Thursday, January 29, 2015

When a clear conscience is no conscience

The anti-consciencers want to make sure that Saskatchewan doctors are prevented from practicing conscientious objection. So they've come up with a draft policy to do just that.

Then, the anti-consciencers got the the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) to adopt in principle, this policy--a dreadful, harmful, job-losing, anti-conscience policy, that would force doctors who commit the sin of following their consciences, to "be subject to discipline by the College."

When coming up with their anti-conscience policy, the anti-consciencers decided in their wisdom (because they know better than the rest of us) that since the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) said the the anti-consciencers "were mistaken with respect to physicians’ duty to refer", well, they'd just ignore the CMA:
"We decided to proceed by way of regulatory bodies rather than the CMA for two main reasons: 1) the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, not the CMA, are the regulators of physicians, which means their policies have more force than CMA policies; and 2) in view of the reaction of the CMA to the editorial described earlier, we thought CMA policy reform was unlikely."
And what did they call this fine policy paper?
"Moving Forward with a Clear Conscience: A Model Conscientious Objection Policy for Canadian Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons." 
But the best part of this whole anti-conscience charade, is what the anti-consciencers said in their anti-conscience policy about--conscience:
"Among the issues we examined were the moral nature and value of conscience."
I am not kidding.

"Pro-choicers" attempt to kill conscience rights

Maurice Vellacott, MP

Saskatchewan physicians to be forced
to participate in killing their patients

For Immediate Release January 29, 2015

OTTAWA – “The assault on freedom of conscience that is spreading across our country ought to be of grave concern to every freedom-loving Canadian ,” MP Maurice Vellacott said upon learning of yet another province (this time his own) that plans to force physicians to participate in morally objectionable procedures, including those that kill. “No health care worker should be forced against their will to take part in the killing of another human being. It would be a grotesque violation of their human dignity.”
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) has adopted in principle a policyi which it basically “cut and paste” from the Conscience Research Group’s (CRG’s) Model Policy on Conscientious Objection in Medicine.ii
Mr. Vellcott asked a series of questions that paint a disturbing picture of the process, or lack thereof, that went into CPSS’s adoption of this objectionable policy: “Was the CPSS aware that the drafters of the Model Policy, notably Professor Jocelyn Downie of Dalhousie University, are abortion and euthanasia activists? Did the CPSS solicit input from anyone other than Professor Downie and her team at the CRGiii before adopting this policy? Did the Saskatchewan College let on to anyone else that it was even considering this issue? Is the CPSS aware that this policy was rejected by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA)?”
Mr. Vellacott explained: “Professor Downie and co-author Sanda Rodgers, in a 2006 guest editorial in the CMA Journal, ignited a firestorm of controversy when they falsely claimed that CMA policy requires physicians to make abortion referrals regardless of their conscientious/religious beliefs. As Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project, points out in his recent news release, that claim was repudiated by the CMA and vehemently rejected by physicians. And partly as a result of that negative response, Professor Downie turned her attention to the regulatory Colleges to try to convince them to impose mandatory referral.”iv
Earlier this month, Mr. Vellacott spoke out against a similar draft policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). At that time, he expressed concerns that if the Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Canada’s current ban on euthanasia or assisted suicide, then CPSO’s policy would mean Ontario’s physicians would have a ‘duty to refer’ patients for these life-ending procedures. He stressed that no other jurisdiction that currently allows euthanasia or assisted suicide imposes such an obligation. v
“While the CPSO policy is not identical to the CPSS/CRG Model Policy, in principle it is the same—a coercive attempt to involve physicians in the killing of some of the most vulnerable members of our human family,” Mr. Vellacott said. “The sheer fact that these Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons feel that a coercive policy of referral for these controversial procedures is necessary, is itself testament to the fact that there is something inherently problematic about these procedures in the first place. If they were procedures just like any other medical procedure, there’d be no need to coerce physicians into sacrificing a fundamental part of who they are—their very consciences—in order to provide them.”
No good can come from forcing a doctor to practice medicine in a way they find morally reprehensible. Killing the consciences of our medical doctors will cause inestimable harm to the people of Canada and society as a whole.”
“One cannot help but wonder, what is the real motivation of those pushing us down this dangerous path? And will we have the courage and wisdom and foresight to stop it?”
For information on providing input to CPSS on its draft policy, visit:

