CMAJ Disgraces Itself By Publishing Islamophobic Drivel

You know, I really wonder if physicians organizations that claim to “support their members” really understand what that phrase means. Time and time again we’ve seen physicians representative groups fail their members. Now we have the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) allow an attack on muslim members published.

I’m talking about the CMAJ decision to publish a letter by Dr. Emil that states categorically that the hijab (a VOLUNTARY head covering worn by some muslim women) is an instrument of oppression:

Seriously, the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, an organization that proudly claims to want to promote diversity and inclusion, that boldly states “diversity is our strength” and has developed background papers in diversity to promote it’s agenda, thought it was a good idea to publish a letter that:

  • claims the hijab is an instrument of oppression
  • conflates the hijab with institutionalized child rape (!)
  • claims that a hijab wearing women wouldn’t be allowed to ride a bike (!!)

The whole letter is simply a series of islamophobic tropes that one would expect to find in alt-right white supremacist type websites. The fact that it was the editor of CMAJ who wrote the headline, only adds to the pain and hurt caused by this whole episode, despite the fact she has since apologized.

I’m forced to wonder, what would have happened if I commented on, say, Orthodox Jewish women, many of who choose to wear wigs to cover their hair? I obviously don’t know the exact religious reasons why but a friend of mine pointed out this link on chabad.org that goes into it in more detail. Now supposing I had written a letter saying that an Orthodox Jewish woman making herself “unavailable by covering her hair” was akin to misogyny/oppression/child abuse etc etc.

Had I said that, I frankly would expect everyone to call me an anti-Semite. And had I written that to a medical journal, I would never expect such a letter to see print.

And that’s the real problem. It shows a double standard that exists within the CMAJ. I would never be able to get a letter full of negative connotations about Jewish/Indigenous/Black/LGBTQS2+/insert minority of choice published in the CMAJ. They would rightfully feel that publishing that would harm a segment of their members and would not be productive to building an inclusive organization.

But a letter (and headline) that blatantly expresses anti-Muslim rhetoric? Apparently that’s ok.

To be clear, this is not really an argument about free speech either. Dr. Emil has a right to his view as distasteful as I find them. He’s free to spout this nonsense whenever he wants and I’m free to think less of him every time he does. Those are our rights as protected by the Canadian Charter.

But, when the journal of a representative organization allows publication of a letter that attacks a segment of their membership, the type of letter that they never would allow if it targeted another segment, well, we have a problem.

Many muslims have been left reeling these past few years by a series of events. An eleven year old girl attacked for wearing a hijab. A pregnant muslim woman attacked by teens who try to rip off her hijab. A spate of attacks against hijab wearing muslim women in Edmonton. The tragic killing of a muslim family in London, in a truck attack where the perpetrator was able to identify the family as muslim (likely because the women were wearing hijabs).

There are many more but you get the point. Hijab wearing muslim women are being attacked repeatedly. As an aside this only increases the tremendous respect I have for those who choose to wear a hijab. To have such strength of faith that you would still wear a hijab, knowing that you might be targeted for an attack, shows courage, resilience and a resolve I find inspiring.

Now, a mere 11 days after a school teacher is removed from her class for wearing a hijab, we have the CMAJ, a journal of an organization that allegedly represents close to 80,000 doctors, refer to that same hijab as “an instrument of oppression.” Seriously, has not anyone at CMAJ ever heard of the phrase “victim-blaming??”

I was going to tell you what I thought, but Danyal Ladha said it much better than I could on twitter:

Having caused such harm, the ball frankly is in CMAJ’s and the CMA’s court. Will they retract the article, issue a full and complete apology, and reach out to groups like the Muslim Medical Association of Canada to learn and educate themselves about how their actions have caused real pain to their members? Or does the vaunted push for diversity and inclusion the CMA is promoting not apply when it comes to muslims?

Time will tell.

It’s Time to Open Up Nursing Home Capacity

Recently, I posted what I referred to as a controversial tweet about the need to open up nursing home beds that had been closed during the seemingly never ending Covid pandemic.

While there was not much “controversy” in twitter feed as a result of this, it did lead to some questions being asked during an interview I gave for CTV News.

While I certainly appreciate the professional nature of the reporter (the always adept Kraig Krause), the reality is that 30 second blurb on this topic, in an interview about all things COVID, can’t really do it justice. So let’s delve into this deeper.

It’s no secret that Ontario’s Nursing Homes were hit hard by the Covid pandemic. One nursing home in my region, Roberta Place in Barrie, was ravaged badly by the disease. I still grieve for all of the residents and families there, including those who survived as they likely continue to suffer some of the after effects of what transpired.

In the wake of these and other such stories, the Ontario government quite correctly limited the number of residents in ward beds at nursing homes. Many of Ontario’s nursing homes are very old buildings. The nursing home I’m honoured to be a medical director for has great ownership (private as it happens) and great staff, but the building itself if 52 years old and would not meet newer, more modern standards for nursing homes.

