Brian Jensen

I would encourage revisions to the draft Standard of Practice: Section 1.f. could be revised as “Proactively maintain a non-judgmental approach and be aware of resources to provide for frequently requested services they are unwilling to provide.” Section 2.c. should be removed due to lack of clarity. - Specifically, “diverse clinical outcomes” and “delayed” are not objectively defined and are open to wide subjective interpretation. - "Delayed" is not clearly defined either and in many ways the seeking of care is dependent on what the patient decides to do after visiting a provider. - Many psychiatrists have warned that it will be extremely difficult for physicians to discern which patients are making a fully informed, consensual decision to pursue MAID and which are not. It needs to be clearly stated, whether in this policy or for the understanding of the draft standard committee, that a member who declines to provide a service (e.g. MAID) or a referral for the same (while still providing resources) is doing so because they believe it is in the best interest of the patients. Their care of the patient compels them down this path. A sober second thought on the part of a provider who wants to provide a variety of different perspectives may allow a patient to see their concerns from a new or different angle and can be a source of support for that patient. While this standard emphasizes the right of a physician, it also needs to consider the fact that many patients want providers whose values fit with theirs, and a large group of patients want to be served by providers who decline to offer certain procedures like MAID. Finding the right physician fit requires a diverse medical system with a variety of different providers with different opinions. Thank you.

Comments for this post are now closed. If you would like to share your feedback on this topic, please email

« Previous EntryNext Entry »