jueves, 30 de marzo de 2017

Canadian doctors should not be forced to refer for euthanasia | MercatorNet | March 31, 2017

Canadian doctors should not be forced to refer for euthanasia

 | MercatorNet |  March 31, 2017



Canadian doctors should not be forced to refer for euthanasia



Canadian doctors should not be forced to refer for euthanasia

A vegan, environmentalist, secular humanist doctor explains why
Christine Cserti-Gazdewich | Mar 30 2017 | comment 1 



 
Christine Cserti-Gazdewich / from YouTube   
Although Canada has recognised a legal right to euthanasia, a number of loose ends need to be tidied up in the laws of the provinces and territories. Amongst these is defining the scope of conscientious objection for doctors who do not want to be associated with euthanasia.
standing committee in the Ontario legislature is studying amendments to Ontario laws related to medically assisted death. Dr Christine Cserti‐Gazdewich appeared before the committee to testify in favour of conscience rights and gave the following presentation.
* * * * * * * *
I am a blood science specialist, stamped indelibly by the Krever commission. I know the dangers of system silence. I serve as an associate medical director to the laboratories dispensing safe, compatible blood products to dozens of Ontario hospitals, some as far north as Attawapiskat.
I am an assistant professor at a nearby medical school, with my primary appointments at the downtown teaching sites.
I am also a clinician, treating disorders marked by self-destruction, bleeding, clotting, or malignant overgrowth. My research has delved into the evolutionary biology of diversity and how to overcome barriers to blood and organ matching. At the end of the day, and with my colleagues, I love my patients, and we share the honour of caring as best we can.
I’m also a secular humanist, a vegan environmentalist, and the daughter of east European immigrants. Half a century ago and a decade apart, each of my parents fled a regime where the game was unanimity.
Personal experiences explain why I cannot thread the needle of MAID and why I hope for conscience protection in this land that my parents came to when they sought freedom for themselves and their children.
I was turning 20 when my mother was dying; she then was at an age similar to mine now.
When I reflected on the sorrow we felt with her suffering and the disappearance of future decades together, I thought that if a crystal ball had shown me what we were about to go through, I might well have shot the both of us before shedding the first tear. But then I was so thankful for the blind and healing linearity of time, and for every moment in between. I also thought that if she had asked me to inject her with an agent endowed singularly with the property of arresting her heart or to find someone else to give it, I could not and that I would be honest with her as to why.
After MAID was legalized, I realized that if I could not abet the suicide of the greatest love of my life, then I could not do the same for a stranger, whose place in my own practice I aim to position as reverently as that of my own kin. This is not out of arrogance, but humility.
Some years later, I got married, and my spouse and I tried to become parents. For medical reasons, the ease with which life comes into the world was not ours to have. I say this sincerely: Life, to me, is a breathtaking miracle in this mad universe. I know what it is to lose it, to hurt and to fail to channel it. I go to work every day joining others on similar journeys. But I fear that my values may soon be held against me when up to now they were an asset.
I am here to ask for two things: For patients to have the power to self-refer and for their clinicians to have the right to conscientiously refrain from MAID-related activity.
A care coordination service is a must. Some patients don’t have doctors. I will tell you practically: If “effective referral” is something that you think materializes quickly, think again. Insinuating an MD—even the most energetic and agreeable one—is another discriminant between the haves and the have-nots, and a spacer between communication and action. Patients considering MAID deserve no less than the same direct access and discretion afforded to others in the midst of their most private crises of reproductive or mental health.
As for conscience, the right to reasonably object to a procedure may percolate valuably into other Gordian knots. My colleague may recuse herself from inserting a nasogastric tube into a pregnant political hunger striker if indeed force-feeding is the preliminary order of a few decision-makers. We owe honest feedback signals to our hierarchies in uncharted territory. When commanding these edges of life, conscience deserves respect, and James Downar would agree. Laws aren’t mere instruments but cultural memoranda.
Conscientious objectors are not insulting our patients if they are enabled to seek their own will. Some of us hold an equally logical counter-position on life-terminating compounds. Today, veterinarians have more experience with euthanasia than we do, and American executions of human beings have been botched in imitations.
Uncertainty begs for analysis and criticism. Conclusions in science and legislative decisions utterly depend on such debate. Free conscientious objection to MAID is what peer review is to science. It’s something that reveals flaws and coaxes improvements. This constructive dialogue is not a bedside sword but the vitality of a system striving for excellence.
Prohibiting dissent and permitting disciplinary actions by licensing colleges will do this: bake a North Korean-styled moral Darwinism into Ontario. Only those who agree, and those too timid to disagree, comprise what remains.
Without amendments, we face quantitative and qualitative corrosion of our health care workforce. Scores of patients could flounder after default expulsions of their health care workers. Is such an effect preferable to the awkwardness of hinting at the sanctity of life?
I don’t disagree that we clinicians must, and do, sacrifice a lot to promote the fulfilment of our patients’ aspirations in the optimizable boundaries of their health. However, I don’t believe that this mandates collaboration in actions that can induce the moment of death, the other side of which remains inaccessible to science.
Many also know that clinician well-being is an essential precondition to best patient care. How do we reconcile new guidelines to limit exhaustion with the simultaneous dismissal of our moral anxiety?
We cannot afford that which further increases the pitch of medical error, burnout, functional extradition or gagging that which compelled many of us to dedicate our lives to the sick.
Assistant Professor Christine Cserti-Gazdewich is a haematologist at the University of Toronto.
- See more at: https://www.mercatornet.com/careful/view/canadian-doctors-should-not-be-forced-to-refer-for-euthanasia/19574#sthash.S0eXlLEL.dpuf