When my nursing home was built, having a ward bed (four residents to a room) was thought to be reasonable. Given that Covid is airborne (like most other respiratory illnesses!) the COVID19 Directive #3 (linked above) for nursing homes limited the number of residents to two per room. This made perfect medical sense at the time, and I certainly supported it then.

The reality however, is that health care is not limited to a single disease. We do have Covid of course, but we have a whole lot of other illnesses that we need to deal with. The Ontario Medical Association has estimated that a minimum of 16 million visits or procedures have been delayed as a result of the pandemic. We can’t keep delaying these. We need to address all the other health care issues that Ontarian’s have, and not just maintain sole focus on Covid.

Right now, I personally have two patients who are in hospital waiting for a nursing home bed. They are not acutely ill. They do not need aggressive medical treatment. They need a nursing home. But they can’t get one because of the massive shortage of nursing home beds. And while I strongly applaud the government for planning to build more beds, they won’t be here for 4-5 years.

At the nursing home I work at, normally 60 patients could be housed, but it’s now limited to 45 because of the rules implemented during the pandemic. I imagine it’s one of many nursing homes that has been limited. While opening up those closed beds (at all the homes) likely won’t be enough, it will help alleviate the stress on hospitals. This is particularly important given (as I write this) no one knows how bad the on coming Omicron wave will be.

But wait – are we not risking increased covid infections in the nursing homes by doing this? We would be increasing, for lack of a better phrase, population density in these homes. The answer is not as straightforward as one would think.

First we now know that three doses of the Covid19 vaccine provides the maximum amount of protection. Just about every resident of a nursing home has had three doses – as have staff. There will never, ever, ever be a vaccine (for any disease) that is 100% effective. But that fact that our most vulnerable patients have had three doses is incredibly reassuring.

Second, we would have to ensure that nursing homes have the funds to put in proper air purifiers (with Hepa Filters) in their facilities. I’m not asking for a complete re-vamp of the HVAC systems (that will take too long). But even small portable air purifiers will make a difference.

Third, we would need to ensure a rapid swab and immunization policy for staff and visitors of nursing homes to further reduce the risk of Covid entering a facility. Just tossing it out there but how about all staff get swabbed once a week regardless of vaccine status, and visitors twice a week?

Fourth, as one of the smartest people I know put it, a bed is just a piece of furniture. We have to ensure that the homes who are short on staff, now have the ability to hire extra staff to take care of the residents in these beds.

The health care system is a behemoth. It is also interdependent on all of its various parts working together. A shortage of nursing home beds, means more people in hospital waiting for nursing homes, which reduces the hospitals ability to provide acute care which leads to further backlogs and delays in medically necessary treatments.

We cannot make nursing homes 100% safe (we can’t make anything 100% safe). But re-opening currently closed nursing home beds in the safest possible manner, will be a small step in the right direction. It will also provide the hospitals with a little bit of extra capacity, should Omicron stress the system more.

Corporatization of Medicine Continues Unabated

Last week, a story came across my feed that seems to have been almost completely ignored by most who are in/or follow medicine and health systems. WELL Health technologies announced that it has purchased 100% of CognisantMD, the developers of the Ocean platform. For those who don’t know, Ocean is a platform that links to various EMRs and allows for securely emailing patients, eReferrals, filling out forms online, and a bunch of other features.

Full disclosure, my practice uses Ocean as well (for now). Personally I find it somewhat clunky and not as smooth as advertised, but there are some positive features to it.

What’s the problem then? It’s a friendly corporate takeover. Happens all the time in the business world.

To understand the concerns, let’s look at what WELL Health does. According to their own website, WELL Health offers a wide array of digital health care solutions. But they also state they are “Canada’s largest outpatient medical clinic owner-operator and leading multi-disciplinary telehealth service provider”. In essence, they run the clinics, and physicians work for them.

A further dive into their strategy, under the “Reinvest” tab states:

“Acquisition of cash generating companies leads to increased cash flows which are re-invested to make additional new cash generating acquisitions.”

Pure and simple – WELL Health is a private, for profit corporation. There is of course, nothing wrong with private corporations. Most people who follow my twitter feed know that I am generally pro-business, and on most issues land on the right side of the political spectrum. I firmly believe we need more, not less, businesses in this country and we need to make it easier for businesses to function.

BUT – acquisitions like these, and the continued take over of clinics by corporations should make us ask legitimate questions about protection of individual health care data. It is no secret that the reasons that companies like Google and Facebook have become so successful is that they found a way to monetize personal data. In much the same way, personal health care data has enormous economic value to companies. Whoever can find a way to properly monetize this, will be the next Jeff Bezos/Mark Zuckerberg and so it’s no wonder that companies are extremely interested in getting into this field.

