Latest news with #ShelleyDuggan
Globe and Mail
29-05-2025
- General
- Globe and Mail
Alberta doctors' group supports CMA's constitutional challenge of bill limiting access to medical care for trans youth
The Alberta Medical Association, which advocates on behalf of thousands of local doctors, says it strongly supports its national counterpart in taking the provincial government to court over its transgender legislation. On Wednesday, the Canadian Medical Association filed a constitutional challenge in the Court of King's Bench of Alberta against Bill 26, which limits access to medical care for transgender youth. Three Alberta doctors, all of whom provide gender-affirming care, are co-applicants in the filing. The CMA contends that Bill 26, which became law last December, violates physicians' freedom of conscience as guaranteed in Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The organization says the bill undermines the principle of clinical autonomy and 'cuts at the core' of a physician's professional identity. 'This profound violation cannot be justified in a free and democratic society,' the application states. Shelley Duggan, president of the AMA, said in a statement released Wednesday that the provincial organization supports 'in the strongest terms' the legal action brought forward by the CMA. 'The CMA's review application addresses the moral distress of physicians who are being barred from delivering the evidence-based care that they are called to provide under both their code of ethics and the standard of care,' Dr. Duggan said. 'That distress is real. I hear it every day in many places.' The legislation bars doctors from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapies for people under 16 and prohibits any gender-reassignment surgeries on minors (those under 18) – which are already performed rarely in Alberta. Heather Jenkins, press secretary to Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery, said in a statement Wednesday that the Alberta government will 'vigorously' defend its position in court. 'Bill 26 was introduced to protect and preserve children and youth from potentially irreversible decisions,' she said. This is the second legal action that has been taken against the Alberta government for Bill 26. Advocacy groups Egale Canada and Skipping Stone Foundation, together with families with gender-diverse children, filed a legal challenge last December that alleges the law violates several Charter-protected rights and contradicts Alberta's own Bill of Rights. Premier Danielle Smith has defended Bill 26 as necessary to protect children from making life-altering decisions that they could later regret. She has argued that the legislation strikes a balance between protecting children and upholding the rights of transgender people. Children's Healthcare Canada, in a statement Wednesday, also voiced support for the CMA's constitutional challenge. Jillian Demontigny, Jake Donaldson and Joseph Raiche, the Alberta doctors who are co-applicants with the CMA, said in their individual affidavits that this legislation has put them in an impossible position. They argue that they must now choose between compromising their ethical standards or breaking the law. Dr. Demontigny, in her affidavit, said restricting gender-affirming care for youth can cause suffering, including from gender dysphoria and gender incongruence. She said this type of care is vital and only provided after meaningful consultation. 'I cannot in good conscience abandon these patients,' she said. Dr. Raiche, in his affidavit, said he is 'profoundly troubled by the grave human cost' that the prohibitions will bring. 'Denying treatment and telling physicians that they are powerless to act is not a neutral posture,' he said. 'It is an affront to the dignity of patients whose dignity is already under daily attack by our society, and to the professional and ethical agency of doctors who care for them.' With a report from Kristy Kirkup in Ottawa
Edmonton Journal
09-05-2025
- Health
- Edmonton Journal
'Things are perilous right now': Measles cases in Alberta rise to 313; experts endorse vaccine
Article content Actions entail expanding access to immunization by adding more appointment spots at clinics in the south and central zones, where the majority of the measles cases are reported. As of Thursday, the south zone has reported 193 cases, while the central zone has reported 80 cases. The panel, led by four of Alberta's experts in infectious diseases and immunization, was intended to streamline everything there is to know about the outbreak, the risks of infection, who is vulnerable and to dispel concerns about taking the MMR vaccine, the only route to prevent infection. 'The measles vaccine is safe and it's the best way to protect against it. It's highly effective at preventing infection and complications,' said Dr. Shelley Duggan, AMA president. Dispelling concerns around the MMR vaccine Experts and doctors have pointed to the fall in immunization rates over the past two decades as a major reason for the measles outbreak. Anyone aged one and older can take the MMR vaccine, which immunizes against measles, mumps and rubella, and community protection against the infections means ensuring that at least 95 per cent of the population is vaccinated.
