ProWomanProLife

  • The Story
  • The Women
  • Notable Columns
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for Dr. Rene Leiva

Learning from Pinocchio

April 7, 2009 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

This letter is in response to a freedom of conscience article in Saturday’s Post. I think it is cute:

Based on my informed moral and religious conscience, I am a doctor who refuses to refer for abortions. I refuse to co-operate with intrinsic wrongness.

How do I explain this to my own young children? Last night, I read them Walt Disney’s Pinocchio: ” ‘No, Pinocchio,’ she answered. ‘First, you must prove yourself to be brave, truthful and unselfish. You must also learn to choose between right and wrong.’

‘But how will I know what is right and wrong?’ he asked. ‘Your conscience will tell you,’ said the Blue Fairy. ‘What’s a conscience?’ asked Pinocchio. ‘That’s the small voice that people don’t always listen to.’ ”

Dr. Rene Leiva, Ottawa

When I listened to Dr. Garson Romalis explain why he does abortions last year, I thought it was interesting. I was struck by how he has layered so many justifications on top of his conscience–but ultimately justifying is what he was doing.  If he were Pinocchio his nose would be awfully long by now. Totally unwieldy, even.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: conscience, Dr. Rene Leiva, freedom of conscience, Garson Romalis, pharmacists

A good man in Ottawa

November 4, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

Dr. Leiva responds to Leonard Stern’s piece on euthanasia and speaks on caring for patients: 

At the end, as Viktor Frankl says: “love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality.”  

Inspiring.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Dr. Rene Leiva

Curtailing freedom of conscience for doctors in Ontario

August 17, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

The National Post reported here about the new document regulating physician conduct in Ontario. It’s called “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code” and I just read it in its entirety. But even before I read it, I knew it couldn’t be good–take a look at the reason why this new document was created. It’s to respond to changes in the Human Rights Tribunals. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario says this:

In June 2008, changes were introduced to the Ontario Human Rights system, which will provide Ontarians with increased access to the Human Rights Tribunal. This new system is expected to result in a significant increase in the number of hearings into human rights complaints made to the Tribunal… In this climate of increased awareness of human rights, the College has developed a new draft policy for consultation, entitled Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code.”

 

Human Rights Tribunals across the country, should the College not have noticed, have become a national embarrassment for the limitations they place on freedom of speech. Human Rights Tribunals are where people who don’t have a hope of getting their case through a real court go.

 

The document itself is a disaster; it apparently subjugates physicians to bureacrats at Human Rights Tribunals. The document gives those bureaucrats, those who hold physician’s livelihoods in their hands, substantial leeway to do their job. It says:

The balancing of rights must be done in context. In relation to freedom of religion specifically, courts will consider how directly the act in question interferes with a core religious belief. Courts will seek to determine whether the act interferes with the religious belief in a ‘manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial.’ The more indirect the impact on a religious belief, the more likely the courts are to find that the freedom of religion should be limited.”

 

But no latitude for doctors for whom “The college advises to proceed cautiously,” when it comes to their moral or religious beliefs.

 

There is no freedom where there is no freedom of religion. And furthermore, unless we want our doctors to become robots constantly looking up “A Code” of some sort or another, we want them to integrate their morals with their practice.

 

This policy is ominous, and will harm further our already flagging medical system. Ironically, it forces doctors to refer where they cannot provide care themselves—cold, cold comfort to those who can’t get a doctor in the first place, or who find themselves on waiting lists already. In practice, squeaky wheels, those professional plaintiffs, will a) get faster treatment, b) get “treatment” faster for something that is likely a social lifestyle choice, like abortion or sex changes, and c) put those nasty doctors they don’t like out of business.

 

These are dangerous times for people like Dr. René Leiva, quoted in the National Post story. He says:

This would put a burden on physicians like myself to conform to a view that basically puts my conscience under somebody’s else’s power,” said Dr. Leiva. “And the key aspect is moral integrity and the right of physicians to act in a way that does not harm the patient.”

And he’s right. What we have here is an open door to professional complainers to put excellent doctors through the wringer or even out of business.

I have three extraneous points to make. As a patient, should this new policy go through I’d suggest people like myself lodge a complaint for every doctor who suggests abortion when a child is diagnosed in utero with a disability or Down’s Syndrome. After all, they just put their secular faith ahead of practicing medicine by suggesting a child ought to die for disability. Not the kind of care I expect to receive and certainly, references their own religious belief.

