....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.
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.