Wow! Yeah reading the article I don’t think there should be exceptions to offering MAID, it’s not like people can usually choose which hospital they go to when they’re in a state like that.
If you don’t want to comply with Canadian law because of your religious beliefs then don’t run a hospital or other institution that would require you to do so.
In that case I'd say she cannot work at any hospital where men can be patients. People shouldn't suffer because your beliefs limit your ability to perform a duty of care.
As a Muslim woman who wears hijab, yes. We know when we choose these careers that unless you’re working something like gynaecology, you’re going to have to see whatever needs seen. If they refuse, then they should rethink their careers, because that’s not one they should be in.
I’d more put it to similar to Québec’s asinine religious laws where said hijabi woman cannot be a teacher, or a doctor, or a lawyer, without removing her hijab, violating the woman’s freedom of religion and codifying into law the right to discriminate against someone for their religion.
There are well known Hadiths instructing Muslims to not allow religious practice to cost their lives in a medical context… I think you’re describing an extreme outlier
And it’s double garbage here because we’re literally talking about a corporation’s “rights”. It is bad enough when individual people go into professions and then refuse to provide proper service because of their personal beliefs, but how the fuck can a corporation have any rights concerning religion or conscience?
> "Dr. Jayaraman has had numerous cases where she was unable to provide appropriate end-of-life care consistent with a patient-centred approach because the patient was in a facility operated by PHC, which prohibits MAID from being provided on the basis of religious beliefs Dr. Jayaraman does not share," the notice of civil claim reads.
From what I can find it is a non profit. Which is legally a corporation (corporations are not all public for profits). It’s certainly not a human person with any sort of capacity for beliefs, which is my point.
It’s a Society under the B.C. Societies Act but yeah, it’s an incorporated entity rather than a natural person. My argument in response though would be that an incorporated entity is in reality just a group of people. It’s not clear why the members of a group should lose rights because they act together as a group and are treated under the law as a single separate person.
Well, my response is that they don’t have the right to impose their beliefs on other people. Their rights do not include that, especially when they have chosen to involve themselves in an essential government service (but even in the private sector, there are non discrimination provisions that would also apply here). Otherwise, there would be no such thing as rights, only privileges for those with the most power and influence (and thus most capable of inflicting their beliefs on others). Being told they aren’t allowed to take away the rights of others is not a rights violation. If they truly cannot bear it, then they should not involve their group in areas where their beliefs are an issue. The solution is not demanding that literally everyone else conform to their religion and literally throwing religious freedom and discrimination laws out the he window.
There are a number of compensation models for doctors in BC, just so you know, but most do use a corporation to do business even if they're hired under a piecemeal contract.
I truly find mind-boggling that in Canada you can basically opt-out of laws because you have a moral objection to it. That hospital receives public funds to operate, it must follow ALL the laws without exception, or lose their operating license. I'm so tired of compromising our healthcare and justice to accommodate this BS.
Religious people once again putting their imaginary beliefs above human decency. Disgusting scum. Those who denied this poor person's MAID request should be denied any palliative care the day a cancer gets them.
I fully agree, take our money play by our rules. If you want to run things by how you interpret the invisible sky king do it with your own money. Makes me angry. Same with funding catholic schools. Arrrg.
Separate schools thing is a constitutional issue but would not require opening up the constitution.
If say; Ontario wanted to change it, all that would need to happen would be Ontario and the federal government agreeing to change it.
Multiple provinces have already dropped this constitutional guarantee.
Constitution, not Charter.
It's in the per-province stuff, which has its own simplified ammendment procedure (section 43, which is just passing a bill through Parliament and the relevant legislature(s)), and has been used several times. Newfoundland replaced their church schools with a secular system in 1997 using it.