As I mentioned in a previous blog, Shoppers Drug Mart, for example, recently acquired a stake in Maple, a leading virtual care only provider for $75 million. They continue to advertise on their website (as of Dec 6, 2021) the ability to diagnose strep throat virtually (which personally I find questionable) and then to send antibiotics to a pharmacy near you (I’m guessing there is going to be a Shoppers Drug Mart near you).

Screen shot as of Dec 6, 2021

In a circumstance where a patient contacts Maple, the doctor or NP gets paid to virtually assess a patient, Maple gets a percentage of the fee to cover overhead – which presumably will be reflected in shareholder value to Shoppers. If a prescription gets sent to a Shoppers, well, they make a profit there too. Neat business model.

But it’s not just companies that already have an interest in providing health care related services that are trying to get involved in this field. Amazon is jumping into health care with a telemedicine initiative. Google has long planned to get into health care, and while not terribly successful yet, I doubt they will stop trying. Heck even Uber (!) wants to get involved in health care.

It’s easy to see why everyone wants in. There is a lot of money and potential profit in health care. And while I am all for companies making a profit, that doesn’t mean that we can’t ask some hard questions about the protection of personal health care data such as:

  • How secure is the data that is being held in the servers owned by these corporations?
  • How do we ensure personal health data doesn’t go where it’s not authorized? (eg. supposing the parent company owned a family practice clinic AND an disability insurance company)
  • How do we ensure personal health data is not to be used to monetize other aspects of a business (eg. supposing a walk-in clinic was owned by a pharmacy. A patient attends there for a renewal of cholesterol medications, and then gets ads offering, say, flax seed oil capsules that are helpfully sold by that same pharmacy).
  • How do we ensure aggregate health data housed in those servers is only used to help the community at large (eg. finding communities that may need extra resources for, say opiod addiction).
  • If a physician stops working at a clinic owned by MegaCorp Inc. for whatever reason, how does that physician access their charts after the fact (I’m aware of a number of cases where access to patient records were cut off immediately upon the physician leaving such a clinic).

I’ve just posited a few questions. I’m sure there are many more. I believe that most Canadians strongly value health care privacy. As more and more businesses attempt to get involved in health care delivery, it is vital that we have a framework for oversight that ensures that patients have the absolute right to protect their personal health information. Sadly, I don’t see any organization/government agency out there asking these important questions.

Pharmacies Must Put Corporate Interests Aside to Give Flu Shots

October is just around the corner. Leaves will soon be turning magnificent colours. Pumpkin Spice treats will flow in abundance from many cafe’s. Plans to have a safe Halloween will be afoot. And – the inevitable cry of “when can I get my flu shot?” will be increasingly heard at many physicians offices.

Last year, there was a significant rise in the number of people who got a flu shot. While our flu season was mild last year (likely because of a combination of all the social distancing/mask measures and the higher vaccination rates) – there is concern this season may be more severe. In order to minimize the severity of this years flu season, we need to continue the trend of more people getting flu shots.

But last year was also the year that there was a lot of confusion around flu shots, and the year that the increasing commercialization of flu shots by the corporate head offices of pharmaceutical chains raised big concerns for me.

First, the timing of the flu shot is always going to be key. As I wrote last year, the best time for most of us to get flu shots is in November. The trend for the last few years (see picture below) is for flu season to begin sometime in December and taper off in March.

Thank you Ottawa Public Health for this excellent graph

BUT, the flu shot only starts to work two weeks after you get it, and its effectiveness starts to wear off after a couple of months. Timing is everything with the flu shot, and getting the shot in October is (for most of us) a bad choice. The shot will wear off before flu season is over.

Yet last year, my radio station/twitter feed/even Facebook page had numerous ads from Pharmacies advertising flu shot clinics in October (and buy your groceries at the same time!). This appeared to be driven by a desire to get a “customer” in the store soon rather than what was best from a health perspective (i.e. wait till November).

Additionally, there was all sorts of confusion around the high dose vs the standard dose flu shot last year. I wrote about this last year too. At the end of the day it does not matter which flu shot you get. Just get one! The effective difference between the high dose trivalent (three strain) flu shot and the regular dose three strain flu shot was 0.5%. This difference does not merit the hype around the high dose shot.

Furthermore, in Ontario we had a quadrivalent (four strain) regular strength flu shot. There was no study comparing the high dose three strain vs regular dose four strain shot that I could find. So really, there was no justification for the advertising from pharmacy ads that essentially said “high dose flu shots in stock, come quickly before we run out.”

This year, the choice of flu shots is going to be even more complicated. Have a look at a screen shot of an email I got from my local public health unit:

Six (!) different brands of flu shots covering a variety of strains (3 vs 4) and dosage strengths (high vs low). But again, to be clear, the difference between these are likely minimal. What’s far more important is that people actually get the shot (in November) rather than pick and choose and wait for one.

Yet if history repeats itself (and it seemingly always does), we can once again expect pharmaceutical chains advertising early in October that they have a “high dose” or “extra strength” or “added potency” or whatever shot, but you must book now! Hurry! Before they are all gone! And if you come real soon, you can even get 500 bonus points!

