34. That the doctor will only prescribe addictive narcotics when the patient wants to try non-addictive herbal treatment violates the patient's right to decide established in Morgentaler. If this were any new chemical drug, doctors would be expected to do their professional research when the patient asks it, not refuse. 35. Though most witnesses eventually found doctors to sign, some patients did and one was thrown out of the doctor's office. There are other reports of such "no more family doctor" refusals. Applicant submitted that when the patient is thrown out by the doctor, that doctor may be presumed to not be signing for any of the other patients in his practice. Minus the 5 million Canadians without family doctors, 60,000 doctors serving 30 million Canadians is 500 patients per practice. So it's safe to conclude that a doctor's 500-patient practice remains un-served, not only that particular patient being currently un-served. And if the recalcitrant gate-keepers are not opening the gates, it's the regimes' for making recalcitrant doctors gatekeepers. The patient has no use for his doctor's medical opinion when the doctor admits he's ignorant of the treatment. Installing reluctant and willfully-ignorant as gatekeepers can only impede access. 36. Taliano J. pointed out: "[147] With the leadership of the medical profession being so adamant in its opposition to its proposed role as gatekeeper, it is little wonder that the profession has not been supportive of the MMAR and the patient witness evidence of this lack of support becomes understandable." 37. The Crown argues it is not the legislation's fault that
34. That the doctor will only prescribe addictive narcotics when the patient wants to try non-addictive herbal treatment violates the patient's right to decide established in Morgentaler. If this were any new chemical drug, doctors would be expected to do their professional research when the patient asks it, not refuse. 35. Though most witnesses eventually found doctors to sign, some patients did and one was thrown out of the doctor's office. There are other reports of such "no more family doctor" refusals. Applicant submitted that when the patient is thrown out by the doctor, that doctor may be presumed to not be signing for any of the other patients in his practice. Minus the 5 million Canadians without family doctors, 60,000 doctors serving 30 million Canadians is 500 patients per practice. So it's safe to conclude that a doctor's 500-patient practice remains un-served, not only that particular patient being currently un-served. And if the recalcitrant gate-keepers are not opening the gates, it's the regimes' for making recalcitrant doctors gatekeepers. The patient has no use for his doctor's medical opinion when the doctor admits he's ignorant of the treatment. Installing reluctant and willfully-ignorant as gatekeepers can only impede access. 36. Taliano J. pointed out: "[147] With the leadership of the medical profession being so adamant in its opposition to its proposed role as gatekeeper, it is little wonder that the profession has not been supportive of the MMAR and the patient witness evidence of this lack of support becomes understandable." 37. The Crown argues it is not the legislation's fault that