Two years.
Without a doctor.
In Barrie!
And the older she gets, the less likely she'll find one:
A 59-year-old Ontario woman on disability for a heart-related problem is complaining of age discrimination after she was rejected by a local doctor advertising for new patients.
Edith Paulus had already endured two fruitless years of searching for a family physician in Barrie -- a city designated under Ontario's ministry of health as being under-serviced for family doctors -- when she found Dr. Derek Nesdoly's ad in a local community newspaper.
The general practitioner was seeking new patients. But when Paulus called Nesdoly's office in Midhurst, a community just west of Barrie, she was told the doctor wasn't accepting patients older than 55.
....
Nesdoly's position may be justified by a 2005 Statistics Canada Community Health Survey, which found that 95.2 per cent of people over 65 already have a family doctor, compared to 75.7 per cent for those between 20 to 34.
And the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons does not restrict a doctor's right to reject a person based on age.
But the Ontario Human Rights Commission says that's wrong.
"Age is a protected ground in the Ontario human rights code," Barbara Hall, chief commissioner for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, told CTV News. "What that means is you can't be refused services because of age."
Activists for seniors say not only is it wrong, it will cost the health care system a lot more if Canada's aging population is denied timely access to treatment.
"We talk about prevention, and healthy living," said Judy Cutler, communications director for Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus (CARP). "(But) how are you supposed to do that on your own if no one is there to work with you and help you?"
First it's cutting off anyone over a certain age from public health care.
Then it's another restriction, after another, bit by bit, all to meet the budget.
Edith Paulus and company are just the early warning signs of a nightmare to come.
I sense Dutch-style mass involuntary euthanasia in our future, as the price of protecting the public health care monopoly, because too many old folks will be eating up too much health care spending. Not to mention CPP and OAP.
That's the unspoken reason behind the recent calls to decriminalize assisted suicide. Not "death with dignity", but "death for expediency," with the progressives clamouring, with an all-too-Canadian cynicism, for these sacrifices on the altar of Canadian identity.
Source: CTV
5 comments:
Back in the day, the progressives called it eugenics. Disallowing care for already triaged patients is simply the first step.
The next step will be killing them so they don't have to suffer anymore, forgetting that the cause of their suffering is the inept system. Oh, the nightmare is barely starting.
The real fact of the matter is that there are not enough family daoctors. In Nova Scotia a new practice used a lottery for patients to get new family doctors.
I thought the federal fiberals saved health care and the provincial ones saved it with their 1000 dollar a year extortion?
I see privatized healthcare fails again. This doctor is part of the private sector delivery of our healthcare system. If he were a part of the public sector delivery of the system he wouldn't be turning down patients for any reason.
When are you rubes going to wake up and realize that it's your "solutions" to healthcare problems that are in reality the problems?
My grandmother waited almost 2 years for what was considered 'routine' knee replacement.
She was turned away from several hospitals because the wait was soooo long.
I have spent the last 5 years without a family doctor in my city.
Something is wrong with our system and it needs to be fixed. Call me desperate, but the status quo and more money isn't going to fix it.
Post a Comment