This level of consumer hucksterism has no place in health care. Health care decisions should be made based on evidence, appropriately done studies, and what’s in the best interests of the patient and society. They should not be made based on some marketing guru’s attempts to get people into a store (where conveniently they can get their milk and eggs too).

Most pharmacists I know are good and decent people who want to do what’s best for their patients. I actually applaud their willingness to give flu shots. The easier we can make it for everyone in society to get a flu shot, the better it is for all of us, and the less potential strain there will be on our health care system this winter.

But the corporate head offices that come up with these schemes (seriously, bonus points for get a flu shot??) need to think of what’s best for the health care needs of society first. That means NOT giving flu shots until November and NOT trying to promote one flu vaccine over another in an effort to create perceived demand and drive people to their stores.

Let’s see see if they act in the best interests of society, or in the best interests of their shareholders wallets this year.

Time for the OMA Board to Invoke Arbitration in Stalled Negotiations

While most front line physicians continue to deal with the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, and the resultant backlog of care, the OMA has continued to perform it’s most important function, that of trying to negotiate a Physician Services Agreement (PSA). A quick summary of what has already been disclosed:

  • The Binding Arbitration Framework (BAF) between the Ontario Government allows for negotiating a Physician Services Agreement (PSA) every four years. The last one was for 2017-2021 . We should already have had an agreement for 2021-2025 but the Covid Pandemic got in the way and delayed negotiations.
  • Negotiations for a PSA are supposed to start the year before expiry of a PSA. There is a framework that allows for a minimum of 60 days for negotiations following which either side can call for mediation. After a minimum of 60 days of mediation, either side (or the mediator) can call for Arbitration.
  • IF Arbitration does occur, the Arbitrator must hand down a ruling within 60 days of the conclusion of the arguments presented at Arbitration. After the ruling is handed down, the work of implementing the Award (or if by some chance an agreement is reached – the PSA) begins, and that in itself can take several months to a year. Those of us who were involved in the last implementation process in any way likely still have nightmares about how complex and fraught with challenges it was – I know I still do.

For the current negotiations, we know the following:

  • Negotiations began in October of 2020. The OMA Board gave the Negotiations Task Force (NTF) a mandate for negotiations. A mandate is essentially a confidential, bare minimum set of asks that the NTF must get from the government before accepting a deal. Considering there is no deal, the NTF clearly has not met that minimum. And no, the members can’t know what that is, it would significantly compromise the negotiations process.
  • Mediation began on April 9, 2021. “A large gap” remained between the OMA’s asks, and the MOH’s offer as of June 2021. As I’m no longer on the OMA Board, I have no idea what the gap is like now. Obviously, if there was no gap, we would have a deal by now.

Why should the OMA Board move to Arbitration now? Why not follow the mediator Mr. Kaplan’s recommendation, and wait till January 25, 2022 to go to Arbitration? Wouldn’t going against his recommendation run the risk of adversely affecting the outcome of a potential award?

Because health care is political in Canada. Being political, the time for governments to attack physicians is always, always, always early in their new mandate. In 1991, the NDP government of Bob Rae imposed a hard cap on the physicians budget (first year in power). In 2015 in the first year of Kathleen Wynne’s government, she also imposed unilteral cuts to physicians and in 2018 the Doug Ford government tried to take away binding arbitration.

The short version of the above is that I’m old, and I’ve been screwed by the government of every political party. It doesn’t matter who wins the provincial election of June 2022, the government that is in power will be sorely tempted to revoke any arbitration award if it seems to meet their short term interests. (Yes I know, the BAF is “evergreen” – meaning the process should continue in perpetuity, but the reality is that governments do stupid things all the time, and if one government has tried to take away a BAF process from physicians to suit their interests, then we can be sure another will as well).

And NO, having Arbitration currently as scheduled for Jan to March 2022 is not good enough. Finishing Arbitration hearings at the end of March gives the Arbitrator until the end of May for a ruling. By that time the election campaign will be in full gear, and Ministry bureaucrats will do absolutely nothing to implement any award as they wait for the outcome of the election.

Obviously, going to Arbitration now entails some risks. The NTF will likely argue that the Arbitrator himself recommended waiting till January, and we should try our best to seem reasonable to him. I have a great deal of respect for the NTF for the job they’ve done for the doctors of Ontario, in particular the negotiation of the BAF. But they are paid a lot of (well deserved) money to let the Arbitrator know of legitimate concerns of the membership.

I’ve met the Arbitrator and I have no doubt he will hand down a fair decision, whether in December or March. But members have every reason based on history to fear politicians of all stripes, and it’s the job of the NTF to let him know that that’s a legitimate concern.