MercatorNet

March 31, 2017

A new study from Britain that shows a high correlation between abortion and breast cancer for older women also discovers there is a remarkable "social gradient" in the British epidemic: upper class and upwardly mobile women get more breast cancer. To find out why, read my piece.
Also recommended is the strong testimony of a vegan, environmentalist, secular humanist doctor to a Canadian government committee about the right of doctors to conscience protection in an era of legal euthanasia.


Carolyn Moynihan
Deputy Editor,
MERCATORNET



The (still) unexplained breast cancer epidemic
By Carolyn Moynihan
A new British study shows a high correlation with risk factors that remain ignored or denied.
Read the full article
 
 
‘We’re here, we’re queer, get Peterson out of here!’
By Brent McCamon
How a psychology professor made Canada’s National Gallery ‘unsafe’.
Read the full article
 
 
Are converts to Islam more likely to become extremists?
By Kim Knott and Matthew Francis
Conversion and radicalisation are not one and the same.
Read the full article
 
 
Canadian doctors should not be forced to refer for euthanasia
By Christine Cserti-Gazdewich
A vegan, environmentalist, secular humanist doctor explains why
Read the full article
 
 
This is hard-working America at its absolute best
By Michael Cook
94-year-old Loraine Mauer is still serving customers
Read the full article
 
 
What do disabled people think about assisted suicide?
By Liz Carr
A disabled British comedian has made a musical showcasing her opposition
Read the full article
 
 
The victims of a “victimless practice”
By Nicole M. King
Watching porn harms more than one person
Read the full article
 
 
Gender identity politics is erasing and silencing women
By Michelle A. Cretella
A conservative, pro-life doctor praises a feminist protest against transgender ideology
Read the full article


MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia

Designed by elleston

New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605 

‘We’re here, we’re queer, get Peterson out of here!’ | MercatorNet | March 31, 2017

‘We’re here, we’re queer, get Peterson out of here!’

 | MercatorNet |  March 31, 2017



‘We’re here, we’re queer, get Peterson out of here!’



‘We’re here, we’re queer, get Peterson out of here!’

How a psychology professor made Canada’s National Gallery ‘unsafe’.
Brent McCamon | Mar 30 2017 | comment 1 



