.S. election, but they can have a significant influence on who is [elected] through the primary process. That’s kind of the potential political heft that those groups have basically on nominations if they decide to get engaged.”

So, a bunch of Tea Bagger misogynists try to take over nomination meetings or ridings themselves. Liberal Head Office squelches them.

Cue MASSIVE whine-fest.

Here's some info on the previous attempt, Liberals for Life.

Liberals for Life was a pro-life advocacy group that worked within the Liberal Party of Canada during the 1980s and early 1990s. Some of its members were also affiliated with the Campaign Life Coalition, and, as such, the group was often accused of entryism.

According to its members, Liberals for Life was created after the national victory of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party in the 1984 federal election. The organization attracted little attention until the early 1990s, when it endorsed Tom Wappel in his bid for the party leadership, and gained control of several riding associations.

The Liberal Party's constitution was amended to allow the leader to appoint candidates in certain ridings in 1992. Jean Chrétien defended the change as necessary to prevent "single-issue groups" from taking over the Liberal Party. It was generally understood that Liberals for Life was the primary target of this remark.

The movement effectively dissolved in 1993 after the Liberal Party formed government.

Chantal Hébert remembers (video here at around 9:30 mark).

It ain't gonna be pretty.

What needs to happen is that we and sensible people like Sandy Garossino must advocate and insist that abortion is NOT a "conscience issue", NOT a "free speech issue."

Abortion rights are essential to women's basic human right to bodily autonomy.

Indeed, is anything a "conscience issue" these fraught days?





I gotta learn to PhotoShop. If anyone is inclined, it would be very cool to replace the tea bags with fetus dolls.

UPDATE: k'in in the comments points out that they tried it in the 2012 by-election in Toronto-Danforth. Didn't work then either.


MORE UPDATE: Trifon Haitas, wannabe Liberal for Life, is a candidate in municipal election in Richmond Hill.


WOOHOO! Look what Montreal Simon made for me!

I haz excellent friends.

Hey, Boko Haram Is Just Acting on "Conscience Issues" Too

Justin Trudeau's decree that all future (not, note, sitting shoo-in MPs) Liberal candidates must be prochoice has twisted up some Conservative knickers.

Specifically over the matter of sacrosanct "conscience issues."

Here's the At Issue Panel. The abortion discussion starts around the 7:30 mark. Coyne does his thing. Then Chantal rips him a new one, starting around 8:40. Coyne is left blubbering "but not all anti-choicers" bububububub. Mansbridge does his patented mincy mouth. Watch.



Coyne followed this up in the National Post, as did Jen Gerson and today the august NatPo editorial board weighed in. Apart from fetus fetishists, the National Post and these two of its columnists seem to be the only entities in Canada who want to reopen the abortion debate.

Most Canadians are bored to tears by it, but others are mortally offended by the notion that women's rights are mere "conscience issues" for a bunch of boyos to recreate their middle-school debating club over.

This tweet sums it up brilliantly.

Why is your religious belief sacred and inviolable, whereas my bodily autonomy is up for debate all the time? http://t.co/Y1WlFGqtEa — Lauren DH (@roseneath_rd) May 10, 2014

I await the defenders of "conscience issues" and religious beliefs backing of Boko Haram's kidnapping of 300 Nigerian girls. After all, they're just acting out of sincere religious beliefs, right?


UPDATE: Andrew Coyne who thinks its edgy or something to follow me just offered a correction on Twitter. The editorial board of the Toronto Star also takes issue with Trudeau, but does not advocate for the reopening of the abortion debate.