Moving to Arbitration immediately, means the Arbitration hearings end likely by the end of December. An Award is announced (likely) by March. At that point, the government is faced with accepting the award, or revoking it three months before an election, and risking the type of anti-government ads the OMA did so well last time. By the time the election is over, whoever wins, the MOH bureaucrats will be well on the way to implementing the award and any “noise” that the award is too much (there will always be noise) will have gone away.

From the OMA’s Negotiations Page

The OMA’s main responsibility is to negotiate a fair PSA for members. The BAF is the best tool they have for not only keeping the government honest, but for political use to reduce the risk of awards being overturned. (NB- There’s no guarantee of anything, politicians do stupid things all the time. This is simply about risk reduction).

Will the OMA Board stand up for members and direct the NTF to immediately move to Arbitration, as we are now legally allowed to? I guess we’re going to find out.

OMA Fails Family Practice with Virtual Care Agreement

Recently, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) approved an agreement to extend virtual fee codes for an additional year. There is much to like about the extending fee codes for virtual care. As the pandemic has taught us, there is a role for appropriately provided virtual care. I have used virtual care with my patients for over three years now, and have found it a useful adjunct to in person visits.

In the current environment however, the extension agreement fails family practice. Since family practice is the bedrock of any high functioning health care system, damaging it will have unforeseen negative consequences.

How will this agreement harm family practice? By allowing negation to occur for care that is provided virtually, without implementing some guidelines on the appropriate provision of virtual care.

About 6,000 of Ontario’s family physicians are on a capitation model (basically a salary plus performance bonuses). One of those performance bonuses is for accessibility. The bonus applies if your practice is available to look after your patients. If, for example, a patient can’t see you, and then goes to see a walk in clinic that you don’t work it, the family physician in question will be deducted the value of the visit to the walk in clinic.

The concept of the access bonus is a good one that I support. We’ve got ample evidence that the absolute best health care outcomes occur when patients see their own family doctor as opposed to seeking out itinerant care from physicians who with whom they don’t have an ongoing relationship.

So what’s the problem then? Why should negation of the access bonus apply only to in person visits, and not to virtual care as well? Because the current landscape for virtual care is so open ended, and so rife with potential for overuse/misuse, that it makes it impossible for family doctors to compete on the availability and ease of access front.

There are lots of private, for profit companies that provide a level of virtual care, but for simplicities sake, let’s look at dot health. A glance at its website reveals that, for the low low price of $69.98 per request, you can get your health care information (including labs/diagnostic tests/clinical notes apparently) from providers, and store it securely on the web where you and only you can access it. The website doesn’t go into the two tier nature of the system – those who can afford to pay for multiple requests can then present their data to a new health care provider they meet and presumably get more appropriate care.

More troubling to me personally is the “free” service offered by some guy (I’m assuming he’s a he based on the icon) named “Dr. M” offering to help you “understand” what your records mean to you.


Patients should be able to understand their own private health information/records. But surely it makes much more sense to ask the doctor that you already have a pre-existing relationship with what the records mean. You know, the one who’s followed you all along, and you’ve seen regularly. Asking essentially a stranger on the internet (no matter how well qualified) seems problematic at best.

I have no idea if “Dr. M” bills OHIP for the phone calls he would provide to patients who request this service. I would simply point out that under the existing virtual care codes, if a patient requests this service, it would be legal for him to bill. This would result in the family doctor for the patient being negated.

Also problematic in my opinion, is there seems to be a consolidation of sorts in private for profit virtual care companies. dot health’s website offers seamless integration with Maple.

Another screen shot from dot health’s website, where they offer connectivity to Maple

Maple is a private, for profit virtual health care provider that allows you, for a fee of course, to chat with a doctor/nurse/nurse practitioner and get care through their patented app. Maple was recently bought by Loblaws/Shoppers Drug Mart for $75 million (!).

And no surprise, their focus appears to be on “convenience”. Here’s the example they use from their own website:

Seriously, diagnosing strep throat, without a throat swab (which can only be done in person)?? And then prescribing antibiotics (I wonder which pharmacy gets the prescription). Have these guys never heard of the issue around over-prescribing of antibiotics and the ramifications? Or the fact that the vast majority of sore throats are viral?

The astute amongst you will also recognize that dot health was founded by Ms. Huda Idris. Who also happens to be a Board Director for Ontario MD, the OMA subsidiary that is supposed to be the “Trusted Advisor for EMRs and Provincial Digital Health Tools” for physicians.

To be clear, I have a great deal of respect for Ms. Idrees as a person. Being from the south Asian community and a Muslim myself, I think it’s incredible that we have role models like her out there given some of the patriarchal attitudes that persist in that community. I congratulate her on her success and wish her more of it.

However none of that changes the fact that having the owner of a virtual care company, that has links to another, while OMD is supposed to be taking an impartial look at virtual care solutions going forward creates the impression of a conflict of interest. She likely would recuse herself from discussions around this (she has a reputation for impeccable conduct) but in politics, the reality is that a perception of a conflict of interest, might as well BE a conflict of interest

NB – I should point out that OntarioMD likely had nothing to do with the virtual care extension agreement – that was approved by the OMA Board.