CBC
24-02-2025
- Health
- CBC
Alberta doctors push back against planned pay reductions for being on call
Social Sharing Some Alberta doctors, facing pay cuts for their on-call work, are warning the changes could make staffing problems in hospitals worse. Under the physician on-call program doctors get an hourly stipend for being available to treat patients as needed. But changes following a review of the program — run by Alberta Health Services and funded by Alberta Health — mean physicians will no longer be paid for daytime on-call hours on weekdays. While doctors had been compensated for the entire 24-hour period, they've been notified that once the program updates are implemented, they'll be paid for only 14 hours. "We're hearing from lots and lots of people.… We were getting an influx of concerns," said Dr. Shelley Duggan, president of the Alberta Medical Association. In a recent letter, she told members she's aware of dozens of on-call programs preparing to appeal the decision and "advising that they intend on reducing their availability to see unattached patients or cancel their availability entirely." According to Duggan, some new programs were added through the review process. But the budget was not increased. "Nobody begrudges that these new programs should have been added. But really what was needed was an increase in the budget," she said. Doctors get the hourly stipend to be available to attend to patients and to respond, in some cases, in under half an hour. Some are required to be at the hospital. Physicians also bill for the clinical services they provide when they're on call. Duggan believes the program changes will affect a variety of doctors in both urban and rural areas. "That obstetrician [for example] really can't say, 'I know you're about to deliver, but I'm not coming to attend to you.' It's just not possible.… So these physicians are handcuffed in many ways," she said. "Clearly they have to care for people and they will care for people, and now they're not getting remunerated as much as they were before. So we are not incentivizing the system that we want." Physicians were told the stipend cuts would take effect April 1. However, in an email to CBC News, Alberta Health Services said it is now extending that deadline to ensure a thorough appeals process. Specialists respond "Understandably, most physicians are upset," said Dr. Cameron Sklar, an Edmonton-based obstetrician. He's required to be in the hospital when he's on call. That means he can't work in his clinic or be in an operating room during that time. With the stipend change, he won't receive on-call pay between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. "Our clinics cost a significant amount of money to run," said Sklar, the president of the AMA's section of obstetrics and gynecology. "You can't afford to sit there not earning an income if you have a medical practice to run and staff to pay and lights to keep on and patients to see." He expects some specialist groups will consider withdrawing services. "I think it's going to increase barriers to care, without a doubt, to patients." The AMA said doctors have a duty to look after their own patients but they aren't required to treat a new or unattached patient who comes into the ER, for example, if they're not being paid to be on call. Dr. Chris Rudnisky, an Edmonton-based ophthalmologist, said his colleagues in all five health zones are appealing the decision. "This, I think, will tip some physicians over into moving or retiring," he said. "Right now, we have a human health resources crisis. We don't have enough doctors. And it's yet another way doctors don't feel respected." According to Rudnisky, ophthalmologists performed 587 urgent eye surgeries in the Edmonton zone alone last year, including repairing major cuts to the eye or detached retinas, and consulted on more than 2,800 cases. "These are things that can't wait," he said. Funded by province AHS said the changes were made to the physician on-call program in an effort to make eligibility criteria and payment rates transparent. That meant everyone had to reapply and 189 additional groups became eligible, which, according to AHS, increases after-hours coverage and health-care access. AHS told doctors the decision to cut on-call daytime compensation was made due to the large number of programs that applied. The physician on-call program is funded by the provincial government. "We are monitoring the implementation and are considering funding changes as part of Budget 2025," according to a statement from the health minister's office. "These discussions are part of overall government spending on Alberta physicians, which has gone up $1 billion, or 22 per cent, since 2022-23." The advisory committee that conducted the review included people from AHS, Alberta Health and two representatives from the Alberta Medical Association. "We didn't necessarily agree to the drop in the daytime hours. But we recognized that [AHS] had to make a difficult decision," said Duggan. She worries this will prompt more physicians to leave hospital-based work if they feel they can make more money in the community. The AMA's acute care stabilization proposal, submitted to the Alberta government in the fall of 2023, included a request for an increase in on-call pay, according to Duggan.
