Thursday, April 24, 2008

Bill C-537, and the Suzie All-Caps challenge.


Not surprisingly, fetus obsessive-compulsive SUZANNE is all about Bill C-537:

In the wake of the introduction of Bill C-537, a law to protect conscience rights of health workers who do not wish to perform medical procedures that are against their beliefs, the usual suspects-- feminists-- have been condemning this bill as an attack against "choice".

Let us not get into the details of C-537. Let us, instead, give Suzie credit for understanding the Pandora's box that this would open:

"But," some might opine: "what if he didn't want to see your children out of religious conviction?"

Exactly, but let's not stop there. Why should a medical provider need a "religious" reason to refuse to treat someone? Would that be the only legitimate criteria under this new law? Why? Why should religion get preferential treatment as the exclusive defense for refusing medical treatment?

If the defenders of Bill C-537 want to be logically consistent, they should be prepared to defend the notion that medical care could then be denied for any personal reason whatsoever -- racism, sexism, the fact that someone stole your parking spot at the Multiplex last week and you're just really, really hacked off with them. If religion is an acceptable defense, then anything else should be equally valid, no? But back to Suzie, because here's where things get a bit dangerous:


"But," some might opine: "what if he didn't want to see your children out of religious conviction?"

Then I don't want to see him! I'm not going to stop that doctor from helping others just because he has an issue with what I would like for him to do.

If he's a Muslim doctor who doesn't like to look at women, or a Jehovah's Witness who won't perform blood transfusions (my daughter is having surgery soon and I will be having a C-section,so these are possibilities), then fine-- don't. They can help other people.

Wow. Let's give Suzie credit, at least she understands what's at stake here: the right for any doctor to refuse to give medical care for personal reasons. And Suzie seems prepared to defend that. Or is she?

Let's imagine, if we can, that one of Suzie's kids is in a nasty accident, and is brought into emergency bleeding profusely. Not immediately life-threatening -- nothing some quick stitching and a transfusion can't fix, but time is of the essence and the clock is ticking.

However, the doctor on call just isn't interested. Maybe he has legitimate religious reasons which, we should emphasize, Suzie has already announced that she's good with. Or maybe the reason has nothing to do with religion. Maybe he's just tired, or maybe he doesn't want to be interrupted watching "The Daily Show" in the doctors' lounge. Or maybe he knows Suzie personally, and just plain doesn't like her. For whatever reason, while Suzie's kid is lying on a stretcher bleeding out, the only doctor on call in emergency that night decides he's going to take a pass on this one. Do you think Suzie would be good with that?

Because that's what's at stake here. Naturally, dishonest hacks like Suzie will be the first to tell you that that's different. No, it's not. If wanks like Suzie want to give medical professionals the right to opt out of providing medical care for personal reasons, then they need to go the distance and give that freedom to everyone for any reason.

Suzie's already admitted that she'd defend a Muslim doctor who refused to treat her daughter, but I'm guessing she only really thought far enough ahead to consider non-emergency procedures for which she can always find an alternative provider (and isn't that a risky assumption in these times?). But if she wants to go down that road, then she should be prepared to extend the same flexibility to doctors in emergency situations.

So, how about it, all you C-537 fans? Is that where you want to end up? Or are we going to be treated to yet another annoying demonstration of, "But that's different!" Because, somehow, when it comes to you whiny hypocrites, it always is, isn't it?

15 comments:

The Seer said...

Why can't youse guys just ask your local MP's to table a bill that sez you don't have to be a doctor if you don't want to be. Christ, even in China they don't make you take this occupation or that, without any regard to your personal preferences. What's wrong with Canada?

Rosie said...

What about doctor shortages where a woman doesn't have a choice of who her GP is? What if the only doctor in town is a muslim man who refuses to treat women out of religious convictions? Or refuses to perform breast exams or pap smears? Seems to me there is more to "choice" than abortion.

On that note, has anyone heard of doctors who are being FORCED to perform abortions? Seems to me if a doctor does not want to do it, they can refer the patient to someone who will.

Ti-Guy said...

You all know SUZANNE is a lunatic, don't you? Check out UseNet archive under "Suzanne Fortin." She believes Jews need to be perfected. She thinks that's the duty of good Catholic.

She's nuts and she's been nuts for a long time.

greeneggsandtam said...