National Gallery protest. Photo: Robyn Miller/CBC

Arriving at the National Gallery in Ottawa for a recent lecture, I was greeted by protesters I assumed were perhaps upset about representational imbalance between Warhols and Watteaus on the walls.
But, what ho? It turned out they were transgender activists and friends, which they let the world know by chanting: “We’re here, we’re queer, get Peterson out of here!” as well as “Gender Defenders!” and, somewhat incongruously hors-de-context,  “Black Lives Matter!”
The chants were aimed at – or provoked by, depending on your perspective – the evening’s speaker, Dr. Jordan Peterson. The University of Toronto professor had been invited by the Gallery months earlier to talk about the psychology of creativity, a subject on which he has a specific research interest. He has co-authored more than 100 academic papers on it, and spoken about it at scientific conferences across North America.
The invitation went out, however, before Peterson gained international attention by refusing to use “preferred pronouns of trans- and gender-non-conforming persons” at the U of T, and by offering nuanced criticism of Bill C-16, the first piece of Canadian legislation that could compel people to use a State-mandated vocabulary.
His subsequent explosive popularity has led to near-celebrity status, dubbed by some the Peterson Phenomenon. It has led to speaking engagements across the continent, and standing ovations in some venues. It has also sparked contrary efforts to, in the jargon of the day, “de-platform” him, and protest the polarizing professor’s presence wherever he goes.
Protests and coordinated attempts to shut down venues where he speaks are not reserved for those where he addresses gender identity and sexuality.  They erupt in the name of intersectionality, which is said to justify suppressing any speaking engagement that he is involved in, no matter the topic.
For the uninitiated, “intersectionality” is a worldview currently being fostered in many Western academic institutions. It is a convoluted lens through which all of human experience is explained via the classic Marxist categorizations of oppressor and oppressed. Moving beyond economics, it posits that social oppression does not apply simply to single categories of identity such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. It covers all of them in an interdependent system of privilege, hierarchy and power. Against classical Marxism, it offers no unified vision, no utopia, indeed, only an inevitable fracturing of human identity complemented by squabbling over who is the most “oppressed.”
 Not unsurprisingly, Peterson does not see himself as oppressing anyone. For him, the primary issue at hand relates to State-compelled speech. The topic upon which the language itself focuses, while important, is secondary. Transgender activists and their friends are wont to disagree. A lot. Very loudly.
They deem him “transphobic” and by that designation find that he must, through the logic of intersectionality, also be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, classist, and whatever other “ists” the ever-expanding list might contain.
Interestingly enough, members of the U of T Administration (lovingly referred to by devotees of intersectionality as “The System”), including the Chair of the Department of Psychology, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science, and the Vice-Provost of Faculty and Academic Life sent Peterson two letters last fall attempting to curb his ability to speak to this topic, and urging him in light of “the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code…to stop repeating these statements.”
A result – who could have predicted this? – is that Peterson began speaking out even more, and his opponents doubled-down on their efforts to shut him down.
The irony of the situation seems to have escaped proponents of intersectionality, wherein a minority opposing voice is being oppressed by the administration of a public institution. Supporters of intersectionality seem to be so obsessed with the politics of self-identification and victimhood that it appears that they no longer understand how to form social consensus outside of their safe spaces.
Certainly, some protestors outside the National Gallery were iron clad in their conviction that the mere spectre of Peterson passing through the building had a transformative effect powerful enough to cause its physical and spiritual matter to mutate dangerously.
“Art has always been a safe space for queer people, people of colour and marginalized people in general,” one Carleton University Student told the CBC.  “We don't feel safe coming to the National Gallery of Canada anymore.”
Yet there they were standing at its door, affirming Rex Murphy’s insistence in his recent Convivium article, Educated Fleas , that the only function of North American universities today is “to explore gender identities, provide hugs and hot cocoa for coddled inmates, and perform a total mockery, under the banners of diversity and sensitivity, of the entire intellectual tradition of the West since Aristotle and Plato.”
In reality, aside from its exhibited work Trans-Am Apocalypse No. 2 roaring to life and running someone over, there isn’t much danger to be found in the National Gallery of Canada. Beyond that, art has never been about maintaining safe spaces for anyone anyway. It is not merely the by-product of warm feelings and pretty pictures. Art is the process through which a message is discovered within and derived from human creativity, what Peterson referred to in his lecture as a translation and representation of the unknown, on the border of order and chaos.
This flow of information is guided by an artist’s vision to be carved in stone, presented on canvas, or played on instruments. Due to its transcendence, that message speaks to the nature of our humanity, helping us perceive both individually and collectively what is true and beautiful. The process is often challenging, even uncomfortable.
By contrast, those who claim to occupy the “right to creativity,” so to speak, demonstrate few characteristics of artists. They appear almost absurdly uninterested in ideas or aesthetics when those concepts challenge their particular way of thinking. While trying to portray themselves as the vanguard of art – on the basis of a disagreement pertaining to State-mandated language – they risk taking on the mantle of stagnation. They seem to have lost interest in ideas, exchange, or building compromise: they reject nuance on the basis of ideology.
The last point underscores why the so-called Peterson Phenomenon must matter for Canadians. The controversy swirling around him further sheds light on the way students are being encouraged by academic institutions to scream and shout and ban ideas that challenge accepted ways of thinking, rather than engaging with differing points of view. Rational debate, common discourse, and openness to dissent are hallmarks of the way democratic societies identify issues, discuss them, and come to consensus.
If even universities begin stifling the intellectual creativity of students and faculty, the Peterson Phenomenon will have much more to reveal about the state of Canadian society.
Brent McCamon is an Ottawa-based writer. Republished with permission from Convivium, a Canadian online hub for faith and common life.
- See more at: https://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/were-here-were-queer-get-peterson-out-of-here/19569#sthash.sAj01Nqe.dpuf





MercatorNet

March 31, 2017

A new study from Britain that shows a high correlation between abortion and breast cancer for older women also discovers there is a remarkable "social gradient" in the British epidemic: upper class and upwardly mobile women get more breast cancer. To find out why, read my piece.
Also recommended is the strong testimony of a vegan, environmentalist, secular humanist doctor to a Canadian government committee about the right of doctors to conscience protection in an era of legal euthanasia.