30 –

For further information and comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249; email:

i The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) is currently seeking input on a conscientious objection policy dubbed “Conscientious Refusal,” which it has adopted in principle. This policy would require physicians who object to providing certain “legally permissible and publicly-funded health services” to “make a timely referral to another health care provider who is willing and able to accept the patient and provide the service.” In cases where the patient’s “health or well-being” would be jeopardized by a delay in finding another physician, the physician would be forced to provide the service even when it “conflicts with physicians’ deeply held and considered moral or religious beliefs.” See:

ivSaskatchewan physicians to be forced to do what they believe to be wrong,” Protection of Conscience Project news release, Jan. 27, 2015, 

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Nothing "progressive" about Canada's 27 year abortion era

27 years later. And still no legal protection for pre-born children.

Mike Schouten reminds us of what Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson said after the 1988 Morgentaler decision:
"A developmental view of the foetus… supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages…The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes “compelling” I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature… It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.”
"Justice Wilson, arguably the most iconic feminist judge in the history of our country, would be labeled an “anti-choice extremist” by the more adamant of today’s pro-choice movement. Justice Wilson was abundantly clear - abortion should not be legal throughout all the stages of fetal development as it is today. In fact, she was comfortably open to a gestational ban between 12 and 18 weeks, similar to most European countries. And as the informative website points out, Wilson also stated that it should be the Legislature, not the courts, to decide at precisely which stage abortion should be restricted."
So here we are in 2015. And unborn children continue to be ripped out of their mother's wombs.

Some think this is what a civilized society does: fully funded, any time, any reason, abortion on demand. Some call this "progressive." I call it regressive. I call it shameful.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

CPSO is taking a dangerous position on conscience rights

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), wants to change how doctors are required to refer for care. Their draft policy, Professional Obligations and Human Rights states:
“Where physicians are unwilling to provide certain elements of care due to their moral or religious beliefs, an effective referral to another health care provider must be provided to the patient. An effective referral means a referral made in good faith to a non-objecting, available and accessible physician or other health-care provider. The referral must be made in a timely manner to reduce the risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Physicians must not impede access to care for existing patients, or those seeking to become patients”
Here are four reasons why CPSO shouldn't go ahead with this bad policy.

1) Freedom of conscience for doctors. It is wrong to force doctors to betray their conscience. This is not a difficult concept to understand. A civilized society does not force anyone to act against their conscience. And if a doctor is forced to refer for a procedure that is against her conscience, she is complicit in the act itself, which is the same (morally) as performing the act herself. This is wrong and against every moral definition one can think of.

2) Patient/doctor trust. If a patient knows their doctor can leave their conscience at the door when it comes to abortion, contraception or assisted suicide, how can the patient be expected to trust their doctor with their other health issues?

3) Retroactive requirements. Changing the guidelines in this way, is an unethical act towards the doctors affected. When doctors who are currently practicing, or are in medical school, first became doctors, they did so with the understanding that they would be able to conscientiously object to procedures that are against their conscience (including referring to another doctor).

This change would be a retroactive requirement of being a doctor. This is patently unfair to doctors. It means that doctors who are already in the profession or are in medical school, and chose the profession based on the current guidelines that do uphold their freedom of conscience rights, will now be expected to act according to a new and very different set of rules. Many doctors would have no choice but to leave their chosen profession in order to not be forced to be complicit in acts they find morally reprehensible.

4) Loss of livelihood to doctors. The huge investments required to become a doctor in the first place (time, money, family dependency on the doctor's livelihood, etc), would all be thrown away. Not only would these doctors who have invested large sums of money and time in becoming a doctor be forced to quit, but their entire livelihood would be at risk, and the livelihood of their families.

Dr. Marc Gabel who works for CPSO and is the chair of the college’s policy working group reviewing “Professional Obligations and Human Rights”, seems to have no problem with the harmful consequences this policy would impose on doctors:
“It may well be that you would have to think about whether you can practice family medicine as it is defined in Canada and in most of the Western countries.”

Dr. Gabel's flippant dismissal of the very real dilemma this new policy would incur for many doctors is worrisome. Forcing doctors to either refer for procedures that go against their conscience or, leave their profession altogether, is not a trivial matter.