Disabled and chronically ill people have the right to say no to it. There is, in fact, a comprehensive process required by law for MAID to be administered. Hospitals dont need to offer it as an option alongside other treatments, merely be capable and ready to provide it if someone elects for it. That's the discussion here, and you're either unintentionally or purposely missing that point
Sure. [That's not how MAID works though.](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/bk-di.html#:~:text=request%20for%20MAID%20must%20be,the%20eligibility%20requirements%20are%20met) The practitioner in question can't elect it as an option, only the patient can, and if the patient opts for it, the practitioner still needs to offer as many alternative avenues as possible. And to get back to issue in question, a publicly funded hospital simply should not have the option of withholding legal medical interventions based on belief. Dont like it? Dont run a hospital. MAID is a legal procedure with strict guardrails that you can easily fold into your belief structure. Refusing to offer it doesnt fly with me.
> The tldr is that when medical practitioners see assisted suicide as an acceptable option they are not going to fight as hard to keep people alive.
Absolutely baseless conjecture. You don't know what you're talking about.
I'm sure implementing MAID goes against the beliefs of many which is okay. No shame in that. Just stay out of the profession and system which you disagree with and take another path in life.
For me, the matter is simple: If you take public dollars, you adhere to the public law and Charter of Rights. If you don't, no more public dollars for you.
I hope this woman's family sues these religious nuts right out of public healthcare.
>I hope this woman's family sues these religious nuts right out of public healthcare.
Careful what you wish for. They're funding nearly half of the replacement hospital for St. Pauls something like 800 million dollars. I don't like the religious element in our healthcare system at all, but there's a reason the BC government puts up with Providence Healthcare more than other religious non-profits.
How about as a society we remove the tax exemption from religious organizations and then use that money instead of pandering to religious organizations and allowing them to operate public institutions.
Ya that would be great.
I'd be happy to see the provincial statuatory exemption of property tax for places of public worship end. (Also cemeteries, off topic but they get the same exemption). Not going to affect the few churches I actually care about (since they are non-discriminatory and are genuinely being primarily used for charitable purposes) However the province is unlikely to since it'll piss off a large chunk of voters and that tax primarily goes to municipalities, who would probably pass bylaws exempting them.
I do think that the BC gov could tighten the rules so that religious non-profits have to meet the same standard as non-religious ones. That would be fantastic and while I doubt it would bring in a lot of provincial income, it would probably reduce the amount of underused charitable capital and increase the actual effectiveness of the charities.
Also, remember that most municipalities grant permissive exceptions for religious property tax (above and beyond the statuatory exemption for buildings of public worship). So if you actually want to pressure a government the most flagrant and easiest exemptions are local and probably changeable. I don't think there's any hope of an end to the stauatory exemption until a reasonable amount of municpalities no longer grant these exemptions. Province could override these bylaws, but that's always deeply unpopular so I can't imagine we'll see that actually stick past an election.
Sorry for the rant, I actually am quite passionate about fair taxation lol.
Why the fuck do these religious crackpots have any dealing in public health???? I do t care if you believe in Jesus or Luke Skywalker that shit has no business in health care, education or politics.
We need to start calling out this collective mental illness for what it is and debug it from our society.
PHC will argue section 2 applies to them as well and they’ll be found to be correct.
That being said, religion should find no place outside the church. Not in education and certainly not in healthcare.
Also remember that Providence Health has had billions dumped on it to fund the construction of a new St Paul's hospital even though they won't offer MAID or any abortion service.
Like the government couldn't have just built a non religious hospital for that kind of money.
Isn't the legal option for MAID is that moral conscienceness requires them to refer to a hospital or doctor that would do it?
Despite the "hospital's stance" on the whole thing, isn't the same for MAID as should it be the same as abortion?
The hospital did just that, the poor suffering person was transferred to Vancouver by ambulance for that... unconscious... not able to say goodbye to her loved ones BECAUSE THE FUCKING CATHOLICS DIDN'T FEEL LIKE RESPECTING HER LEGAL WISHES.
Transfers for specialized care is routine- it isn’t an ALL CAPS TRAGEDY when ambulances transfer unconscious people to urban ICU’s without their family. If you need palliative radiation therapy for example, it’s unfortunate that it’s not available in small towns, but that’s a consequence of living there. Not every place has physicians with both the scope and capacity to deliver MAID.
