Posted on 11/28/2021 6:16:13 AM PST by george76
Tiana Berardi was denied an appointment with her doctor because she wasn't vaccinated. She's since filed a professional misconduct complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia..
Tiana Berardi never got to see her family doctor.
But she had followed the directions of her physician in a telephone appointment the day before. The Lower Sackville woman had lingering bronchitis and her antibiotics had run out. Her doctor wanted to have a closer look and asked Berardi to book an in-person appointment at the clinic. She did and got a checkup scheduled for the following afternoon.
Except her appointment was cancelled about an hour after she made it. Berardi got a call from her clinic inquiring about her vaccine status. She told the receptionist that she wasn’t vaccinated.
The receptionist told her the clinic only sees fully vaccinated patients. This despite the province’s COVID-19 protocol that says health care is an essential service and that proof of vaccination is not required.
While her doctor’s appointment was cancelled, Berardi was assured the physician would call her that evening.
Her doctor didn’t call that night as promised. A week later, on Oct. 20, Berardi would file a professional misconduct complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, saying she was denied treatment based on her vaccination status.
Both the college — which regulates doctors — and the Nova Scotia government say vaccinated and unvaccinated patients deserve the same access to care.
Berardi says she is speaking out because others have been denied care but are too afraid to share their story publicly.
The Chronicle Herald has spoken to two other Nova Scotia women who cope with chronic arthritic pain and say their doctors wouldn't treat them because they were unvaccinated.
Berardi calls that unethical discrimination. “A doctor’s job is to treat people, not turn them away based on their medical status."
Berardi is particularly concerned about those who may have experienced unnecessary delays in getting needed surgeries, medication prescriptions or procedures like routine checkups.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia policies regarding access to medical care state physicians cannot deny the unvaccinated in-person care.
Back in September the college knew that some primary care providers were doing so. A guidance memo published on the college’s website on Sept. 29 states that the college is aware that there “is a scattering of primary care providers practicing virtual medicine exclusively or only offering in-person care to the fully vaccinated and asymptomatic.”
The college's directive on treatment access during the pandemic recognizes the patient’s right to choose whether to get vaccinated.
The Canadian Medical Association's Code of Ethics and Professionalism, quoted by the college, says "doctors must respect the decisions of the competent patient to accept or reject any recommended assessment, treatment, or plan of care.”
Registrar Dr. Gus Grant said in a written statement that the college has "received calls from the public and physicians regarding access to care for patients not fully vaccinated."
These calls gave rise to the memo posted on the college website in September.
He wouldn't say whether there have been any formal complaints from the public accusing doctors of denying care based on vaccination status.
He would not say what penalties if any might be imposed for denying care.
Berardi spoke to her doctor a day after she was told she wasn’t allowed in the clinic. She said her doctor offered her no alternative care. Berardi said when she suggested her only option was to go to an emergency room her doctor told her she wouldn't be treated there either because she's unvaccinated and there would be sicker people than her there. Berardi said she had another medical issue. She needed to get her IUD taken out, something that could only be done in person.
"I then asked if I could get a referral to a gynecologist, to which my doctor stated that I would have to disclose I wasn't vaccinated." Her doctor told her it would take three to six months to see a specialist.
Berardi ended up going to the Bedford Basin Women's Health Clinic to get a prescription for antibiotics and have her IUD removed. She was still unvaccinated at the time.
Though she has concerns about potential side-effects, Berardi is now fully vaccinated because keeping her job depends on it. She says she’s not opposed to the COVID vaccine but believes people should have a choice.
Before getting her second shot, Berardi said she understood the consequences of not being fully vaccinated. It meant she would lose certain privileges, like going to restaurants and access to non-essential services. But she said she couldn't tolerate being denied her basic right to health care.
"I was sick," she said. "You’re taking away my right to health care when I needed it."
The college’s website has no record of any investigations into doctors denying care based on vaccine status. The college can decide to publish details of its investigations but must do so if a doctor is disciplined.
Berardi and others who file complaints are supposed to keep their complaints and details of the investigation secret. But Berardi says that just protects the medical profession. She wants the college to publish its findings of her complaint because the public deserves to know and it could also deter other doctors from doing the same thing.
Wayne MacKay, a law professor at Dalhousie University, says he’s concerned about reports of unvaccinated people being turned away. An expert in human rights and constitutional law, MacKay said equal access to health care is a defining characteristic of Canadian democracy.
“That is supported not just by the law but also our general understanding of what is Canadian citizenship," said MacKay. "It’s part of our identity and the foundation of our collective health-care system."
