Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
EditorialEditorial

Whose right?

Diane Kelsall
Canadian Family Physician October 2008, 54 (10) 1353;
Diane Kelsall
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • CFPlus
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Figure

The Duke of Norfolk: “… but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!”

Sir Thomas More: “And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) recently approved a policy, “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code,” in response to changes to the Ontario Human Rights Code in June 2008.1 During the external consultation process, there was much discussion about components of the policy by the media, physicians, and nonphysicians. The most controversial draft section read as follows:

Personal beliefs and values and cultural and religious practices are central to the lives of physicians and their patients. However, as a physician’s responsibility is to put the needs of the patient first, there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical treatment and services they require.1

What did this mean for Ontario physicians if the draft had been accepted as written? If, for personal, cultural, or religious reasons, you refused patients treatments they believed were necessary and they proceeded with complaints against you, you might not have been supported by the CPSO. Interestingly, this also applied to potential patients with whom you did not have existing fiduciary relationships. As originally written, this policy could have made practising in Ontario difficult for family physicians with strong personal, cultural, or religious views on medical issues. The approved CPSO policy does not include the controversial paragraph referred to above.

Of course, it is essential that physicians treat patients with respect and courtesy even if they have differences of opinion. And it is possible to maintain healthy relationships in difficult situations without physicians having to act against their conscience. The principles of patient-centred interviewing, including understanding patients’ expectations and contexts and finding common ground, are key in situations where physician and patient views diverge.2,3

Why should this concern family physicians in other parts of Canada? If this policy had been accepted as originally written, it could have opened the door to similar policies elsewhere. Human rights codes are by nature open to ongoing revision. What is unacceptable today might be acceptable tomorrow—and vice versa.

In a qualitative study of rewards and challenges in family medicine, Manca et al found that family physicians identified flexibility, control, and security among 8 key rewards to practising family medicine.4 They point out that the 2004 National Physician Survey (NPS) results support this finding.5 But not all family physicians around the world have this freedom, and the authors highlight several international studies describing family physician frustration with lack of control.6,7 The CPSO draft policy had the potential to turn this key reward for Canadian physicians into a challenge. In this issue, we publish a follow-up study by Manca et al ( page 1434) on another challenge for family physicians: respect from other specialists. The study offers some solutions at the individual and organizational levels. Berta et al propose a framework to improve family physician–consultant communication, an important component of maintaining good professional relationships ( page 1432).

The NPS gives us a window into the practices, plans, and concerns of physicians across Canada. In this issue, Grava-Gubins and Scott describe the intricate methodology used to entice physicians to complete the 2007 NPS ( page 1424), and Cameron argues that the results are worth the time, effort, and expense the survey entails ( page 1357). The issue also includes a supplement focusing on interesting family physician findings from the 2007 NPS.

Challenges. Rewards. Control. Freedom. They are important to us all.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. ↵
    CPSOPhysicians and the Ontario Human Rights CodeToronto, ONCPSO2008
  2. ↵
    WestonWWBrownJBStewartMAPatient-centred interviewing. Part I: understanding patients’ experiencesCan Fam Physician19893514751
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    BrownJBWestonWWStewartMAPatient-centred interviewing. Part II: finding common groundCan Fam Physician1989351537
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    MancaDPVarnhagenSBrett-MacLeanPAllanGMSzafranOAusfordARewards and challenges of family practiceCan Fam Physician20075327886
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    College of Family Physicians of CanadaNational Physician Survey 2004: workforce, satisfaction and demographic statistics concerning current and future physicians in CanadaMississauga, ONCollege of Family Physicians of Canada2004
  6. ↵
    McGloneSJChenowethIGJob demands and control as predictors of occupational satisfaction in general practiceMed J Aust200117528891
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    LandonBEAseltineRJrShaulJAMillerYAuerbachBAClearyPDEvolving dissatisfaction among primary care physiciansAm J Manag Care2002810890901
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 54 (10)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 54, Issue 10
1 Oct 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Whose right?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Whose right?
Diane Kelsall
Canadian Family Physician Oct 2008, 54 (10) 1353;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Whose right?
Diane Kelsall
Canadian Family Physician Oct 2008, 54 (10) 1353;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • CFPlus
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • RESPECT from specialists
  • Enhancing continuity of information
  • Effects of various methodologic strategies
  • Vox populi
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Discrimination on the basis of ethical orientation
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The pride of being a family physician
  • La fierté d’être médecin de famille
  • Of curing and healing
Show more Éditorial

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2022 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire