Timothy VandeKamp

While I appreciate the additional clarity of the new format and glossary, I am concerned about a couple of the new points in the Draft Standard: Section 1.f. does not make it clear that providing informational resources without providing a referral to another regulated member is still a valid option. Section 2.c. is too ambiguous. Again, “effective referral” lacks the same clarity I mentioned about section 1.f.. Additionally, if the regulated member directs the patient to an informational resource and the patient is “delayed” in accessing that resource, through no fault of the regulated member, it would not be clear from the draft wording that the regulated member complied with this standard of practice. It seems to me that section 2.c. does not add anything of value to this standard of practice that is not already covered by section 2.a. and section 2.b., so I think it should be removed. If these concerns are not addressed, I can tell from some of the physician comments here that it may become difficult for me as a patient to find a doctor in Alberta I am comfortable entrusting with my care, given that there are procedures I, for reasons of conscience, cultural belief, or religion, do not want to have offered to me.

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

« Previous EntryNext Entry »