Read on Twitter
Some thoughts on this opinion. I apologize for sounding like a broken record since I just did a similar thread on a Sun opinion, but these flawed arguments keep popping up... https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-why-this-doctor-supports-the-alberta-governments-bill-30/wcm/6de59855-a2cb-4419-ae8e-6bbdf90d52df/
In retweeting this opinion, Kenney urges followers to listen to the views of one single dr, despite the fact that the majority of Alberta's drs do not seem to support this legislation. Also, this gov seems pretty determined not to listen to the views of drs, so why start now?
This opinion correctly condemns the racist incident at Grande Prairie hospital, which was a failing at many levels (AHS, college, etc.). However, increasing public representation in colleges would have been highly unlikely to have prevented this.
When one looks at bill 30 as a whole, increased public representation clearly isn't about increasing public trust, accountability, diversity, or any other potential positive benefit. It is about centralizing government control. More here: https://www.longwoods.com/content/26298/proposed-legislation-erodes-independence-and-expertise-of-alberta-s-healthcare-institutions
Bill 30 sidesteps the AMA, increases control over colleges (because of the gov's role in public appointees), strips HQCA of its independence, and amends the responsibilities of AHS. The gov likely increases its control to suppress opposition to its political agenda.
The author notes that “First, do no harm” is one of the ethical cornerstones that supports appropriate patient-centred medical care. Unfortunately, bill 30 is profit-centered rather than patient-centered.
The author correctly notes that we already have private delivery. But there is a huge difference between professional corps and the corps that this will open the system up to. Also, the volume of private delivery will significantly expand, adversely affecting the public system.
The author correctly notes that change is needed, but it is unclear why this change should be privatization. The author also correctly notes that we need to address prevention/wellness rather than treating sickness. But bill 30 does nothing to advance this laudable goal.
In fact, UCP policies have undermined prevention/wellness in many ways, for example, by undercutting family drs, supporting virtual walk-in care over a relationship with one's own doctor, their approach to supervised consumption, etc.