Carolyn Moynihan
Deputy Editor,
MERCATORNET



The (still) unexplained breast cancer epidemic
By Carolyn Moynihan
A new British study shows a high correlation with risk factors that remain ignored or denied.
Read the full article
 
 
‘We’re here, we’re queer, get Peterson out of here!’
By Brent McCamon
How a psychology professor made Canada’s National Gallery ‘unsafe’.
Read the full article
 
 
Are converts to Islam more likely to become extremists?
By Kim Knott and Matthew Francis
Conversion and radicalisation are not one and the same.
Read the full article
 
 
Canadian doctors should not be forced to refer for euthanasia
By Christine Cserti-Gazdewich
A vegan, environmentalist, secular humanist doctor explains why
Read the full article
 
 
This is hard-working America at its absolute best
By Michael Cook
94-year-old Loraine Mauer is still serving customers
Read the full article
 
 
What do disabled people think about assisted suicide?
By Liz Carr
A disabled British comedian has made a musical showcasing her opposition
Read the full article
 
 
The victims of a “victimless practice”
By Nicole M. King
Watching porn harms more than one person
Read the full article
 
 
Gender identity politics is erasing and silencing women
By Michelle A. Cretella
A conservative, pro-life doctor praises a feminist protest against transgender ideology
Read the full article


MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia

Designed by elleston

New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605 

Are converts to Islam more likely to become extremists? | MercatorNet | March 31, 2017

Are converts to Islam more likely to become extremists?

 | MercatorNet |  March 31, 2017



Are converts to Islam more likely to become extremists?



Are converts to Islam more likely to become extremists?

Conversion and radicalisation are not one and the same.
Matthew Francis and Kim Knott | Mar 30 2017 | comment 3 