These are all very serious considerations. CPSO and Dr. Gabel need to seriously rethink this policy because of these negative outcomes for doctors, the patients they treat, and society as a whole.

Doctors and members of the public can comment on the draft policy up to Feb. 20. Submit your comments here.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Mr. Harper to Ms. Wynne--two can play this game

John Ivison: That didn’t take long — Wynne shatters d├ętente with Harper during pointed speech in Ottawa

Dear Mr. Harper,

You may have heard that Premier Kathleen Wynne has a "vision of Canada". She is telling you to increase infrastructure spending to 5% from 3.5 of GDP. That's a whopping $30 billion year gap.

If Ms. Wynne would like to tell you how to do your job, I suggest you tell her how to do hers.

Have you heard about the Ontario Liberals hidden agenda to hide abortion statistics in Ontario? Well actually, that's not quite right. It isn't a hidden agenda anymore, it's more like a reality TV show: you have to see it to believe it. All abortion related information is now excluded from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA). I am not kidding.

This means that any and all such information is now top secret in Ontario.

You know like, how many women die from abortion, what are the complication rates from abortion, how many dollars the Liberals spend on abortion, etc.? All secret.

Not what I'd call a best practice for a democracy.

So. Why don't you stick your nose into Ms. Wynne's business, just like she's stuck her nose into your business? Why don't you tell her to repeal her, sneaky, anti-democratic, hidden-agenda, sorry excuse for a law, so that democracy can be restored to Ontario.

After all. Fair is fair.

Patricia Maloney

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

More reasons why RU-486 is a very bad idea

The pro-abortions are jumping up and down, yelling at Health Canada to approve mifepristone or RU-486. They want Health Canada to hurry up, but I don't see the pro-abortions telling you all of the risks and issues that must be addressed before it's approved.

Important considerations the pro-abortions aren't telling you about:

1) As I've already written, RU-486 is not a good idea for women in remote areas. And the FDA agrees:
 "Doctors must have the ability to date pregnancies accurately and to diagnose tubal pregnancies. Doctors must also be qualified to provide any necessary surgery, or have made arrangements for any necessary surgery. Doctors must ensure that women have access to medical facilities for emergency is important for women to be fully informed about how Mifeprex works and about its risks, as well as the need for follow-up visits with their health care provider, especially on the 14th day after mifepristone is administered."
2) In Ontario when women die from RU-486 and or have serious complications like septic shock, we'll never know that, because, as I've said before, Ontario's cover up of all things relating to abortion. There will be no way to get any information in Ontario on abortion complications from this drug, or from any other forms of abortion either.

3) There is no mechanism in place (like in the US) to give us statistics on women who die from RU-486. The FDA does have a reporting system of "adverse events". So how does Health Canada plan to ensure adverse events are reported and made public in Canada when they don't do this now? Compound that with Ontario's abortion secrecy law, and women could be seriously harmed, even die, and nobody will ever know it was linked to RU-486. How is this in the best interests of women?

