Legitimacy of health professional service withdrawal questioned

To the Expositor:

The Anglins (‘Enormous credit due to principled dentist,’ June 5, page 4) and Mr. Best (‘Dentist’s stand is a matter of principle,’ May 29, page 4) mention a “principle” informing a dentist’s withdrawal of service from supporters of wind farms.

Here’s the question that I hope they haven’t asked themselves in preparation for their letters: Is it justified to deny dental or health care to someone? I would find it unlikely that these writers would answer “yes,” as a matter of principle.

A dentist has the sole right to perform commonplace (as well as unusual) highly skilled procedures. One cannot open a tooth-drawing storefront as we see in Guatemala and the East, where very poor people obtain some relief.

The doctor (and nurse/practitioner) has the sole right to prescribe restricted medicines, to admit to hospital, to use or direct to be used the sophisticated machinery of modern medicine and to share with the suffering her experience and knowledge and skill.

A dentist or a doctor who refuses treatment to a smoker or a fat person or a wind turbine supporter is saying, “You are not worth treating.” Granting this right of selection to one dentist or one doctor grants this right to all dentists and doctors. Health care is effectively no longer a human right in our country if we accept these dentist/doctor boycotts, whether we have socialized medicine or user-pay medicine.

Are there those among us who are so far-gone that we are banished from health-care? Is there a principle to be discovered here? Pray, Mr. Best or the Anglins, enlighten me.

Revenge is a childish motive and not to be suspected of this dentist. Terror, on the other hand, is the deterrence theory whereby one punishes, not for justice, but really to send a message to other communities of what could await anyone who supports wind turbines. Although not imagining this dentist capable of this kind of “terror” I fear other people in other communities considering wind power may face behaviour modeled on the template of this dentist. I can only describe Dr. Studzienny’s actions as ill-conceived, misdirected and exceedingly damaging, but well-intentioned as he conceives of good with regard to wind farms.

Phil Dabous
Little Current