A major Canadian newspaper becomes another shill for Planned Parenthood and reports that three family physicians in Ottawa are distributing letters to patients which indicate that they will not prescribe oral contraceptives, “…saying doing so conflicts with their ‘medical judgment, professional ethical concerns and religious values.'”
The article goes on to quote the infallibly correct “comment” of “Kate Suppa” (just a random person with an opinion, apparently): “When you become a doctor, you take an oath to do not harm. Impeding someone’s ability to receive the care they need is doing harm and should not be legal.”
Does the Canadian Medical Association publicly support the doctors? Not really. They call the issue a “grey area”, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario says “…that physicians should not promote their own religious beliefs when interacting with patients.” Get that? Objections to prescribing birth control have nothing to do with sound medical care; it’s all about crazy religious beliefs.
The article closes with a quote from a Planned Parenthood official who says that Ottawa patients who find their doctors will not prescribe contraceptives can contact Planned Parenthood for help finding a doctor who will.
Hatchet jobs like this article are going to get more and more outrageous. We’re talking about medical care and the safety of medications here. Yet “journalism” is turning to the same “man on the street” mentality found on late-night talk shows where one idiot goes around polling a bunch of other know-nothings to arrive at the conclusion that whatever moronic notion held by the majority of ignorami must be correct.
The article is flawed and lacking in merit because it assumes an entirely fallacious premise: that refusing to prescribe oral contraceptives constitutes “impeding someone’s ability to receive the care they need”.
Oral contraceptives are not health care. Contraception is not health care. Rather, contraception has serious risks and is harmful — it is an abortifacient, it can cause blood clots and embolism, it has been linked to certain forms of cancer. Physicians must be free to exercise sound medical judgment and follow their consciences in treating their patients. They should not ever be required to dispense medications that they believe are not therapeutic and safe for patients. Doing otherwise is a gross violation of the doctor-patient relationship.
But nobody cares about what’s actually healthy. If they did, they wouldn’t be taking the contraceptives in the first place. So “harm” is euphemized to mean “exposed to risk of pregnancy” or “inconvenienced with having to go to another physician who belongs to the other 99.99% of medical providers for birth control”. “Harm” means inability to have consequence-free sex (and by consequence-free, I mean less-likelihood-of-pregnancy, since birth control does not protect against STDs).
And the comments to the article are chilling. Get ready for conscience-free “health care” where ideology and pregnancy-free sex trumps everything else:
“People who are religious should not become medical professionals, as their personal opinions get in the way of medical ones.”
“…physicians should not be able to hold their own religious or moral convictions over their patients. If the physician is uncomfortable with that, he or she should look for another line of work or another specialty.”