It's true. She is nuts.Have you read this interview?
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Ontario_Votes_2007:_Interview_with_Family_Coalition_Party_candidate_Suzanne_Fortin,_Nepean-Carleton

E in MD said...

The problem with this is, when you're in a life or death situation you really don't have time to be fucking around trying to find the right doctor in the right place. If I go to County because I'm having a heart attack and some jackhole decides not to treat me because i'm not a Pentecostal Snake Handler type I could be dead by the time I get to the next hospital.

So are we going to have all Doctors then wear shirts saying what patients they wont' practice medicine on?

How about having hospitals with big neon signs saying "We Don't Treat No Niggers, Fags, Spics or Jews Here"?

Why stop at Doctors... Can't Police refuse to help people based on religious convictions?

Why should it only be based on religious convictions either. What if I'm an Atheist doctor and Christians piss me off so because of their arrogance and hubris. I refuse to treat them. Then what?
How about if I only treat them when they show the signs listed in the bible a being true followers of Christ? ( being able to speak in unknown tongues, handle snakes and scorpions, drink toxins without dying and smite their enemies without a word ).

This issue is bullshit and i'm tired of seeing it. Doctors, pharmacists and the rest should treat everyone as equals regardless of their stupid ass religious dogmas or they should get the fuck out of the profession. End of fucking list.

E in MD said...

Ignore the double negative.

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

No, I think the double negative works well there. That's probably exactly how the sign would read.

Mike said...

Not only is she being dishonest about the bill, she is disparaging Muslim doctors.

Here's some news Suzie, the best doctor for high risk pregnancies in Ottawa -THE BEST- is Dr. Shabib at the Ottawa General. He delivered my 2 boys and is one of the most caring, intelligent doctors I have ever encountered. He is personable professional and - gasp - a Muslim who does not hate women and treats all women who become his patients.

In fact, he delivered my first son as he was giving a med student a tour of Queensway Carleton, because our actual doctor - a white Christian man - had decided picking his kids up at school was more important then delivering a baby and caring for my wife. Dr. Shabib became our doctor immediately after that.

Suzie can take that "Muslim doctor" nonsense and shove it up her lily white ass.

If you can't perform the procedure, perhaps you should not be a doctor.

jj said...

More creeping racism... she's been reading Five Feet of Foodbank too much.

But anyway -- we've already seen what happens when religion is allowed into the OR -- women die of ectopic pregnancies because nobody will abort them.

Anything that isn't taught at med school has no place in a doctor's office. What next? Can't operate because the moon & stars aren't aligned correctly?? Great snappin arseholes.

mikmik said...

#6. To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.


What seer said. You got a job description at the outset, don't do it if it conflicts with your feelings/beliefs.
e in md, there would be no end in sight. Soon, every duty in every job would have to be legislated along with the 'not withstanding' clauses to cover every contingency.

Chimera said...

New Rule: Every health care provider signs an oath to provide every patient the required care without exception or excuse for any reason whatever.

Non-compliance will lead immediately to suspension of practise, suspension of license, and future prosecution.

Period. End of patience with this bullshit.

Mike said...

what chimera said...

Sean S. said...

I think this is the third time Vellacott (Con MP, Saskatoon-Wanusekewin - my former riding) has tabled this exact bill...its even juicer than what is alluded to in this post.

If you go and read it (its really short, so go for it) you will see it also wants to change the definition of human life. Specifically it reads:


“human life” means the human organism at any stage of development, beginning at fertilization or creation.

That's right, and there in lies what Vellacott and his right-wing religious nut-bars are really after with this little bill..........

900 ft Jesus said...

"Exactly, but let's not stop there. Why should a medical provider need a "religious" reason to refuse to treat someone?"

You hit one of the big problems with this piece of shit bill. In Vellacott's own words: "The bill would make those conscience rights explicit in law and would safeguard the fundamental human rights of health care workers."

"Conscience rights." What the fuck are those? Pretty much whatever anyone wants to say they are.

Really, nut bags like Vellacott and SUZANNE probably count tiny little foetuses at night to help them fall asleep.

Scott in Montreal said...

If conception is the point at which the law has a human being to deal with, then any miscarriage would become a homicide. And so would any abortion of an egg fertilized in the fallopian tubes that isn't viable, and threatens the mother. And various other scenarios I presume.

Otherwise, this isn't even worthy of a subplot in ER. Obviously it's going down in flames, which makes me wonder if it isn't destined to be a smokescreen for C-484.