Brickbat: Speak No Evil

|

Credit: Alex E. Proimos / photo on flickr

Ontario doctors will still have no obligation to perform procedures they believe to be immoral, such as abortions, under a proposed set of new regulations. But the new rules would require them to refer patients to doctors who will do those procedures. Doctors are currently are not legally required to make such referrals.

NEXT: Is Obama the Drug Warrior Becoming Obama the Reformer?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Given the way in which referrals are required for insurance to pay for many things, whether the patient can get a referral or not may make a huge financial difference. This is a more complex case than it might seem if we just say that doctors should not be obligated to give referrals for things they disagree with. As long as insurance regulations require people to get referrals, we’re in a situation where compelling the doctor to issue a referral may actually be the least evil option there is.

    1. What about the patient going to another doctor to get the referral?

    2. This is in Canada dude, no “insurance” up there.

      Also, since when has a referral been needed for an abortion?

      1. Iirc in Canada while you can always go to a private abortion provider you can get an abortion (like many other medical procedures) at no cost through their public health system when so referred by a doctor in the system.

    3. Yeah, nope. Someone’s financial convenience doesn’t justify forcing another person to violate their conscience.

      As long as insurance regulations require people to get referrals

      Insurance company policies != regulations. And even if they did, you’re still not entitled to another person’s time, labor or recommendation. The “least evil option” is to not subjugate another person’s conscience to your financial interests. It’s actually the only non-evil option.

      1. OK, then, policies. Doesn’t change that in some insurance systems leaving your primary care physician, even to get a referral does carry a financial penalty. It’s not just about financial convenience/interest in some cases.

        Here the policies that surround it have created the problem, so I freely admit that a law to remedy that problem is less than ideal and is an imposition, but it is a reaction to that problem and good luck on getting an insurance company (or a government regulator) to rectify the real cause.

  2. First of all good luck finding a doctor in this progressive shithole.

    1. People without a Family GP hovers around 15% and 25% in Quebec.

      http://www.cmaj.ca/content/171/2/124.2.full

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…..MC2231459/

      The CMAJ is hated by the left and people who just love public health.

      And this is a problem, perhaps a crisis because? Without a family doctor – who is basically the point guard, the orchestral maestro of the system giving out notes to specialists – well, good luck.

      1. If only something could be done about the 10% of Canadian doctors that leave after graduation to work in America. A wall perhaps…

  3. I would refer that patient to a quack. Take that, patient who wants a procedure I don’t want to do!

    1. “Uhh, I don’t think Mulard and Mallard are real doctors…”

    2. Less, um, mean-spirited: “Sorry, but I am unaware of any doctor who would perform such a procedure.”

  4. What Michelle said I cant believe that anybody able to get paid $4819 in four weeks on the internet .
    You could try here ~~~~~~~ http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. Aha! Obumbles is the one who has been spamming us. No wonder these things are so awful.

  5. You might be surprised at how many physicians vehemently oppose abortion but nonetheless feel an ethical obligation to refer their patients to a physician who will provide such services. Of course, in those cases we’re talking about societal pressure, not state coercion.

    1. Well, there is the idea under their professional ethical codes to put the patient first, treat them as autonomous beings and inform them of their medical options.

  6. “Even saying the word ‘abortion’ violates my conscience. Oh, goddammit fuck, look what you made me do!”

    1. Yes, but it wasn’t “violate-violate”

  7. This cartoon by Planned Parenthood- Thailand is hilarious. The basic setup is that a group of kids around the ages of say, 10 to 12, get all horny looking at some “foreign singer” and some doctor walking down the street decides to give them an extremely graphic lecture about sex. All sex.

  8. Under the pro-abortion principles:

    Requiring a physician to inform the patient about the state development
    of the child’s development is a volation of free speech.

    Requiring a physician to make referral is…not, for reasons probably best left unexamined.

  9. my buddy’s mother makes $72 /hr on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her payment was $12076 just working on the internet for a few hours. read more…………
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  10. Equally as appalling is the first sentence of the linked article, although for different reasons:

    Ontario doctors must obtain consent from patients or their caregivers before withholding or turning off life-support, the province’s medical regulator said Thursday in a new set of proposed guidelines.

    Holy shit, its been legal in Canada up until now to pull life support without getting consent?

  11. my friend’s sister makes $68 an hour on the laptop . She has been without work for 10 months but last month her check was $21549 just working on the laptop for a few hours. browse this site……….
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.