On Oct. 15, Dr. Robert Strang, Nova Scotia’s chief medical officer of health, issued a special bulletin to all health-care providers explicitly saying that patients can choose to see their doctor in person.
Grant told the Herald that over the last few months he’s spoken directly with many physicians about their responsibility to care for all patients. He said the college has a full-time public support adviser who regularly responds to questions from the public and the profession about doctor access.
The college's website tells doctors they can see patients from a high risk population in person with the right safety precautions.
In "extenuating circumstances" where a doctor is unable to provide care, they can:
Use virtual care.
Find a fellow doctor or pharmacist to provide appropriate in-person care.
Avoid simply directing patients to the emergency department when these resources aren’t required.
MacKay said it’s reasonable to protect patients and health-care workers by taking precautions such as grouping unvaccinated patients. But he said those measures shouldn’t prevent people from getting access to care that they need.
The professor says the college should say how many complaints it has received, how many had merit and whether any disciplinary actions were taken. He said if the college is concerned about privacy, it could publish aggregated data on cases and results.
“That should be available because that would help provide public trust and confidence in the system," said MacKay.
Grant said the college is not permitted by law to disclose the existence or the details of any open complaints. But according to the province’s Medical Act he can disclose if it serves the objectives of the college. One of those is to serve and protect the public interest in the practice of medicine.
Berardi shared a document detailing the college's preliminary investigation into her complaint.
Here's what the doctor told the college: The clinic adopted a screening policy in mid-September that included asking patients about their vaccine status. It appeared to restrict unvaccinated patients to virtual appointments. The doctor said that she believed that the clinic receptionist had scheduled Berardi for a virtual appointment after finding out she was unvaccinated.
In her statement, the doctor said: "I understand that the policy was conveyed in such a way that (unvaccinated patients) were told that they would not be seen at all," her statement said. "I do not believe this was the original intent but do not dispute this is how it appears to have been messaged and applied."
She did not recall talking with Berardi about going to the emergency department. She did say she offered to refer Berardi to a gynecologist but said the woman seemed to lose interest after being told there could be a three to six months wait for an appointment.
The doctor told the college her records show she saw only one unvaccinated patient on three occasions.
She apologized to Berardi for the clinic’s policy and assured the college that the policy is no longer in place.
From here, the college can consider an informal or alternative dispute settlement, refer the complaint to its investigation committee or dismiss it.
The document sent to Berardi says she can also withdraw her complaint if satisfied with the response. She says she intends to pursue the complaint as far as possible.
The Herald also spoke to a South Shore woman who said she was denied an appointment with her rheumatologist based on not being vaccinated. The woman, who asked not to be identified out of fear of losing her doctor, says she has severe osteoarthritis and needs joint replacement in both feet. She contacted her specialist early last month about getting her scheduled cortisone shot.
She said the clinic receptionist gave her two options: get fully vaccinated or provide a negative COVID result within 24 hours of getting tested. She needed to provide the test result just to make an appointment, the woman said. She would need another test the day before the appointment.
“The reception said don’t bother to call back unless you have the negative test in your hand.”
She said sent she sent a letter to the college, as well as Doctors Nova Scotia and the Department of Health and Wellness explaining her situation. She said both Doctors Nova Scotia and the Department of Health responded to her the following week letting her know that they had reached out to her rheumatologist and made it clear that she could not be denied care. She has yet to hear from the college.
She said two weeks after being assured that she was entitled to care she contacted her rheumatologist. The clinic had not changed its vaccine policy. She said last week she contacted the clinic and was finally able to set up an appointment for the coming week.
The woman, who also has Crohn’s disease, said she decided against getting vaccinated because she's concerned about the possible side-effects of the vaccine. She has not been given a medical exemption.
Dr. Heather Johnson, president of Doctors Nova Scotia, said that the group has heard "a few instances" of complaints that doctors are turning away patients because they’re unvaccinated. In a statement to the Herald, Johnson said the system is incredibly stressed "and we believe physicians are doing the best they can under the circumstances."
The Herald also spoke with another Halifax woman who has chronic arthritis. She said her pain doctor told her during an appointment in September that she needed to be fully vaccinated or she wouldn’t be allowed in his clinic.
She receives monthly cortisone shots and prescriptions for other medications. She said the doctor also asked that she provide proof of double vaccination before he would see her. She got the shots.
“I was scared,” said the woman. "The thought of going without my needles and not having a doctor really scared me.”
Being in a profession, doctors have a duty to treat the ill. There are no preconditions to receiving treatment.
The drunk driver who kills a family in a crash but survived gets treatment.
The drug addict who is on his fourth overdose ER visit this month gets treatment.
Convicted murderers on death row get treatment.