4) Read what Renate Klein--who is pro-choice--has to say about RU-486 in "The ethics of disclosure: RU486 and the suppression of facts".
"Together with colleagues, Professor Janice Raymond and Dr Lynette Dumble, I have been researching the RU 486 abortion story since 1988, when what was then called "the French abortion pill" made its debut on the world-stage. As long-term women's health researchers and supporters of safe abortion, we watched in astonishment as many international women's health groups uncritically greeted the arrival of this chemical abortifacient. We wondered why the progesterone antagonist RU 486, a largely untested chemical, was hailed as a new "miracle drug" and the "moral right of women." 
The result of our three-year investigation was the book RU 486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals, published in 1991. We concluded that the "safe-and-effective" mantra that RU 486/PG abortion had acquired was misleading: the adverse effects of the two drugs were unpredictable and dangerous and the research undertaken inadequate. The new "demonising" of suction abortion as "surgical" abortion (conjuring up knives and requiring a general anaesthetic, both wrong) was worrying. We said that the drawn-out and painful process of chemical abortion (our preferred term; but I also use pill abortion or "medical" abortion) was emotionally and physically hard on the women. The abortion process lasts a minimum of three days - when all goes well - but women can bleed up to 6 weeks. Moreover, between 5 and 8% of women need a second abortion when the drugs fail to completely terminate their pregnancy and remaining products of conception need to be removed to prevent an infection. This is a very draining and unpredictable time for women, especially so when compared to the 15-30 minutes a suction abortion takes in the relative safety of a clinical setting. In particular, we worried that because the second drug, the prostaglandin, is taken outside a clinic, the woman's life would be at risk if she was haemorrhaging excessively and needed a blood transfusion but was away from an emergency clinic. 
We concluded that the RU 486/PG abortion had the making of a new wave of DIY backyard abortions which burdened women who had decided they needed an abortion with unnecessary days of agony: haemorrhaging, vomiting, cramping and the well-founded fear of sepsis. We predicted deaths and also wondered why pro-choice activists could not see that this abortion method only benefited pharmaceutical companies and doctors. For the latter, it is much easier to prescribe pills than actually perform an abortion: only die-hard abortionists "like" to do them, while most other doctors perform them out of a sense of duty. We warned that the push for RU 486/PG - especially when it is cheap - could be particularly dangerous for poor and/or Indigenous women. And we were concerned that the uncritical - and endlessly repeated - promotion as "safe, effective and more natural" in a society that has a pill for every ill, would lead to RU 486/PG abortion becoming the preferred abortion method. This would result in clinics offering the much safer and 98 to 99% effective suction abortion folding as they were too expensive compared with the cost of the RU/PG abortion." (emphasis added)
I hope Health Canada doesn't cave to the pro-abortions. I hope Health Canada does not approve this terrible drug.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

RU-486 can be lethal for women in remote areas

RU-486 (mifepristone) is a nasty drug. And Health Canada is considering approving it for abortions. 

The CBC thinks this is marvelous news:
"Approval of the drug would provide greater access to medical abortion for women in rural or remote parts of Canada."
And the Globe and Mail:
"NAF and other organizations that support bringing the medical abortion drug to Canada say it will make ending a pregnancy more discreet and widely available, especially in areas where services are scarce."
But this drug could be dangerous where "services are scarce" and in "remote parts of Canada".

If you look below where I post the possible side effects of this drug, you'll also notice that you must be near an emergency department because of the potentially very serious side effects, some lethal. 
"Visit your doctor, go to your nearest emergency department, or call for an ambulance if you experience any of the symptoms of serious complications described above during or after your medical termination."
So living in remote areas is a pipe dream imagined by the pro-abortions. And Canada is a huge country, with lots of remote and rural areas.

And for about 7 in 100 women, the drug fails.

Health Canada should think twice before they approve this drug. 

Important side effects to consider

The side effects of mifepristone and misprostol are similar, but misoprostol is more likely than mifepristone to cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and headache. After taking these medicines, you may experience one or more of the common or very common side effects listed below, or you may not experience any of them:
  • nausea
  • vomiting
  • diarrhoea
  • dizziness
  • abdominal cramps, pain or discomfort
  • headache
  • fatigue
  • chills and fever (a temperature of 37.5°C or higher)
  • fainting
  • breast tenderness
  • hot flushes, skin rashes or itching.
Talk to your health professional about possible side effects from these medicines before taking them.
If any of these side effects — or any other unexpected effects — concern you during the medical termination process, speak to your health professional.
Vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain and cramping are the expected effects of these medicines and, although unpleasant, they indicate that the termination is progressing as it should.
If you don’t experience vaginal bleeding, abdominal cramps and contractions of the uterus within 4 hours of taking misoprostol (the second medicine), this may indicate that the medical termination has failed. If this happens to you, visit a doctor urgently.

Signs of more-serious complications

If you experience a serious complication, you should be prepared and willing to access emergency medical help.
The following serious complications have been known to occur after termination of pregnancy with mifepristone/misprostol.

Persistent bleeding

Vaginal bleeding that is not heavy can continue for 10–16 days after a medical termination. If you continue to have bleeding after this, or if you are concerned about the amount or nature of bleeding at any time after having a medical termination, see your doctor.
If you experience heavy vaginal bleeding for more than 2 days after a medical termination, see a health professional immediately. Up to 4 in 1000 women will experience severe bleeding that requires a blood transfusion.