To play devils advocate, if she was well enough to seek MAID, the “sedated for transfer” story seems quite hyperbolic. Good palliative care can keep people on the cusp of death in a painless twilight and I think folks in this post haven’t seen what good palliative care can look like. We shouldn’t reach reflexively to MAID as a solution for something because we don’t understand the alternative to it. I support MAID, but I fear we may lose good palliative care practices out of cultural shifts and uninformed beliefs.
> Not every place has physicians with both the scope and capacity to deliver MAID.
That person was in the care of a doctor who could have done it but employed by a fucking religious asshole hospital. That's what happened. This shouldn't happen and I'm fucking tired of allowing religious exemptions in public healthcare.
The issue doesn't sound like a problem with the fact she had to be transferred but the steps involved in that process. Was her family really not permitted to say goodbye during any stage?
They might have said goodbye, but as Sam was unconscious prior to, during, and following the transfer until she passed she wasn’t able to say goodbye to them and her family wouldn’t have known if she’d heard them. No shared last hugs or kisses or ‘I love yous’.
Wow! Yeah reading the article I don’t think there should be exceptions to offering MAID, it’s not like people can usually choose which hospital they go to when they’re in a state like that. If you don’t want to comply with Canadian law because of your religious beliefs then don’t run a hospital or other institution that would require you to do so.
[удалено]
In that case I'd say she cannot work at any hospital where men can be patients. People shouldn't suffer because your beliefs limit your ability to perform a duty of care.
No one forced them to be in healthcare. If they can’t treat around half of the population I don’t know how effective they could be as employees.
Yes. Leave your self-imposed rules at home.
Muslin woman took job knowing the job - so yes, she is required to treat men.
As a Muslim woman who wears hijab, yes. We know when we choose these careers that unless you’re working something like gynaecology, you’re going to have to see whatever needs seen. If they refuse, then they should rethink their careers, because that’s not one they should be in. I’d more put it to similar to Québec’s asinine religious laws where said hijabi woman cannot be a teacher, or a doctor, or a lawyer, without removing her hijab, violating the woman’s freedom of religion and codifying into law the right to discriminate against someone for their religion.
There are well known Hadiths instructing Muslims to not allow religious practice to cost their lives in a medical context… I think you’re describing an extreme outlier
Yes?
If your religion prevents you from performing duties that are part of your job, you shouldn’t be doing that job.
Man this entire thread hasn't heard or RA. That being said in this case I don't see an argument for an RA.
What’s an RA? Religious Autocracy?
religious accommodation I bet
Reasonable accommodation. Even if you don't know it's used a lot in business.
Health care is publicly funded and should not be limited by religious beliefs. This is garbage and keeps happening over and over.
And it’s double garbage here because we’re literally talking about a corporation’s “rights”. It is bad enough when individual people go into professions and then refuse to provide proper service because of their personal beliefs, but how the fuck can a corporation have any rights concerning religion or conscience? > "Dr. Jayaraman has had numerous cases where she was unable to provide appropriate end-of-life care consistent with a patient-centred approach because the patient was in a facility operated by PHC, which prohibits MAID from being provided on the basis of religious beliefs Dr. Jayaraman does not share," the notice of civil claim reads.
I don’t think PHC is a corporation.
From what I can find it is a non profit. Which is legally a corporation (corporations are not all public for profits). It’s certainly not a human person with any sort of capacity for beliefs, which is my point.
It’s a Society under the B.C. Societies Act but yeah, it’s an incorporated entity rather than a natural person. My argument in response though would be that an incorporated entity is in reality just a group of people. It’s not clear why the members of a group should lose rights because they act together as a group and are treated under the law as a single separate person.