Back to accessibility, I pride myself on being reasonably available to my patients. As with all things, there are some ups and downs, but I have consistently had positive access bonuses for the past 17 years. I have no problem with other clinics trying to set up shop near me (some have tried over the years) because my patients generally know that for the most part either via phone, email, or in person, they can usually get a hold of me in a timely manner.

However it’s not possible for me, or any other family physician, to compete with $75 million operations like Maple or companies like dot health who advertise on Twitter and Facebook, and allow people to simply click on the ads to connect to a physician.

Moreover, this kind of thing is bad for the patients. The example of prescribing antibiotics without a throat swab is just one of many that I could present about inappropriate tests and or prescriptions being given by physicians who may mean well, but don’t know have the insight an ongoing relationship with patients can provide.

This deal will also potentially negatively affect specialists as well. Say you are the best cardiovascular surgeon I know. At some point these private companies will also have other cardiovascular surgeons on staff. Maybe if a patient has a question about their surgery, they will contact, for convenience sake the private company, instead of asking you. Do you think that’s not going to affect consistency and quality of care?

Virtual care is here to stay and I support virtual care. However, when funding virtual care it’s important to ensure that it’s only funded in an appropriate manner. As Drs. Agarwal and Martin wrote in their piece on the virtual care revolution:

“Virtual care should be leveraged to as a tool to interact with your provider – someone who knows you and can see you in person when that’s best.”

Currently, there appear to be no qualifiers on virtual care payments. Maybe there was a sense that the only way to get qualifiers was to approve this first. Maybe the concern was that time was running out on the initial agreement and something had to be done now. I don’t know (I’m not on the OMA Board anymore).

But I do know this, sometimes, you need to walk away from flawed agreements for the sake of the greater good. And this, was a flawed agreement that should not have been approved.

Vaccine Certificates/Mandatory Immunizations are a Bad Idea

First things first, if you’ve read the title of this blog, and are hoping to find ammunition to promote a vaccine hesitant agenda, you won’t find it here. Go watch Fox News or Newsmax or any other QAnon affiliated vaccine disinformation service.

The COVID vaccines are safe and they are incredibly effective. Something like 99.5% of all patients in hospital ICUs with COVID are people who have not been fully immunized. Many of them beg to get immunized after getting sick, but by then it’s too late.

Frankly, I think an argument could be made that the mRNA COVID vaccines are the most effective vaccines science has ever developed. If you remember nothing else from this blog – remember this – I encourage you to all voluntarily get vaccinated for COVID, especially now that we seem to have adequate supplies.

Making vaccines mandatory/vaccine certificates however, introduce a whole new set of concerns that I don’t think have been well thought out.

The rationale for introducing Vaccine Passports/Certificates appears to be to protect society. By requiring documentation that you have been vaccinated prior to allowing you to go to a restaurant/travel in Canada/attend sporting events etc, the thinking is that you will prevent the spread of COVID.

The argument for making COVID vaccinations mandatory for health care workers is that patients should feel safe when accessing health care, and be assured they won’t get COVID19 from someone who is treating them. The point has also been made that health care workers are often required to show proof of immunity to things like Hepatitis B and Tuberculosis. So why not add COVID to the list? (Interestingly, those who espouse this view conveniently forget that health care workers are not required to immunize yearly for the flu, and the flu kills far more people every year than either TB or Hep B).

But.

One thing this pandemic has taught us, is that there is a small group of people out there who are extremely mistrustful of authority. They won’t trust doctors/public health officials/nurses etc. They prefer to do their own “research”. Their “research” is frankly guided by confirmation bias (looking only at information that supports your agenda, as opposed to looking at all the facts, whether supportive or not). These people then (sadly very successfully) use social media to spread their half truths (and in the case of noted health experts Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson – outright lies).

The damage caused by these people is in calculable. COVID appears to be resurgent in the United States and is being (rightfully) called a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Third world countries are struggling with another wave, and are desperately trying to keep their health systems afloat, while they get the needed vaccines. International travel remains in limbo, and the economic damage caused worsens by the day.

So why then are vaccine certificates or mandatory vaccinations for health care workers a bad idea?

Because no matter what I or other health officials think of the idea, the simple reality is that the vaccine hesitant crowd will spin this as co-ercion.

Celebrated Infectious Disease Specialist Marjorie Taylor Greene discusses the pros of Covid Vaccination (sarcasm fully intended by writer)

And that, in a nutshell, is why I oppose the idea of vaccine certificates, and mandatory vaccinations. We have the weight of evidence on our side that vaccines work. We have been able to debunk many of the stories about the COVID vaccines (remember when the Pfizer vaccine was going to cause an outbreak of Bell’s Palsy and we were all going to walk around with half droopy faces?). With each passing day seeing only unvaccinated people being admitted to hospital with severe COVID we keep building our case. We should be pro-actively promoting all of this in order to let the vaccine hesitant know that their concerns are unfounded.

