Thursday, March 2, 2006

The vaccination makers should also be forced to work

Yesterday, I posted on Comrade Monte Kwinter's proposed bill which would force doctors to perform services during emergency situations, in particular a flu pandemic, thereby putting themselves and their families at risk. Today the statists are claiming the bill is not meant to coerce doctors to work. This is absolute bullshit of course. Threatening "reasonably qualified" health care workers with fines of up to $100,000 and a year in jail for each day they refuse to provide service is nothing other than coercion.

Coercion is defined as follows on dictionary.com:

Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will; also : the defense that one acted under coercion —see also DEFENSE, DURESS —compare UNDUE INFLUENCE
From today's London Free Press:
Ontario's new emergency legislation isn't meant to force doctors and other health workers to stay on the job in an influenza pandemic, a government staffer said yesterday.

"Absolutely not," said Andrew Hilton, speaking for Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister Monte Kwinter.

[..] But Hilton yesterday said the legislation doesn't contain provisions to keep people on the job and won't allow the government to conscript doctors to work.

"If you want to pass a piece of legislation to do that, you have to use very specific language. 'Authorizing' doesn't even come close," said Hilton.

What the legislation is really meant to do is permit people to do work they normally wouldn't do, but could reasonably be expected to do, he said.

"A nursing assistant could be authorized to do the work of a registered nurse if it would be reasonable to expect he or she could do that," Hilton said.

"It is about getting the help and resources we need quickly."

The fines and jail penalties are aimed at preventing people from interfering with emergency workers and are not aimed at the emergency workers themselves, he said.

"The last thing we want to do during any kind of an emergency, particularly an emergency having a medical component to it, is to dissuade doctors, nurses, any kind of health-care workers from doing their job," Hilton said.
If passed, Bill 56 would surely dissaude doctors from entering into practice in Ontario. People threatened with fines and jail time typically don't find it in their best interest to stick around.

Far from dissuading medical staff to work, the government is proposing a STRONG "incentive" to FORCE people to perform services the government AUTHORIZES and MANDATES.

24 comments:

Honey Pot said...

The vaccination makers will be working Lisa, they will be making the vaccination. Their lives will be in danger, someone has to ride shotgun over the limited supply of the stuff.

I just can't work up a whack of sympathy for the health care workers, who are trained to work looking after sick people. I don't think they got much to worry about being fined, or sent to jail for non compliance. If it hits it will wipe out a whack of people, and the one's that are left will be more concerned about burying and burning the dead, as not to spread other diseases. I wonder if the grave diggers will be fined if they refuse to bury or burn them. I still think, if you had an ounce of humanity in you...I still think you would feel like shit on a stick if you hid under the bed, and refused to help.

Kateland, aka TZH said...

I can easily imagine a number of scenarios that aren't very farfetched whereby governmental mismanagement of resources (inadequate supply of gloves, masks or disinfectant just to name a few) could easily put a doctor at unnecessary risk or endanger their life or the lives of their families and friends. For the state to use its power to compel compliance is utterly and completely immoral.

Brent Gilliard said...

It's a terrible dilemma. Do we risk hospitals without gloves or hospitals without doctors?

But seriously, it would have been much wiser on the government's part to ask the CMA or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons to come up with guidelines first. They likely would have come to practically the same conclusion about doctors spending the most hours possible doing their doctor thing in the event of an emergency (though I doubt they would endorse jail sentences).

With the official endorsement of physicians, this whole ethically-distasteful situation could have been avoided.

Honey Pot said...

You could be right entozoa. I don't think you are going to see too many doctors refusing to work if a pandemic hits. Look at 9-11, the firemen and police who probably knew there was a good chance they were going to die trying to save people, and they did it anyway. When bad things come down the pike, it brings out the humanity and self sacrafice in most.

Mike said...

Look at 9-11, the firemen and police who probably knew there was a good chance they were going to die trying to save people, and they did it anyway.

Liberals are too willing to count on a sense of duty that is absent from the common people. Yes, the firemen and police saved a lot of lives, but perhaps they would have worked harder if the New York City government had been responsible like ours, and there had been a year in jail and a $100,000 fine hanging over each of the 9/11 firemen.

Why take chances with peoples' lives? You cannot argue with force. A year in jail is a powerful tool with which we as a society can compel others to save us.

gm said...

A threat of jail for Doctors who refuse to obey orders is pretty hideous. They are professionals not slaves.
This is greed and selfishness run amok.
The promise by the Government has no force of law, if the law says 100,000 fine and jail time it will be enforced.