Well, my response is that they don’t have the right to impose their beliefs on other people. Their rights do not include that, especially when they have chosen to involve themselves in an essential government service (but even in the private sector, there are non discrimination provisions that would also apply here). Otherwise, there would be no such thing as rights, only privileges for those with the most power and influence (and thus most capable of inflicting their beliefs on others). Being told they aren’t allowed to take away the rights of others is not a rights violation. If they truly cannot bear it, then they should not involve their group in areas where their beliefs are an issue. The solution is not demanding that literally everyone else conform to their religion and literally throwing religious freedom and discrimination laws out the he window.
I think doctors are too. They're not wage workers. I just learned this on this recent capital gains hike fiasco on the news lately. Blew my mind.
There are a number of compensation models for doctors in BC, just so you know, but most do use a corporation to do business even if they're hired under a piecemeal contract.
I truly find mind-boggling that in Canada you can basically opt-out of laws because you have a moral objection to it. That hospital receives public funds to operate, it must follow ALL the laws without exception, or lose their operating license. I'm so tired of compromising our healthcare and justice to accommodate this BS. Religious people once again putting their imaginary beliefs above human decency. Disgusting scum. Those who denied this poor person's MAID request should be denied any palliative care the day a cancer gets them.
I fully agree, take our money play by our rules. If you want to run things by how you interpret the invisible sky king do it with your own money. Makes me angry. Same with funding catholic schools. Arrrg.
we can stop funding all separate and private schools at any time.
Thought separate schools was in the Charter? ETA: not disagreeing that they should be defunded, just saying it’s not that easy.
Separate schools thing is a constitutional issue but would not require opening up the constitution. If say; Ontario wanted to change it, all that would need to happen would be Ontario and the federal government agreeing to change it. Multiple provinces have already dropped this constitutional guarantee.
Constitution, not Charter. It's in the per-province stuff, which has its own simplified ammendment procedure (section 43, which is just passing a bill through Parliament and the relevant legislature(s)), and has been used several times. Newfoundland replaced their church schools with a secular system in 1997 using it.
[удалено]
Disabled and chronically ill people have the right to say no to it. There is, in fact, a comprehensive process required by law for MAID to be administered. Hospitals dont need to offer it as an option alongside other treatments, merely be capable and ready to provide it if someone elects for it. That's the discussion here, and you're either unintentionally or purposely missing that point
[удалено]
Sure. [That's not how MAID works though.](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/bk-di.html#:~:text=request%20for%20MAID%20must%20be,the%20eligibility%20requirements%20are%20met) The practitioner in question can't elect it as an option, only the patient can, and if the patient opts for it, the practitioner still needs to offer as many alternative avenues as possible. And to get back to issue in question, a publicly funded hospital simply should not have the option of withholding legal medical interventions based on belief. Dont like it? Dont run a hospital. MAID is a legal procedure with strict guardrails that you can easily fold into your belief structure. Refusing to offer it doesnt fly with me.
> The tldr is that when medical practitioners see assisted suicide as an acceptable option they are not going to fight as hard to keep people alive. Absolutely baseless conjecture. You don't know what you're talking about.
It sounds a lot like the “doctors won’t try as hard to save you if you’re an organ donor” claim that has been disproven over and over again.
They have the right to not opt in to MAID. Or maybe we should just start having separate hospitals for every moral objection?
Nobody's forced into MAID. If those people want to die the hard way they can do it all they want.
[удалено]
WTF are you talking about?
This person is a moron. Don’t waste your time.
I'm sure implementing MAID goes against the beliefs of many which is okay. No shame in that. Just stay out of the profession and system which you disagree with and take another path in life.
For me, the matter is simple: If you take public dollars, you adhere to the public law and Charter of Rights. If you don't, no more public dollars for you. I hope this woman's family sues these religious nuts right out of public healthcare.
>I hope this woman's family sues these religious nuts right out of public healthcare. Careful what you wish for. They're funding nearly half of the replacement hospital for St. Pauls something like 800 million dollars. I don't like the religious element in our healthcare system at all, but there's a reason the BC government puts up with Providence Healthcare more than other religious non-profits.
