• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,802
Points
910
Well, isn't that nice. Who's next? Police? Firefighters? Teachers? :rolleyes:

Tories vow to protect rights of doctors with moral objections to abortion, MAID

"Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole is promising to protect the right of health care professionals to refuse to provide or even refer patients for medical services to which they have moral or religious objections.

The promise to protect conscience rights -- a measure championed by social conservatives who maintain doctors and nurses should not have to refer patients for services like abortion, medical assistance in dying or gender re-assignment surgery -- is included in the Conservatives' election platform.

The platform was released this week by O'Toole even as he tries to differentiate himself from his predecessor, Andrew Scheer, whose socially conservative views on abortion and LGBTQ rights arguably cost the Conservatives the 2019 election."
Teachers, police and firefighters provide medical care?
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
They're not; read the article. Guess this is as close as they can get.
Optics are bad.

I'm sure in a general sense it won't be that troublesome, but you just know that there will be women's groups saying that this will limit access to abortion for women in small towns, with them needing to travel far away from home to get one.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
436
Points
880
Teachers, police and firefighters provide medical care?
No. But they're paid to provide a service, regardless of their beliefs. Imagine if a firefighter refuses to put out a fire in a house flying a Pride flag because they don't like homosexuals. Or a teacher refusing to teach a trans student. It might be a bad analogy, but allowing medical parsonnel to refuse treatment and refuse to refer patients based on their beliefs is just wrong. It has the potential of ostracizing groups of already vulnerable people.
 

TheHead

Full Member
Reaction score
29
Points
280
Teachers, police and firefighters provide medical care?


Yes, some provide medical first response. Technically, it's patient care if we want to argue semantics but the point still stands. Should you be able to turn a patient down due to personal beliefs? No.

It's also not a bad analogy. When you stop allowing professions like doctors to practice because of their personal beliefs you start going down a slippery slope. When you put your uniform on everyday put your personal biases behind you and you do your job regardless of who you are serving.


Fixed for clarity
 
Last edited:

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
378
Points
1,130
When you put your uniform on everyday put your personal biases behind you and you do your job regardless of who you are serving.
Nothing new about that.
You come to us from a society with many prejudices. We won't try to change your beliefs. But, if you treat anyone with disrespect, we will change your employment.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
The part I like is where people say it's only the LPC bringing up abortion to smear the CPC.

The CPC put this in their platform.
 

Kilted

Sr. Member
Reaction score
238
Points
560
No. But they're paid to provide a service, regardless of their beliefs. Imagine if a firefighter refuses to put out a fire in a house flying a Pride flag because they don't like homosexuals. Or a teacher refusing to teach a trans student. It might be a bad analogy, but allowing medical parsonnel to refuse treatment and refuse to refer patients based on their beliefs is just wrong. It has the potential of ostracizing groups of already vulnerable people.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. This is simply allowing doctors et al to not take any part in medical procedures that they see to be harmful. Which part of their professional responsibility is to do no harm.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
436
Points
880
That's a bit of an exaggeration. This is simply allowing doctors et al to not take any part in medical procedures that they see to be harmful. Which part of their professional responsibility is to do no harm.
Bullshit. This is allowing doctors to refuse treatment based on their moral beliefs. This has nothing to do with doing no harm. You think it won't harm a rape victim to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? And not only to refuse treatment but to refuse referrals for said treatment.

The article I linked has already changed. Guess someone at CTV News didn't like it.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
336
Points
1,130
.... This would permit them to refuse referrals as well, denying patients legal medical care.
Good catch -- anyone spot any mention of Team Blue saying they'll be following court direction saying, "if you can't do it, you must refer to someone who will"? Can't find anything indicating an appeal of this 2019 decision, so it looks like it's still in place for the moment.

Interesting how fits in with this from Team Blue's platform document (page 68 - only mention of that "a" word in the whole document) - no separate news release on the latest @ the Team Blue site yet:
Screenshot 2021-08-19 123755.jpg
 

Kilted

Sr. Member
Reaction score
238
Points
560
Bullshit. This is allowing doctors to refuse treatment based on their moral beliefs. This has nothing to do with doing no harm. You think it won't harm a rape victim to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? And not only to refuse treatment but to refuse referrals for said treatment.

The article I linked has already changed. Guess someone at CTV News didn't like it.
Well that depends on who you consider to be a person. At this time in history unborn babies are not legally considered to be a person/people. However, a doctor will often take the well-being of an unborn child into consideration regardless of the fact that it isn't legally considered to be a person. And frankly the method of conception would have no legal merit if unborn children are ever recognized as persons.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,586
Points
1,160
Looks like the LPC should be recovering their recent drop in the polls back to Star Chamber levels, with the CPC’s latest hill to die on… 🤦🏻
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
Looks like the LPC should be recovering their recent drop in the polls back to Star Chamber levels, with the CPC’s latest hill to die on… 🤦🏻
While it was not smart to put it in the platform, kudos to O'Toole for coming out as openly personally pro choice.

Nice change from the last guy.
 

lenaitch

Sr. Member
Reaction score
409
Points
810
With certain exceptions, the provision of health care is a provincial responsibility and the providers are provincially regulated. Perhaps someone could explain how a federal government could legislatively protect their conscience rights.

A clash of rights; those of the patient vs. those of the practitioner, sounds like a matter for the courts. The only court case I am aware of was at the Ontario Court of Appeal. In many rural and remote areas, a denial of referral could equal a denial of care.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
With certain exceptions, the provision of health care is a provincial responsibility and the providers are provincially regulated. Perhaps someone could explain how a federal government could legislatively protect their conscience rights.

A clash of rights; those of the patient vs. those of the practitioner, sounds like a matter for the courts. The only court case I am aware of was at the Ontario Court of Appeal. In many rural and remote areas, a denial of referral could equal a denial of care.
Probably the point.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,283
Points
1,060

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
649
Points
1,060
The wedges work, look at this thread. It should not be ridiculous that someone can both be pro-choice, but also be willing to stand up for someone's freedom not to be.
 
Top