Secondly, now is the time to push for abortion to be removed from that list of things considered “medically necessary.” We all know it’s not, and the case is made all the more compelling by the host of pro-abortion folks who have said this. Pregnancy is not a disease; abortion is not a cure. No time like the present to remove it from the roster of funded procedures.

And lastly, on funding procedures: This type of policy fiasco produced by third-rate bureaucrats who wouldn’t know medicine, morality or what it means “to be religious” if the Pope himself had a sit-down chat with them—is made worse by our socialist “health care system.” (I’ll put that in quotation marks because it appears to work best when you are perfectly healthy.) If we had a system that flourished, where patients could actually find doctors, we would not need to compel doctors to refer through “policy”—without a shortage, patients would know they could just find another one. This type of “policy” is the direct result of the fact that our system is living in a time warp shared only by North Korea and Cuba: Places, incidentally, where “Human Rights Tribunals” would thrive, too. With this type of policy we’ll see treatment for the most politically astute, the most finicky, the most ideological—those who do, I’d hazard to say, have an illness, but of a more nebulous, shall we say, mental nature.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Dr. Rene Leiva, freedom of conscience

Show me the data

April 26, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

This today, in the Post. And more needed than ever, is a discussion on freedom of conscience for the medical profession. The comment below highlights the issue well. So I decided to make it a post of its own. Dr. Philip Ney responds to the question “In practice, how hard is it to be pro-life in medical schools these days?”

What about, how hard is it to be a pro-life professor in a medical school? Very hard and becoming harder. Why? Because medical schools are abandoning evidence-based medicine and the pro-life physicians are letting them. Abortion and sexual preference are now designated moral issues, which because they are such, cannot be treated or scientifically investigated.
Thank the Lord I was academically successful (full professor 4 times, academic and clinical dept. head etc.) and was an outspoken pro-lifer. I also lost 3 positions. I know it has become much harder in medical schools.
What would I advise students and young profs? Don’t keep quiet and don’t compromise. If God wants you to get to the top, you will. Remember Joseph and stick to your principles. If you are asked if you would perform an abortion, answer “of course, when and if it is therapuetically indicated and when and if there is good evidence abortion is beneficial and relatively free of harmful effects. Until that time, I will adhere to primum non nocere.”

Don’t forget that the onus of proof rests on those who propose or perform any medical proceedure to show: it is indicated, beneficial, relatively free of harm, done in good conscience, performed only with fully informed consent and then only when all other avenues, less invasive, have been tried and found wanting. Keep insisting, “show me the data.” You can rest assured there is no satisfactory evidence abortion by choice is good treatment and plenty of evidence it is harmful. Ask me for references if you wish.

 

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Archbishop of Toronto, Canadian medical association, Centre for Cultural Renewal, charter of rights and freedoms, Dr. Philip Ney, Dr. Rene Leiva, freedom of conscience, Iain Benson, Physicians for Life, The vocation of the Catholic physician, Thomas Collins

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssby feather

Notable Columns

  • A pro-woman budget wouldn't tell me how to live my life
  • Bad medicine
  • Birth control pills have side effects
  • Canada Summer Jobs debacle–Can Trudeau call abortion a right?
  • Celebrate these Jubilee jailbirds
  • China has laws against sex selection. But not Canada. Why?
  • Family love is not a contract
  • Freedom to discuss the “choice”
  • Gender quotas don't help business or women
  • Ghomeshi case a wake-up call
  • Hidden cost of choice
  • Life at the heart of the matter
  • Life issues and the media
  • Need for rational abortion debate
  • New face of the abortion debate
  • People vs. kidneys
  • PET-P press release
  • Pro-life work is making me sick
  • Prolife doesn't mean anti-woman
  • Settle down or "lean in"
  • Sex education is all about values
  • Thank you, Camille Paglia
  • The new face of feminism
  • Today’s law worth discussing
  • When debate is shut down in Canada’s highest places
  • Whither feminism?

Categories

  • All Posts
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Charitable
  • Ethics
  • Featured Media
  • Featured Posts
  • Feminism
  • Free Expression
  • International
  • Motherhood
  • Other
  • Political
  • Pregnancy Care Centres
  • Reproductive Technologies

All Posts

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2023 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in