One thing that has been badly done during this pandemic is the dissemination of information. In any crisis, the first thing to do, should be to have clear, consistent, factually accurate communication. This has been sorely lacking in the past 16 months with health authorities disagreeing with each other.

Yet now, we are again running the risk of doing the same thing. On the one hand, we’ve got experts (quite correctly) proclaiming the vaccines are the best way to prevent COVID.

And now health authorities are turning around and essentially saying ” yah, but we’re going to make you have a special passport to go anywhere so you are protected.”

What exactly do you think those that are already suspicious of authority are going to think? They are simply going to double down on their belief that we have to be “forced” into getting a vaccine, because it’s really not as good as we say it is. We’re going to lose any chance of trying to build bridges with the vaccine hesitant crowd, and win them over with the force of reason and facts (which is overwhelmingly on the side of those who believe in vaccinations).

The whole point of taking the incredibly effective COVID vaccines, is so you can go places and NOT WORRY if the other person is unvaccinated. Even if you are exposed to COVID, it will be the unfortunate misguided unvaccinated individual who will get sick, not you.

Building trust with the vaccine hesitant crowd is hard. It takes time, effort, repetition of facts and a calm approach. But if we go down the road of creating the impression of co-ercion, we’re going to embolden hesitancy and create more fear and mistrust. Vaccine hesitancy will only rise as a result and mistrust of health authorities will increase. Who knows what the long term implications of that are? I worry those implications will last beyond the pandemic, and will cause ongoing problems for health care in the future.

We have facts/reason/data to support the COVID vaccines. Let’s keep promoting that, and not give those who mistrust health authorities, more ammunition.

The Promise That is Canada

A few years ago, a (now deceased) patient of mine was in the office. He had just come out of hospital and he thanked me for looking after him. He then told me I was the best doctor he ever had. It was a touching moment which I’ve always cherished, and was planning on keeping private. But it’s what he said afterwards that I will be reflecting on this Canada Day.

He went on to tell me a little bit more about his life history. I knew that he had immigrated to Canada from Germany, but really not much else about his youth (he was a very private person). He opened up and told me that when he was sixteen, he was a member of the Hitler Youth of the Nazi Party. He fought in World War 2 for the Nazis, where he was eventually shot and captured by Allied forces.

But he also admitted what must have been some very uncomfortable truths for him to retell. He told me when he was a teenager he believed the propaganda about the Germans being the “master race”. He bought into the anti-semitism at the time. He used to look scornfully at people who weren’t white when he was a teenager as he firmly believed what he had been taught – that people of colour were inferior.

After the war, he had a number of odd jobs and eventually immigrated to Canada. In Canada he saw people of all races and ethnicities living and working, mostly respectfully and peacefully together. He worked with, and for, people of many religions and came to realize the errors of his youth. He realized just how wrong the Nazis were in their beliefs. Eventually, he wound up in my practice and I viewed it as an honour and privilege to care for him in the last stages of his life.

I mention this because this Canada Day is going to be one of the most sober ones I can recall. Many are actually tweeting out that we should #cancelcanadaday in light of the many horrific things we have discovered about ourselves and Canada these last few months.

Hundreds of confirmed unmarked graves of Indigenous children, with likely many thousands more yet to be found. Buried in mass graves without anyone to remember them, or their families to carry out traditional ceremonies to honour their children and share their grief.

An Islamaphobic act of domestic terror against an innocent, hard working family in London, Ontario, robbing Canada of four remarkable people who were contributing to making Canada a better place and a better country. Despite the horror and revulsion we feel at this act, there continue to be ongoing Islamaphobic acts such as a man having his beard forcibly cut off, women targeted for wearing a hijab, and attacks on politicians for just saying we must fight Islamophobia.

Anti-Semetic attacks in Canada continue to increase, such as painting swastikas on synagogues and various forms of harassment and violence. A disturbing rise in anti-Asian hate crime and violence, likely incited by people who initially blamed China for the Covid-19 virus. While it’s true that the Wuhan Lab-Leak theory for Covid19 has gone from the realm of tinfoil conspiracy theorist nonsense, to possible, it is egregiously wrong to blame the Asian-Canadian community that has contributed so much to our culture .

And of course, ongoing racism and marginalization of our Black community, even in medicine continues.

I’m sure I’ve missed many groups, but you get the point. This Canada Day, we are coming to grips with the fact that Canada has many flaws and much room to improve. This is particularly true for immigrants like myself who (still) truly believe that Canada is the best country in the world. To see so many failings exposed in a country you love is heartbreaking.

It is right and just and, well, Canadian to think about how we can make Canada a better country for everyone. We must all continue to strive for decency, fairness, equality and fundamental freedoms for all of us. We must come to a fair solution to recognize how we have harmed the Indigenous people to our national shame.

However, this year on Canada Day, I will think of my patient.