Infection of the organs or tissues in the pelvic region is an uncommon but serious complication that may occur in fewer than 1 in 100 women after a medical termination. If you have an infection, you may have some or all of the following symptoms:
  • fever (37.5°C or higher)
  • malaise (generally feeling unwell)
  • lethargy
  • nausea
  • vomiting
  • persistent abdominal pain or tenderness
  • offensive-smelling vaginal discharge.

Failure of the procedure

There is a chance (about 7 in 100 women) that taking mifepristone/misoprostol will not result in a successful termination of pregnancy. About 2 in every 100 of these women will need further medicines prescribed by their doctor to complete the termination, and about 5 in every 100 women will need to have a surgical termination if the medical termination fails.
Continuing with a pregnancy if the medical termination has failed is strongly not advised because the developing embryo may have been harmed or deformed.
Unsuccessful termination can also lead to serious complications, so it’s important to get medical help urgently if you think this has happened. Ongoing bleeding, with or without signs of an infection, may suggest an unsuccessful termination. However, it's essential to have a follow-up visit with your doctor 14–21 days after the treatment — or sooner if requested by your doctor — even if you don’t have any signs of a complication.
Visit your doctor, go to your nearest emergency department, or call for an ambulance if you experience any of the symptoms of serious complications described above during or after your medical termination.
For a more-complete list of possible side effects, see the consumer medicine information (CMI)for Mifepristone Linepharma (mifepristone) and for GyMiso (misoprostol), available from your doctor, MS Health or through the NPS Medicine Finder.
If a side effect is described as very common, this means that in clinical trials at least 10 out of 100 people experienced that side effect.
If a side effect is described as common, this means that in clinical trials, more than 1, but fewer than 10 out of 100 people experienced that side effect.
clinical trial is a research study conducted with patients that compares one treatment with one or more other treatments, to assess its effectiveness and safety.
Ask your health professional about the possible side effects of a medicine before you take it. Always tell your health professional about any changes to your condition.

Monday, January 12, 2015

CBC offensive to Catholics

Our public broadcaster--the one and only CBC--discriminates against Catholics by offending them in a disgusting manner.

According to Brian Lilley:
"On Wednesday CBC actually showed several cartoons including one of Pope Benedict. It was the cover after Benedict announced his resignation and it show him embracing a male Swiss Guard and saying Enfin Libre, or free at last. The implication being that Benedict resigned to be with his gay lover. 
But David Studer, the head of journalism standards and practices at CBC, sent a note to staff saying they would not offend Muslims. 
"We are not showing cartoons making fun of the Prophet Mohammad. Other elements of Charlie Hebdo's content and style are fine, but this area should be avoided as, quite simply, it's offensive to Muslims as a group," Studer wrote. 
So CBC's standards include offending Catholics but keeping Muslims happy."
I have emailed the CBC Ombudsman and complained about this.

You can too at:

Friday, January 9, 2015

Ontario PCs pretend to be for open and transparent gov't

See my email exchange with Jim Wilson, interim leader of the Conservative Party. Start at the bottom.

Hi Jim,

I notice you haven't responded to my email. This is the same response I get every time I raise this issue with an MPP. Silence. And that was what I was talking about in my original message.

Not one MPP has the courage to speak out publicly about what the Liberals did when they changed the law to do this. So how can you or any other MPP be really for open and transparent government, when you refuse to speak publicly about this? If the Liberals can hide information on abortion, they can hide information on anything. The slippery slope is endless.

Even though I am a conservative, probably more conservative than you are, I will continue to speak up against your party and your members as long as this silence continues. I realize I am only one voice, but at least my conscience is clear that I did not stay quiet about this deceitful and despicable act by the Liberals, even when the Conservatives did and said nothing.

So I repeat, speak out against the Liberals attack on open and transparent government, and then we can speak.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: End of Fall Legislative Session
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 14:48:33 -0500
From: Pat Maloney 
To: Wilson, Jim <>

Thanks Jim. I looked through the results but couldn't find anything on the Liberals decision to hide abortion information. Have you spoken out on that because that was what I was referring to?

I've written extensively on that, some of it is at this link:


On 08/01/2015 1:17 PM, Wilson, Jim wrote:
Hi Pat: If you search the word “accountability” all articles containing the word will come up.  Here is a link to my last article, .

