Monday, June 13, 2016

j reacts to "conscience rights" as an orwellian construction to restrict rights

i don't agree with this. health care shouldn't be seen of as a market transaction (which is the basis of this decision) but as a right. denying access to services would fall under the denial of a right.

that's not to say that doctors should be forced to carry out the procedure, exactly - they have every right to quit in protest. but, they should not have the right to deny access to the service.

that said, i realize that my opinions are not entirely in line with canadian jurisprudence. canadian law would interpret my argument as basically correct, but nonetheless rather unreasonable. the law would suggest that you don't need to force people to make the choice to administer or quit (although i would hold to this, out of principle) so long as there's somebody around that is willing to perform the procedure. i'll plead guilty to being hard-headed; the law will not follow me in my rigidity to patient rights and my rejection of "conscience rights".

but, the law may argue that allowing hospitals to opt-out altogether is not the proper balance.

i think the way the dust settles on this is that the hospitals have to have a department. the law will argue that it's needlessly belligerent to force individual doctors to administer, but that the hospitals must nonetheless provide access - that they can't opt-out like this.

the province should realize this and avoid the imminent legal battles that they should know they will lose.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-hospitals-allowed-to-opt-out-of-assisted-dying-raising-conscientious-accommodation-concerns