At present, this time-consuming service is an uninsured one and its accompanying opportunity cost -- taking physicians away from attending to other patients on a fee-for-service basis -- is borne solely by the physician. Because the College considers the medical document to access medical marijuana equivalent to a prescription and, since prescriptions and activities related to prescriptions are insured services, physicians cannot charge patients; fair enough. But what about the for-profit corporations who are benefitting at the physicians' expense?
Do you think a physician should be allowed to refuse to provide a patient with a treatment or procedure because it conflicts with the physician's religious or moral beliefs? Physicians, the media, and the public at large cast their vote and added their comments, calling it everything from a gender issue, to a moral issue, to a health issue. I call it the thin edge of the wedge.
If the law is changed, physicians must be given a choice as to whether or not they will practice assisted suicide. In all likelihood there will be a limited number of physicians who actually offer the service, and, just as doctors who prescribe methadone are specifically registered to do so through their governing bodies, likely similar regulations will be imposed on physicians who do elect to practice assisted suicide. For that reason, in the event physician-assisted-suicide becomes legal, there needs to be a corresponding immunity protecting doctors who have acted in good faith and that prevents family members from suing them.