CBC
27-01-2025
- Health
- CBC
Alberta doctors push back on provincial COVID-19 task force report
A task force created by the UCP government to review the province's pandemic response has issued its final report and, while it is currently being reviewed by the province, Alberta doctors are pushing back, saying it contains misinformation and poses a threat to public health. Among the $2-million report's key recommendations are calls for the provincial government to "immediately halt" the use of all COVID-19 vaccines without "full disclosure" of potential risks and to bar healthy children and teenagers from getting COVID shots. Underpinning the 269-page document are a number of statements — that doctors argue go against medical and scientific consensus — criticizing the use of vaccines and a range of other pandemic protections while recommending doctors be allowed to prescribe alternative medications, including ivermectin. Calling it "anti-science" and "anti-evidence," the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) claims the document advances misinformation. "It speaks against the broadest and most diligent international scientific collaboration and consensus in history.… Science and evidence brought us through [the pandemic] and saved millions of lives," AMA president Dr. Shelley Duggan said in a statement. The task force review was led by Dr. Gary Davidson, the former chief of emergency medicine at the Red Deer Regional Hospital Centre. During the height of the fourth wave in 2021, Davidson claimed hospital admission numbers were overblown and being manipulated to justify public health restrictions — accusations Alberta Health Services rejected as false. Calling him a "contrarian," Alberta Premier Danielle Smith last year defended her decision to appoint Davidson, saying the province wanted to hear from more diverse viewpoints. MLA Eric Bouchard, a United Conservative Party (UCP) politician who represents Calgary-Lougheed, posted news of the report's completion on social media on Friday. He touted the report as bringing Alberta "one step closer to the truth." In a subsequent post, which received hundreds of "likes" on X, formerly known as Twitter, Bouchard said he is committed to working with Albertans to "ensure that the historical pain caused by the response to COVID-19 does not repeat." But the document's posting on an Alberta government website has also met with strong criticism from the members of the medical community. 'It's dangerous,' says U of C professor A former chief medical officer of health for Alberta is pushing back against the report. "I think it was a waste of time. It was a waste of money. And under no circumstances should the recommendations be implemented until there's been a full and expert public discussion of the report," said Dr. James Talbot, an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta. Duggan, with the AMA, said she's hearing concerns from colleagues about "deficiencies and biases" in the report and fully agrees with those concerns. "It's dangerous, frankly, that this report now exists on a government website," said Dr. Braden Manns, a professor of medicine and health economics at the University of Calgary. "Distrust of public health officials is at an all-time high. This is not going to help" The report should be retracted, according to Dr. Lynora Saxinger, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Alberta Hospital. "I would classify that as a public health threat. Because I think it actually gives a lot of poor quality information a veneer of respectability and official-ness," she said. Both Manns and Saxinger were involved in the scientific advisory group, which reviewed emerging evidence as well as national and international guidance and provided recommendations to Alberta Health Services during the worst of the pandemic. The task force is, at times, critical of the group's work, claiming their rapid turnaround times prevented "a full critical appraisal of the evidence." Value of vaccines questioned The report claims COVID-19 primarily affects the elderly, questions the value of vaccines, and calls on the government to rein in their use. "[The] task force recommends halting the use of COVID-19 vaccines without full disclosure of their potential risks, ending their use in healthy children and teenagers, conducting further research into their effectiveness, establishing support for vaccine-injured individuals, and providing an opt-out mechanism from federal public health policy," it states. According to Talbot, the recommendations, if adopted, would take away a parent's right to vaccinate their children as they see fit. "This is a vaccine that's been given in the billions of doses. It's one of the safest, most effective vaccines we've ever had and yet they're calling into question [its] safety," he said. The authors point to concerns about the risk of myocarditis in adolescent males and claims there is no long-term safety data for mRNA vaccines in minors. Dr. Sam Wong, president of the section of pediatrics with the Alberta Medical Association, disagrees with the recommendations. He contends the group cherry-picked its data. "It's kind of based on bad science and their recommendations are not really what I would consider valid.