Canadian physician advocated for a preborn child and followed the instruction of his Hippocratic Oath—now he faces severe disciplinary action

American Thinker ^ | 04/30/2024 | Olivia Murray

[SeekAndFind]

Even for medical practitioners who are pro-abortion, this is a dangerous precedent to set—first they came for Dr. Terence Davids, tomorrow they’ll come for you. (A Martin Niemöller poetic iteration, if you will.)

Here’s the story, from a post published by the Campaign Life Coalition (CLC):

Dr. Davids is a physician working in Saskatoon at the Bridge City Mediclinic.

…

One day last December, a woman came into the clinic to have her pregnancy assessed by Dr. Davids. However, the purpose of her visit was not to check on the health of her child. This visit was to gather size and development details to pass along to another doctor, who would then dismember and destroy her child through an elective abortion.

As a Christian, Dr. Davids was naturally very concerned about the woman’s intentions and the fate of the preborn child she was carrying. He asked her if she believed in the Lord, and he said to her very candidly, ‘I don’t think you should go through with this… I think you should reconsider.’

Apparently, Dr. Davids’s healthcare advice made the woman conspiring to murder the baby in her womb “uncomfortable and anxious,” so she filed a complaint with the regulatory agency (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, or CPSS). And, per the document shared by CLC, CPSS already determined Dr. Davids to be “guilty,” so now he’s facing a disciplinary action hearing, and his license to practice medicine is set to be revoked. (It’s unclear if any sort of evidentiary hearing took place, but I doubt it did).

Yeah, those anxious feelings bothering this young woman? They weren’t Dr. Davids’s fault for suggesting she rethink her decision to kill her precious child,

[SeekAndFind]

As the authors of the CLC post aptly put it:

Frankly, this mother should feel uncomfortable and anxious about killing her preborn child! She should feel disturbed about having to face God over the matter one day. It is not what the doctor said that caused her anxiety, it is what she was planning to do to her preborn child.

Exactly.

But this all comes back to the point at the outset—dragging a physician in for disciplinary hearings because he said something that made his patient “uncomfortable and anxious” is a dangerous precedent to set, both for patients seeking qualified medical care, and the practitioners striving to uphold their Hippocratic oaths, and provide such care.

[Navy Patriot]

Canadian physician advocated for a preborn child and followed the instruction of his Hippocratic Oath—now he faces severe disciplinary action

No surprise, it's Nazi Canuckistan, run by Nazi Justine Castreau and a Nazi honoring Parliament.

[greatvikingone]

Dear Everybody:

Doctors don’t take the Hippocratic Oath. If they take an oath it is usually one written by the class for their med school graduation - and those are often filled with meaningless platitudes.

[yelostar]

American Thinker should represent the story - in its entirety.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatoon-doctor-disciplinary-charges-abortion-comments-1.7164912

A Saskatoon doctor is facing disciplinary charges over accusations he told a patient not to get an abortion for religious reasons.

The comments Dr. Terence Davids made last year caused the patient to feel anxious and uncomfortable, says a College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan charge document. It says Davids told the patient, "I hope you have loved ones in heaven who will take care of your baby in heaven."

The college alleges the doctor asked whether the patient believed in God and, when the answer was no, Davids said, "Well, you must believe in something."

He is also accused of saying, "I think you will regret this and you can't take it back," and "I think you should reconsider."

The charge document says a hearing date is pending. The college's policy says doctors can decline to provide health services against their conscience, but they are required to find other arrangements and not promote their own moral or religious beliefs.

While his heart may be in the right place, it appears he clearly violated a policy that he is expected to follow.

It’s likely that the Campaign Life Coalition and American Thinker both know the whole story. It reflects badly on them that they’re using this circumstance to manipulate a story.

[Cen-Tejas]

....I agree with you that Dr. Davids should follow “THE LAW” (is it Canadian LAW or bureaucratic edict?).

But, I take issue that the man, being a doctor, cannot give the woman the benefit of his “opinion”.

Our country (the US, not Canada), let’s remember, was founded on breaking laws imposed upon our citizens by a King.

The man did not want to see the woman chop up her baby for her own good, not to mention the babies. I don’t blame him for trying to persuade her not to do it.

[yelostar]

I don’t blame him for trying to persuade her not to do it.

I still question his judgment, because he expects a policy - which he agreed to by virtue of his employment at the facility - to be waived because of his good intentions.

The article makes the doctor a sympathetic character, which he really isn’t, despite his desire to do good. There are more meaningful ways to contribute to the pro-life movement, that don’t involve making headlines.

Laws imposed on a populace by a monarch are - and should be - vastly different than those imposed by a democratic system.