Best Regards,


Jim Wilson, MPP
Interim Leader of the Official Opposition
Phone: 416-325-2069

From: Pat Maloney
Sent: January-08-15 1:03 PM
To: Wilson, Jim;
Subject: Re: End of Fall Legislative Session

Hi Jim, Can you please send me the actual link on your site where you speak about this? I couldn't find it.
On 08/01/2015 12:36 PM, Wilson, Jim wrote:
Thank you for your email Pat. My PC Party colleagues and I have spoken out a lot about this issue and encourage you to visit my website to view my efforts,

Best Regards,


Jim Wilson, MPP
Interim Leader of the Official Opposition
Phone: 416-325-2069

From: Pat Maloney
Sent: December-16-14 8:31 AM
To: Wilson, Jim;
Subject: Re: End of Fall Legislative Session

Dear Jim, speak out against the Liberals attack on open and transparent government, and then we can speak.
On 15/12/2014 10:32 AM, Jim Wilson, Interim Ontario PC Leader wrote:
As the Fall Legislative session ended, the Ontario PC Party was tied with the Liberals in the latest polling. The reason for our growing momentum is the outstanding work of our strong leadership candidates and our Caucus. 
Throughout the Fall, our united Ontario PC team continued holding the Liberals to account for their incompetence, lack of accountability, and hollow words. 
Our five-week campaign for a standing committee to address sexual harassment in the work place and protect victims of sexual harassment from further harm overcame Kathleen Wynne’s stubborn resistance when she finally reversed her stance. 
The most scathing Auditor General’s report I have ever seen in my 24 years as an MPP confirmed that the Ontario PCs were right in our opposition to smart meter tax machines and the sneaky Global Adjustment secret tax that is costing each household an extra $1,000 each year on our hydro bills. It also confirmed we were right in pointing out the harm all Ontarians face from increasing debt, interest payments, spending and failure to deliver services. 
During the Fall session, our Ontario PC team held the Liberals to account for shutting down the investigation into the destruction of documents in their billion dollar gas plant scandal; for failing to be open or transparent about mismanagement of the failed MaRS real estate project that will cost taxpayers almost $400 million; and for failing to provide oversight in the Ornge air ambulance scandal. 
A government can only rise to the challenges faced by the people of Ontario if it truly respects them. This can only happen if a government is accountable and transparent. The Ontario PCs will continue to fight for answers and accountability on behalf of the people of Ontario. 
Jim Wilson
Interim Leader

Monday, January 5, 2015

When the media supports a pro-life worldview

Last week on the year end review on CFRA, Steve Madely spoke about how when the Morgentaler decision came down in 1988, the Supreme Court Justices said that Parliament needed to enact a new law on abortion. He noted that Parliament never did do that. Steve went on to say that more recently, the Supreme Court judges ruled that Parliament needed to enact a prostitution Law, and they did do that recently.

The difference in the latter case of course, is that the SCJs gave Parliament a one year time limit to create a prostitution law. Parliament did this. But the SCJs did not impose a time limit in the 1988 ruling and no new law has ever been enacted in Canada. Every attempt to rectify this lack of a formal abortion law has failed, mostly thanks to political cowardice.

This makes the pro-abortions happy.

Today John Robson slipped into an on-air conversation that wasn't about abortion, how women want the right to do what they want with their body, except that the fetus is not her body. (The worn-out illogical argument about a "woman's right to do what she wants with her body" never ceases to amaze me.)

So what's my point exactly? It's just that it is so lovely to hear a radio personality actually willingly bring up abortion in this way. Because it hardly ever happens.

I remember years ago arguing with someone who knew a whole lot more than I did about media bias about abortion. When they told me that the media was biased, I relied, of course they aren't biased. I thought the person was just being overly dramatic and paranoid. Surely they are balanced, I said. Right? It took me a while but I finally realized I was very naive.

That was then. Now I see the media bias towards the pro-abortion worldview, and expect it at all turns, where "pro-choice" is "progressive". The "pro-choice" worldview believes it's just the way it is if you care about women, which ironically, is so opposite to reality.

That's why it always startles me when a media person actually says something on air that either raises the topic in a neutral but probing way (like Steve did) or actually puts forth a pro-life worldview (like John did).