I will think about how despite what has happened this last year, there is likely no other country on this earth where an immigrant from Pakistan could be given an opportunity as a child to work diligently and wind up as a small town family doctor. And where that same immigrant, could wind up with a patient from a time and place that held repugnant views.

Canada gave me an opportunity to succeed if I grasped it. But it also gave my patient an opportunity to learn, to grow as a person, to put aside old biases and hatreds. It gave him a chance to get to know other people, and realize we are all human. It gave us a chance to meet, and yes, to learn from each other.

This year on Canada Day, I will think about my patient…. I will think of my friend. I will think about what he taught me. I will think of what we must reclaim.

I will think about the promise that is Canada.

Tone Deaf CFPC Fails Its Members, Embarrasses Itself

Recently, in what seems to these old eyes to be an insulting, vindictive and offensive move, Canadian Family Physician, the “Official Journal of The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC)”, published a hit piece on Family Doctors that only serves to further demoralize and dishearten a beaten down profession. I cannot fathom the amount of, what at best could be described as political naïveté, and at worst a disconnected Ivory Tower mentality that would be required to write such a venomous attack on those who actually pay money to keep their organization going.

Seriously, what was the CFPC thinking when they okayed Roger Ladouceur’s editorial, titled “Family Medicine is not a Business.”?? (I refuse to link to it as I don’t want it to get any more hits).

Truly, it’s not really an editorial, rather a massive litany of complaints against family physicians, while sarcastically suggesting “surely, it’s just gossip!”

What exactly are evil rotten family doctors doing according to Ladouceur? He suggests the CFPC has “heard stories” about family doctors not seeing patients in person and wondering how they can assess complicated patients. He has “heard stories” about doctors only calling patients at more lucrative times and abandoning patients with high medical needs. He has “heard stories” about family doctors “charging excessive fees” for services not covered by health insurance.

He ends off his purulent missive by blithely stating, “Family Practice is not a business.” Marie (“Let them eat cake”) Antoinette would have been proud of such a comment, dismissively heaped on the approximately 40,000 overworked family doctors in Canada.

There’s a lot to unpack in Ladouceur’s diatribe. First and foremost is the fact that despite extolling the virtues of evidence based medicine, the CFPC allowed an editorial to run that had, well, no evidence to back it up. The whole argument was based on “I have heard stories.” There are no numbers to back it up, no names of offending physicians, no statistics on how widespread these alleged problems are. Just gossip and innuendo based on what he has “heard.”

If you want evidence by the way, I can confirm that the OMA Board was told that based on OHIP billing data over 98% of family doctors in Ontario continued to work after the pandemic was declared. It is true that they are using a mix of virtual and in person visits, but given the need to social distance during these times, a mix is clearly the correct way to proceed.

Furthermore, the banal statement that “Family Medicine is not a business” is simply factually incorrect, and reveals a kind of ignorant, Ivory Tower mentality that shows a complete disconnect from the real world.

Let me be clear about this, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. My family has food on the table. We have a roof over our head. There is no danger of my car being re-possessed. I’m fortunate compared to the average Canadian and am extremely grateful to be in that position.

But while I genuinely enjoy seeing my patients (they’re a great bunch of people), I still have to pay my staff, order supplies, pay rent and utilities, ensure my computers are working properly, get payroll taxes paid, comply with labour legislation etc etc. In short, while we all hate to think about this side of things, Family Medicine has been, and will continue to be a business of some sort. That the CFPC would allow such an obtuse comment by Ladouceur to run, shows a wanton disregard, and, dare I say it, contempt for the many day to day issues that its members face.

Look, no physician likes seeing one of their organizations scold them (and certainly I will always push back when I see this kind of stuff happening), but I really have to wonder just how completely out of touch the CFPC must be to allow this type of berating in the middle of the biggest physician burn out crisis I have ever seen. Prior to the pandemic, 26 % of physicians were clinically burnt out, 34% were suffering from a degree of depression and over 50% reported some symptoms of the burn out. Exactly what do you think has happened to those numbers after the pandemic? Especially with physicians recognizing that even though we seem to be coming out of the pandemic, there is an overwhelming backlog of delayed care to address?

Yet amongst this backdrop, here comes the CFPC, not to try to find ways to support physicians or provide tools to help them be healthy so they can look after their patients better, but to berate, admonish and vilify them as a group. This is supposed to make things better??

The type of evidence free invective Ladouceur ran should never have been given any platform, much less a platform on an organization who’s mission statement includes advocacy on the part of the specialty of Family Medicine. Frankly, I’m embarrassed to be a member of the CFPC, though given the regulatory requirements to maintain my continuing medical education, I can’t resign from it.

If the CFPC really wants to help, they will pull Ladouceur’s screed from their magazine, and apologize to all 40,000 Family Physicians in Canada. Anything less will suggest complicity and sympathy with his views, and will contribute to Family Physicians losing confidence in the CFPC.