- Reaction score
- 1,293
- Points
- 940
They're not; read the article. Guess this is as close as they can get.
Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021
- Thread starter PuckChaser
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 17,128
- Points
- 1,010
Teachers, police and firefighters provide medical care?Well, isn't that nice. Who's next? Police? Firefighters? Teachers?
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."
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
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.
The CPC just keeps on giving…
- Reaction score
- 1,293
- Points
- 940
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.
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:
- Reaction score
- 1,520
- Points
- 1,260
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.
- Reaction score
- 27,635
- Points
- 1,090
Medical professionals already have that protection.
This would permit them to refuse referrals as well, denying patients legal medical care.
This would permit them to refuse referrals as well, denying patients legal medical care.
- Reaction score
- 1,293
- Points
- 940
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.
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Points
- 1,260
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:
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.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
While it was not smart to put it in the platform, kudos to O'Toole for coming out as openly personally pro choice.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…
Nice change from the last guy.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,738
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
Probably the point.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,064
- Points
- 1,160
Kathryn Marshall: Liberals panic and resort to abortion-conspiracy theories about O'Toole
Kathryn Marshall: Liberals panic and resort to abortion-conspiracy theories about O'Toole
The Liberal war room simply isn’t equipped to run a campaign against the Conservatives without driving wedges on hot-button issues
nationalpost.com
- Reaction score
- 4,720
- Points
- 1,160
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.
Similar threads