I know that it's up to us pro-lifers to keep on doing what we are doing to change the conversation, since we can't expect the mainstream media to help. So every tidbit we get from the media is a small step in the right direction and we have to take what we can get. For this, I am thankful.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

CPSO: Changing the definition of discrimination

College of Physicians, please stand up for religious minorities

*Dr. Gabel is Member of Council and Past President of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. He is the chair of the College’s policy working group which issued the draft “Professional Obligations and Human Rights” policy.
Faye Sonier
Faye Sonier
I just read this article which was published in the Catholic  Register. You were quoted in the piece. Here is an excerpt:
Catholic doctors who won’t perform abortions or provide abortion referrals should leave family medicine, says an official of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
“It may well be that you would have to think about whether you can practice family medicine as it is defined in Canada and in most of the Western countries,” said Dr. Marc Gabel, chair of the college’s policy working group reviewing “Professional Obligations and Human Rights.”
The Ontario doctor’s organization released a draft policy Dec. 11 that would require all doctors to provide referrals for abortions, morning-after pills and contraception. The revised policy is in response to evolving obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code, Gabel said.
There have been no Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decisions against doctors for failing to refer for abortion or contraception.
Gabel said there’s plenty of room for conscientious Catholics in various medical specialties, but a moral objection to abortion and contraception will put family doctors on the wrong side of human rights legislation and current professional practice.
“Medicine is an amazingly wide profession with many, many areas to practice medicine,” he said.
Yes, medicine is “an amazingly wide profession.” Thankfully, it is also a profession which attracts an “amazingly wide” array of Canadians. Of those Canadian physicians are some who share my pro-life perspective. They may refuse to refer for abortion due to their conscience, but they may also refuse to refer due to their religious beliefs (or both – we’re working out what this means under the Charter). They may be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or atheist physicians but they have an issue with abortion or contraceptives. For them, to refer for this procedure or these drugs is to be complicit in the actions and their consequences.
I am an Ontario resident. I’m a cancer survivor. I’m a mother.  I have spent far more than my fair share of time in Ontario hospitals and clinics being treated by wonderful Ontario doctors.
Over the last few years, I’ve gone out of my way to work with pro-life physicians who share my perspective. I reject the notion that killing and dismembering unborn children is medicine, and I wanted to work with physicians who share my values regarding human life and human dignity.  Due to the “amazingly wide” practice of medicine in Ontario, I was able to find a few, and become their patient. I am so thankful for their care.
But due to your working group’s proposed new policy, I might lose my family physicians. They will choose to practice medicine in a province that respects both their skills and their rights, rather than sacrifice their conscience or their sincerely held religious beliefs.
I’m also a human rights lawyer. The College’s reasoning for stripping physicians of their conscience and religious rights is not based on law. Your working group received a number of submissions on that point, so I’ll leave you to review them with your legal counsel. The doctors seeking to exercise their freedoms have a leg to stand on. Heck, they have Canadian and Ontario human rights law on their side.
Of great concern to me is the definition of “discrimination” which you provided when interviewed:
“We’re saying that the discrimination occurs when you are not acting in the best interest of the patient,” said Gabel. “When you are not communicating effectively or respectfully about this with the patient, when you’re not managing conflicts, when you differ from the patient and when you are not respecting the patient’s dignity and ensuring their access to care and protecting their safety. That’s the issue.”
Dr. Gabel, this is not the definition of “discrimination” at law. If someone chooses to make up definitions for words, they are free to do so. (My son, for example, seems to think that “babagaba” is a verb which means “to chew on mommy’s ankle.”)
However, for a body like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to create a new definition of “discrimination” which will result in the stripping of legal and human rights of some of their members is shocking, and this new definition will not stand up in a court of law. I urge the College to abide by Canadian and Ontario law.
Dr. Gabel, I suspect you are well intentioned and a kind and caring psychotherapist, like so many of the wonderful doctors who have treated me over the years. But please don’t force my physicians from the province with your policy. My family depends on their expertise and professionalism. I like to see my own values reflected in the “amazingly wide” practice of medicine in Ontario. For someone like myself, a religious minority, this is very important.
The membership of your College is broad and wide enough to include some family physicians who happen to hold pro-life positions. If it is not, it should be.
Faye Sonier