i'm starting to think there's a conspiracy amongst the medical establishment in this town.
i went on saturday to fill my last refill on the emergency estrace prescription. they had 7 pills they could give me, and told me to come back on monday. i gave them a few extra days to make sure it was in. they didn't order it at all and told me to come back tomorrow...
i have a high expectation for incompetence in general, and am more than willing to assign it to the pharmacy at shopper's drug mart. but, there's a general pattern, here. did i upset somebody by going out of town for a rx? awww.
now, i have a new prescription and i haven't brought it in yet. if it's not there tomorrow, i'm going to have to take that prescription to a different pharmacy.
but i'm left wondering about collusion occurring. it's a small town....
then again, i know i get schizophrenic under stress. which is why i need to avoid stress. you dumb system, you.
we'll find out tomorrow...
i mean, they owe me 53 pills. i paid for them. i need to get them, eventually. but i need the refill by friday morning, too.
again: i think i might be dealing with a religious issue, which is the same problem i had with the local clinic. the main guy back there refuses to refer to me as jessica...
it seems to be a specifically muslim thing. i mean, i don't think one religion is more intolerant than the other with this. but it seems to be that some muslims in the community are having a hard time reconciling their religious value system with our dominant secular value system, and may be a little confused about what our law prioritizes when there's a conflict in place.
i don't have a lot of opposition to diversity. i don't think increasing immigration in a contracting economy is smart, but that has nothing to do with where people are coming from, it just has to do with the gross number of people in. given that we have little reason to think we can expect anything other than near zero to negative growth for the foreseeable future, i think restricting our immigration policy, overall, would be the preferable economic choice at this point in time. but that's an economic calculation, rather than a perspective on diversity.
however, i don't like this idea of religious people enforcing their value systems - regardless of the religion they're enforcing. and, i feel that may be a developing problem.
it's something that needs to be dealt with by the courts, who need to strongly enforce access to health care as a priority over religious objections to providing it. that law needs to be laid down, with extreme force.
i'd argue that it should be an offense that should necessitate a loss of license.
but we'll see what happens tomorrow.
i see that this is actually a current issue...
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/08/doctors-do-not-have-right-to-discriminate-and-deny-basic-health-care
ok. it turns out that this is under review, and a set of stricter guidelines is likely to come into force in 2015.
so, that's good news. i'd expect some court cases out of it...
the court isn't going to think in terms of balancing one right against another - it's repeatedly rejected that kind of thinking. but there is a contradiction.
the way i see it is that people make a choice to be a doctor, and in doing so they waive their right to religious objections. doctors work in the service industry. they're required to provide the services they're requested. and if they can't carry out those requests, they should find a different job that doesn't conflict with their religious views.
what that means is that i think being licensed to practice medicine in canada should be attached to upholding a secular value system. you'd have to rephrase that in terms of upholding science to make it legal, but it's the essential idea.
another way you could look at it is that, in canada, doctors are quasi-employees of the government. they're not technically. they run private businesses and cash in insurance hours. but it's being paid for by tax money.
as such, they really *ought* to be under the same legal purview as any other government body (and i don't know if they legally are). but, if they are, as they should be, the argument turns around the other way: conscientious objection becomes something that infringes on the patient's freedom of religion. which is kind of what i'm *feeling* about it...
when a doctor refuses treatment based on a religious view, they're enforcing their views on the patient as much as they're upholding their own. which is really what the actual problem is and really what needs to be addressed.
i mean, consider the issue applied to any other government service. could you imagine welfare refusing to hand out checks to single mothers because it feels their behaviour is sinful? city hall refusing to hand out drivers licenses to women because it believes women should stay at home? that's not the analogy people want to use because we have all these wonky class ideas. but, in canada, it's closer to the right one - whether it conforms to the legal technicality or not.