Honey Pot said...

I wonder if they will let the prisoners all out of the jails if the pandemic does hit. Maybe they could make a workfare program, and if they promised to help burn the dead, and help out in other ways they could have early parole or somethng. Maybe they should start training the prisoners for essential services that will be needed in times of disaster.

How are they going to enforce it GM, if there is no one left to do the enforcing?

Pietr said...

Honey, it isn't going to happen.
It's just a little strain of flu that birds get.
Less people have died from it worldwide already than have died from traffic accidents in Britain in the same time.

I realise you problably like listening to old Police albums.
"We're only going to change this place....
By killing everybody in the Human race..."
It is simple traumatisation;now that the Cold War is really downgraded, they need something else to scare us with, since happy people are ungovernable.

Honey Pot said...

I am not scared of it happening. If you are born to drown you won't hang. It could happen, no sense being afraid of things you have no control over. A tusamni could hit first for all we know.

gm said...

Conscription for soldiers and doctors is wrong. That is a universal moral concept.

Brent Gilliard said...

Universal moral concepts are overrated. There will always be an exception to every rule.

The New York firefighters were shining beacons of humanity. But not all people are this dedicated. Remember the police in New Orleans?

Our opposition to conscription would no doubt dissolve if the agressor army were at our doorsteps, universal moral concept or not.

Pietr said...

"There will always be an exception to every rule"

That means there is an exception to that rule.

Which means that there are some rules which don't have exceptions.

So there are not exceptions to every rule, if there are exceptions to every rule......

Keep taking the pills old boy.

gm said...

Universal moral concepts are overrated. There will always be an exception to every rule.


Morals prescribe prefered behaviour.
Is it your opinion that dictators and tyrants are OK because universals are overrated?
Morals rules are optinal but not subjective. I may choose to eat but the consequences are not optional.
Exceptions for example in biology do not bring down the whole science of biology.
Some exceptions are way overrated.

Honey Pot said...

Conscription for soldiers and doctors is wrong. That is a universal moral concept-GM

Not a univeral concept anywhere that I have heard of.

Should the non conscripted enjoy the fruits of the labour of the conscripted? Being a coward is a moral dilema. How do you invoke a coward to do what is right in a time of war or disaster?

gm said...

conscription = slavery ... clear enough?

Honey Pot said...

No, not really. They can chose to move to a country that doesn't have conscription.....like Iraq or Iran. I don't believe the waiting list for immigration is a long one. Sometimes people who are useless cowards, need to be compelled to be useful in times of war or disaster.

Lisa said...

Honey;

Sometimes people who are useless cowards, need to be compelled to be useful in times of war or disaster.

The threat of force is usually a "compelling" enough reason for most people to take action to defend themselves. It is however much harder to resist force employed by the state, as they hold the monopoly on force.

Slavery is always wrong and can never be justified because it might be "useful" to some anonymous collective.

Honey Pot said...

Lisa, that anonymous collective would be us. It comes down to me being made to wear the kictchen curtains, and walk ten feet behind a male, I am going to understand the need for conscription. Democracy just doesn't happen Lisa, you got to fight for it.

gm said...

We fight for freedom not conscription!

Honey Pot said...

Freedom comes with a price, and that price is consription in times of war. Why should anyone benefit from freedom if they are not willing to fight for it? Why should it be handed to them on a silver platter while others sacrafice their lives for it? Times of wwar everyone has to their bit, if they want to or not.

Brent Gilliard said...

honey pot: That's an excellent point.

It's a dilemma that reminds me of the "could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that not even He could not eat it" joke.

Is the idea of "freedom" so sacred that we should be allowed to choose to give it up, all in the name of freedom?

Pietr said...

I am talking to you from the splendid offices afforded me by Microsoft Visual BASIC.NET(2005).

Conscript army of Iraq fought the conscript army of Iran for ten years.
Millions died, mainly Iranians with no weapons at all to fight with.
The conscript army of Iraq was then destroyed, twice, by smaller volunteer armies.

I could understand the 'defence' of slavery in that it 'works', but it doesn't, and never has.
Even the pyramids were built by well-paid volunteers not slaves.

Honey Pot said...

Freedom doesn't really exist anywhwere, and never has. It is an illusion that people just like to talk about. Humans have a fetish for oppression. I suppose this fighting over freedom depends on where on the continuum you are. I think as you evolve towards a semblance of freedom, you will fight like hell to stay there.

Pietr said...

Speak for yourself HP.