People who cannot possibly pay for medical services recieve treatment.
But refuse a jab that isn’t ask that effective? No treatment? The medical profession will cease to be a profession if it picks and chooses who it serves.
With most deaths caused by medical mistakes, I can except this rather than a physician with copious skills
Turn off electricity, natural gas and water to the homes of these doctors. If any emergency calls for police or fire originate from their houses, hang up without speaking to them. Forbid these doctors from entering into businesses in the community including grocery stores. Don’t let their kids play on sports teams.
Doctors refusing medical care to the un-vaccinated are sociopathic bullying monsters and deserve nothing useful be provided by society.
Canada’s deaths accoring to Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center, over almost two years since the Drosten PCR test was written and approved to measure COVID-19 deaths:
( 29,681 official deaths / 37,742,154 Canadians ) x 100 = 0.079 %
Not even one-tenth of one percent over 23 months in this media-screamed pandemic.
Canadian physicians withholding care based on this “follow the science” are not following “the science,” so much as the political science.
Do they still treat people who have not been vaccinated against other serious diseases: Influenza? Polio? Chickenpox? Pneumonia?
Are the scientific journals censoring the science?
My candid conversation with Dr. Robert Malone.
[Just posted today by Dr. Malone on his Twitter feed.]
I believe medical personnel have the right to refuse treatment.
I’ve personally been told, “We decided to accept you as a patient.” Why would they say that if they had to treat me?
Imagine the reaction to a doctor who refused to allow any HIV+ patients into his office.
Clap for carers!
I had back surgery 3 weeks ago. No vaccine. I had covid last January. A few funny conversations as I was admitted and prepped for the surgery. (I had fun with it). They did do a covid test prior to admission…. Im in the great state of Oklahoma.
“”I believe medical personnel have the right to refuse treatment.””
Pediatricians do it without any problem...they refuse to accept parents with a child they do not want vaccinated..Parents can take a child to a pediatrician for a host of reasons but if the vaccination question comes up, NADA. Find yourselves another pediatrician.
“Being in a profession, doctors have a duty to treat the ill. There are no preconditions to receiving treatment.”
Doctors, like teenage girls, are servants of fashion. They do whatever is fashionable. By definition, what is fashionable is approved of by society. If it was fashionable for a doctor to wear a medieval pointed cap with bells on it, they’d do so because it would not look ridiculous until long after. (Think bell bottoms and Nairo jackets.) If you take a doctor to court for refusing to treat an unvaccinated patient, likely the court, also being a product of society and thus, “fashion” it’s likely that the court will find for the doctor. (Hum. The baker has to bake the cake, but the doctor does not have to treat the patient? Again, fashion at play.)
We live in bizarre times.
Incidentally, you can buy Ivermectin at Tractor Supply. (Don’t get the suppository!) You can calculate dosage by the fifty pounds.
and of course the President of Doctors Nova Scotia is a Woman
Young Cardiologist dies two weeks after getting Booster vaxx.. For those that will not get the shot for selfish reasons – whatever – I will not cry at their funeral..~ Dr. Sohrab Lutchmedial. ..
He is right:: he will not cry at your funeral as he is already dead.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4012269/posts
Yes and no. As my colleague above stated we must treat in an emergency. The three most difficult cases I have ever faced was anesthetizing women in hemorrhagic shock from a botched abortion in the abortion mill down the road from the hospital. Although I have deep religious objections to abortion, I was faced with anesthetize the patient or they die. Obviously I gabs the anesthetic as it is my moral duty to treat and part of my oath when life is endangered.
But elective or not emergent care? Of course a doc has a right to refuse treatment. Those who say differently can repeat this: Freedom for me but not for thee. Freedom cuts both ways but increasingly there are those here who believe they have an absolute right to demand a treatment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In USA, he could sue the hell
Out of a doctor who refused treatment like that.
I guess Canadian law is different
This is one of the big problems with national healthcare. The government owns you.
‘The medical profession will cease to be a profession if it picks and chooses who it serves.’
not at all; as a matter of fact, any number of socially ubdesireable behaviors are going to be phased out of community living...the global warming cabal will sanction anyone not on board...
>>In USA, he could sue the hell Out of a doctor who refused treatment like that.
Not true at all:
“But when it comes to non-emergency situations, doctors are legally able to refuse patients for a variety of reasons, provided they are not doing so because of some aspect of the patient’s race, gender/sexuality, or religion, says Timothy Hoff, professor of management, healthcare systems, and health policy at Northeastern. “
and why would someone want to see a doctor who had no interest in serving them? Almost as bad as insulting your waiter/waitress before you get your food
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.