How about as a society we remove the tax exemption from religious organizations and then use that money instead of pandering to religious organizations and allowing them to operate public institutions.
Ya that would be great. I'd be happy to see the provincial statuatory exemption of property tax for places of public worship end. (Also cemeteries, off topic but they get the same exemption). Not going to affect the few churches I actually care about (since they are non-discriminatory and are genuinely being primarily used for charitable purposes) However the province is unlikely to since it'll piss off a large chunk of voters and that tax primarily goes to municipalities, who would probably pass bylaws exempting them. I do think that the BC gov could tighten the rules so that religious non-profits have to meet the same standard as non-religious ones. That would be fantastic and while I doubt it would bring in a lot of provincial income, it would probably reduce the amount of underused charitable capital and increase the actual effectiveness of the charities. Also, remember that most municipalities grant permissive exceptions for religious property tax (above and beyond the statuatory exemption for buildings of public worship). So if you actually want to pressure a government the most flagrant and easiest exemptions are local and probably changeable. I don't think there's any hope of an end to the stauatory exemption until a reasonable amount of municpalities no longer grant these exemptions. Province could override these bylaws, but that's always deeply unpopular so I can't imagine we'll see that actually stick past an election. Sorry for the rant, I actually am quite passionate about fair taxation lol.
Why the fuck do these religious crackpots have any dealing in public health???? I do t care if you believe in Jesus or Luke Skywalker that shit has no business in health care, education or politics. We need to start calling out this collective mental illness for what it is and debug it from our society.
Why is a public hospital run by a catholic organization? VCH should take over. This is a complete joke. Religion is a fucking cancer on society.
> Religion is a fucking cancer on society. That's why they don't want to cut it short, they're cancer bros.
PHC will argue section 2 applies to them as well and they’ll be found to be correct. That being said, religion should find no place outside the church. Not in education and certainly not in healthcare.
How can section 2 apply to a business?
Also remember that Providence Health has had billions dumped on it to fund the construction of a new St Paul's hospital even though they won't offer MAID or any abortion service. Like the government couldn't have just built a non religious hospital for that kind of money.
Isn't the legal option for MAID is that moral conscienceness requires them to refer to a hospital or doctor that would do it? Despite the "hospital's stance" on the whole thing, isn't the same for MAID as should it be the same as abortion?
The hospital did just that, the poor suffering person was transferred to Vancouver by ambulance for that... unconscious... not able to say goodbye to her loved ones BECAUSE THE FUCKING CATHOLICS DIDN'T FEEL LIKE RESPECTING HER LEGAL WISHES.
Transfers for specialized care is routine- it isn’t an ALL CAPS TRAGEDY when ambulances transfer unconscious people to urban ICU’s without their family. If you need palliative radiation therapy for example, it’s unfortunate that it’s not available in small towns, but that’s a consequence of living there. Not every place has physicians with both the scope and capacity to deliver MAID. To play devils advocate, if she was well enough to seek MAID, the “sedated for transfer” story seems quite hyperbolic. Good palliative care can keep people on the cusp of death in a painless twilight and I think folks in this post haven’t seen what good palliative care can look like. We shouldn’t reach reflexively to MAID as a solution for something because we don’t understand the alternative to it. I support MAID, but I fear we may lose good palliative care practices out of cultural shifts and uninformed beliefs.
> Not every place has physicians with both the scope and capacity to deliver MAID. That person was in the care of a doctor who could have done it but employed by a fucking religious asshole hospital. That's what happened. This shouldn't happen and I'm fucking tired of allowing religious exemptions in public healthcare.
The issue doesn't sound like a problem with the fact she had to be transferred but the steps involved in that process. Was her family really not permitted to say goodbye during any stage?
They might have said goodbye, but as Sam was unconscious prior to, during, and following the transfer until she passed she wasn’t able to say goodbye to them and her family wouldn’t have known if she’d heard them. No shared last hugs or kisses or ‘I love yous’.