… If the government follows through on it, then it's bad public health," said Wong. "The risk of myocarditis … is much higher and much more severe with COVID than than it is with the vaccination." Manns also refutes numbers in the report. "The risk of myocarditis is not 50 per cent. It's less than one in a thousand. It generally happens within the first couple doses. It [impacts] younger boys. You have to tailor the vaccinations to the type of individual," he said. A risk-based approach is already used by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, said Manns, adding there is solid evidence showing COVID immunizations reduce the risk of severe illness. Ivermectin discussed The report alludes to a lack of transparency during the COVID-19 pandemic and calls for legislative changes that would give doctors more freedom to prescribe "non-traditional" therapies during future pandemics. Describing Alberta's approach to drugs such as ivermectin as "restrictive," the task force calls for whistleblower protection for doctors who raise concerns about public health measures or so-called "emerging therapies." Ivermectin is an antiparasitic medication, for both veterinary and human use, that is not authorized for the treatment of COVID-19 in Canada. "During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal agencies, health service providers and regulators discouraged the use of potentially lifesaving off-label treatments. This approach compromised the well-being of Albertans and violated their right to informed consent," the authors wrote. Manns has serious concerns about how data on ivermectin is represented in the report and which information is included. Several studies examining the efficacy of ivermectin during the pandemic have been withdrawn, he said. "When you then get down to the good studies, unfortunately, ivermectin just didn't work. It didn't work in early COVID. It didn't work in severe COVID," he said. The report takes aim at regulatory colleges, saying physicians who wanted to treat Albertans with off-label drugs, such as ivermectin, were "subject to disciplinary review." It calls for changes to the Health Professions Act that would prevent colleges from obstructing the use of such drugs in the future. When it comes to pandemic-related closures and restrictions, the report claims they did little to prevent transmission and had negative economic and social consequences. It calls for a more balanced approach to future decisions. The authors argue Alberta put too much emphasis on immunity derived from vaccination rather than immunity acquired through infection, and say the government should be more balanced in its future communication and avoid "coerced vaccination." Calling for more transparency about pandemic-related decision-making, the report also recommends future decisions related to a public health emergency should be made by the Alberta Emergency Management Agency or an appointed person. Questioning 'consensus' CBC News was unable to reach the task force chair, Dr. Gary Davidson, for comment. However, during a podcast hosted by Chris Scott — an Alberta restaurant owner who was accused of breaching public health restrictions and later had his charges stayed — Davidson pushed back against the idea of "medical consensus." "There's no such thing as consensus in science. That makes no sense," he said. "Science is about questioning everything, experimenting and proving whether it's true or not. That's science. Consensus is a religion idea and I don't think it belongs in this field, personally." A spokesperson for the minister of health told CBC News the provincial government received the interim report in August, for initial review, and a final report was received in December. The government is reviewing it but has yet to make any final policy decisions, the statement said. "The task force was designed to include health professionals from diverse practice areas, including infectious disease, public health, general practice, acute care, immunology, analytics and emergency medicine," the spokesperson said in an email. "Their recommendations offer a perspective on how the government can be better positioned to protect the health and safety of Albertans in the future." Meanwhile, Duggan with the Alberta Medical Association, worries about the implications of the report, arguing it "sows distrust."