Returning to the faith. Shutterstock  
The process of conversion to any religion is best thought of as a journey, and this is how it is often described to others by those who undergo it. While conversion happens in many faiths, conversion to Islam has been suggested as a significant factor in some acts of extreme violence. But what evidence is this based on and what does conversion actually entail? The Conversation
Conversion to Islam sees non-Muslims take on new religious identities, adopt new beliefs and practices, and learn to live as Muslims who gradually become accepted by others. Technically speaking, it isn’t necessary to “convert” to Islam, as according to Islamic teaching all people are born Muslim; it is more a case of reverting to one’s true identity and submitting to Allah.
In the modern world, the focus is often on individual conversion. However, in a recent guide we produced on conversion in Islam, we point out that this hasn’t always been the case. In the past whole populations converted at once, for economic, political or social reasons.
The best known part of this process is repeating the shahadah three times. The shahadah is a phrase that proclaims “there is no God but God and Muhammad is His messenger”. This pronouncement normally takes place in public, in front of other Muslims. As the testimonies of converts show, however, this is part of a longer process of religious learning and socialisation in which new and existing relationships have to be negotiated.
The journey into Islam isn’t the same for everyone. While some are new to the religion, others grew up in Muslim families, and are either returning after having lapsed or converting to a different interpretation of Islam. For example, salafi interpretations of Islam have proved popular among young British-Somali Muslims, but there are many other Sunni and Shi'a groups with a variety of differences and similarities.
Personal background makes a difference. Returners have prior knowledge, experience and even language to draw on, as well as existing family and community ties. But newcomers have to build all this from scratch, a change which by turns can be exhilarating and traumatic. It may also be hard for family and friends to come to terms with.
Data on conversion is sparse and has to be extrapolated from diverse sources. What research there is suggests that, in most European countries, converts make up between 1% and 5% of the Muslim population (up to 100,000 converts in the UK). In the US, converts (more than 550,000) make up nearly a quarter of Muslims. In the West, most converts are aged between 20 and 30, and more women convert than men.
Why do people convert? The reasons given can be intrinsic – that conversion gives them a sense of belonging, provides certainty about life and the afterlife, or is personally empowering. Extrinsic reasons include encouragement or pressure to convert for marriage, the impact of friends or a feeling of marginalisation by another religious group. Many converts give theological reasons, including the discipline of fasting and prayer, the focus on purity and piety, and the assurance that there is only one God. Some also have a sense of being destined to become Muslims: that Allah willed it. 
Whether they converted because they were positively drawn to Islamic teachings and practices, or because of personal crises – such as the death of a family member, the need to combat substance addiction, or as an act of rebellion against parents – the reasons given are linked together in a conversion narrative.
These narratives differ according to the individual’s background and circumstances. White and black converts report different experiences, such as the feeling in some cases that white converts are held up as better proving the truth of Islam. Black converts sometimes find it harder to find partners for marriage, and converts from Hindu and Sikh communities often receive the worst and strongest reaction from their families and communities.
Experiences of conversion also differ due to gender. Women converts are often much more visible than men, and this too can lead to markedly different experiences in how conversion is experienced.
Unwelcome converts
The conversion journey also can be lengthier and more challenging than most people expect. Some people are shunned by family and friends. Some who adopt Islamic dress are taunted in public or worse. Problems may also come from other Muslims who sometimes expect converts to conform to higher moral standards and to cultural as well as Islamic norms and practices.
Conversion places a heavy social toll on individuals, many of whom do not find the welcome they expected in local Muslim communities. The double disadvantage of Islamophobia and a lack of acceptance is difficult to take. Some have the resilience to overcome these hurdles but others find it too difficult. We do not know how many new Muslims leave Islam in the years following conversion. Some continue to practice privately, others withdraw from Muslim communities quietly. Few are outspoken about leaving as being denounced as an apostate can have severe social consequences.
The extremist question
But what about the links between conversion to Islam and violent extremism? As previous terrorist convictions show, a minority of converts are radicalised, whether by extremist organisations, while in prison or online. However, despite their initial zeal, there’s no evidence that new Muslims in general end up more extreme than those born into Islam, nor that those who are radicalised are more socially, economically or racially disadvantaged than those who are not.
That said, research has found that in some countries – which have attracted so-called foreign fighters – converts are over-represented among violent extremists compared to the proportion of converts in the Muslim population as a whole. And research comparing American converts and “born” Muslims involved in violent extremism in 2015 found that converts were more likely to be unemployed, and to have a criminal record and a history of mental health problems. These factors were less pronounced in the UK.
What is indisputable is that the majority of new Muslims are not drawn towards extremism. Conversion and radicalisation are not one and the same, and one does not lead inexorably to the other. The former is a process of adopting a new religious identity; the latter, of being drawn into extremist beliefs and behaviours. Conversion for many marks a reported life change leading to feelings of empowerment, enhanced self confidence and self discipline, a sense of well-being and belonging, and in some cases desisting from self abuse, addiction and crime.
Matthew Francis is a Senior Research Associate at Lancaster University and Kim Knott is Professor of Religious and Secular Studies at Lancaster University This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
- See more at: https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-converts-to-islam-more-likely-to-become-extremists/19575#sthash.i4FEiCn7.dpuf



MercatorNet

March 31, 2017

A new study from Britain that shows a high correlation between abortion and breast cancer for older women also discovers there is a remarkable "social gradient" in the British epidemic: upper class and upwardly mobile women get more breast cancer. To find out why, read my piece.
Also recommended is the strong testimony of a vegan, environmentalist, secular humanist doctor to a Canadian government committee about the right of doctors to conscience protection in an era of legal euthanasia.


Carolyn Moynihan
Deputy Editor,
MERCATORNET



The (still) unexplained breast cancer epidemic
By Carolyn Moynihan
A new British study shows a high correlation with risk factors that remain ignored or denied.
Read the full article
 
 
‘We’re here, we’re queer, get Peterson out of here!’
By Brent McCamon
How a psychology professor made Canada’s National Gallery ‘unsafe’.
Read the full article
 
 
Are converts to Islam more likely to become extremists?
By Kim Knott and Matthew Francis
Conversion and radicalisation are not one and the same.
Read the full article
 
 
Canadian doctors should not be forced to refer for euthanasia
By Christine Cserti-Gazdewich
A vegan, environmentalist, secular humanist doctor explains why
Read the full article
 
 
This is hard-working America at its absolute best
By Michael Cook
94-year-old Loraine Mauer is still serving customers
Read the full article
 
 
What do disabled people think about assisted suicide?
By Liz Carr
A disabled British comedian has made a musical showcasing her opposition
Read the full article
 
 
The victims of a “victimless practice”
By Nicole M. King
Watching porn harms more than one person
Read the full article
 
 
Gender identity politics is erasing and silencing women
By Michelle A. Cretella
A conservative, pro-life doctor praises a feminist protest against transgender ideology
Read the full article


MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia

Designed by elleston

New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605