Month: October 2006

James Lunney is a Conservative Party MP from Nanaimo-Alberni in British Columbia. Lunney is currently facing one of the silliest and petty legal challenges that I’ve ever seen.

Canada.com

Lunney sued for using the term ‘doctor’
Constituent says MP misled the voters before the federal election

Nanaimo-Alberni MP James Lunney is being sued by a man who claims the chiropractor has misused the title of doctor for political gain.
Nanaimo’s Robert Pound, in documents filed in B.C. Supreme Court in September, claims that Lunney’s use of the term doctor has been confusing to voters and others.
…
In December, Pound initiated inquiries with the B.C. College of Chiropractors.
“As I read Section 20 of the B.C. Chiropractors Act, a chiropractor licensed in B.C. is specifically prohibited from identifying himself publicly as ‘Dr. John Smith.’

Section 20 of the B.C. Chiropractors Act

20 (1) A chiropractor registered under this Act, who holds the academic qualification of Doctor of Chiropractic granted by a college of chiropractic for a course of studies accepted by the board as qualification for registration under this Act, may display or make use of the title “doctor” or the abbreviation “Dr.”, but only as “Doctor of Chiropractic”, “Dr. of Chiropractic”, “Chiropractic Doctor” or “Chiropractic Dr.”.

(2) Despite subsection (1), a chiropractor must not use the title “doctor” or the abbreviation “Dr.” in such a way as to suggest an occupation relating to the treatment of human ailments, other than as permitted under this Act.

(3) On application from a chiropractor registered on or before January 1, 1984 to practise in British Columbia, the board may grant to that chiropractor the right to use the title “doctor” or the abbreviation “Dr.” as set out in subsection (1), if the board is satisfied that the academic qualification of the chiropractor is the equivalent of the academic program leading to the degree of Doctor of Chiropractic as granted in Canada.

Paragraph 1 tells us that Lunney is permitted to use the abbreviation “Dr.” or “doctor” but only within the following titles “Doctor of Chiropractic”, “Dr. of Chiropractic”, “Chiropractic Doctor” or “Chiropractic Dr.”

Paragraph 2 tells us that he is permitted to do so as long as he doesn’t mislead people to believe that he’s a doctor doctor (ie. an MD).

Paragraph 3 describes a time-based exception.

The first paragraph is clear… Lunney appears to be misrepresenting himself when he calls himself “Dr. James Lunney”.

BUT, of course he is only misrepresenting himself in such a way if he is practising under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Chiropractors Act.

Let me elaborate here. Medical doctors go to medical school. Upon graduation they become a “Doctor of Medicine”. David Suzuki did not go to medical school. Suzuki is a scientist and received his PhD in Zoology. Dr. David Suzuki identifies himself with the “Dr.” title because he earned his doctorate in that field of study. Sociologists, geologists, and art historians also are able to earn doctorates in their fields. (Aside: Ironically, these doctorates are graduate degrees, while doctor of medicine (MD) is an undergraduate degree.)

Here’s my point: Dr. David Suzuki would also be in violation of the BC Chiropractors Act (in many ways, but with respect to section 20 for this argument) if he practised as a chiropractor and simply used the “Dr.” title. However, since David Suzuki doesn’t practise as a chiropractor, he is certainly permitted to use the “Dr.” bestowed upon him after earning his doctoral degree.

Similarly James Lunney has a doctoral degree in chiropractic medicine (one assumes) and thus he is able to identify himself this way (“Dr.”) so long as he doesn’t do this while practising chiropractic medicine under BC law.

Like Dr. Suzuki, Dr. Phil (PhD), Dr. Stephen Colbert (D.F.A.) and anyone else with a non-MD doctoral degree, he is allowed to self-identify himself as “Dr.” because he earned that degree.

He would only be in violation of the act if he self-identified in this way to patients while in practice of chiropractic medicine.

That’s my take. What do you think?

UPDATE: Also consider Dr. Ruby Dhalla (she too is a Doctor of Chiropractic)

I was on the Liberal website today looking to check the price of the observer status for their upcoming convention ($1250?! *$#@!). The observer pass at the CPC convention was $300 and that didn’t even count as a donation! (nyuk, nyuk)

I noticed that the Liberals have the next two by-elections listed and notice that the “price of admission” is odd for participation selon les Liberaux…

Click to enlarge

Even though the Halton MP is Garth non grata among his Conservative Party caucus colleagues, Garth is still a card-carrying member of the party and self-identifies as a conservative. Therefore, garth.ca is a welcome blog in our grassroots blogging organization (he was never even removed from our aggregator or blogroll).

Half the members on the blogroll probably aren’t card-carrying of the Conservative Party but we all are conservative and support a conservative party or the conservative movement. And, in essence, that’s what Blogging Tories is and always will be, a community of small c conservatives. If Blogging Tories had existed during the Alliance/PC days, we would have aggregated blogs from both members of both parties since they were two conservative parties.

Garth deserves a lot of credit for advancing online political communications in this country, a hobby that I share and love. Let’s be clear, Garth wasn’t ejected from caucus because of his blog, it was what he said on his blog. In truth, it was like being fired from a job for cause. Garth’s discourse is, however, well within the boundries of thoughful debate and while he was a bit too much of a loose cannon for the Conservative Party MP caucus, he’s certainly entitled to his opinion here so long as he’s a conservative independent or member of a small c conservative party.

After Garth arrived home in Halton on Tuesday night I received an email from him about this post which addressed Garth’s wish to eliminate any ambiguity which may arise from it. Here’s an excerpt from an email that I sent back:

Garth, I do hope that you work to meet the conditions of reinstatement within the Conservative caucus. Being a team player means compromise (but not of your values). I believe that you could have better lobbied for your issues behind closed doors than via shaming of the team via your blog. I suppose that I’m at an advantage compared to you in that I don’t have the temptation of closed caucus meetings to entice my blog spirit. I’m free to give my opinions on issues and events without the worry that I’d compromise trust in that respect. I supposed if I were privy to private caucus discussions, I’d always be shuffling the worry of whether a concept was either public knowledge, insider knowledge, or private caucus knowledge. [The last of the three] being what gets reporters promoted (and MPs suspended)…

With all of that said, I do respect and admire the innovations that you have made with respect to online political communications in Canada, however, I do believe that your fighting for constituents could have been done with better agility than your confrontational approach.

As a conservative, I believe that you have much to still contribute to both the conservative movement and the Conservative party. Let’s hope that your battle with the Conservative caucus can be like any good fight between two guys; after the punches are thrown, beers and laughs can be had when the terms of mutual friendship are understood.

So, to Garth, you’re welcome here in the Blogging Tories caucus so long as you stick with your conservative principles as an independent MP or as a member of any conservative party caucus. We ought to be discussing income splitting and conservative approaches to the environment. However, if your blog becomes a soapbox at the expense of the conservative movement as it is propelled by a conservative party that advocates for conservatives issues (ie. if your anti-Harper sentiment comes at the expense of advancing conservatism), you’re out of the Blogging Tories caucus too!

But, as you are now, you’re a welcome member of Blogging Tories and we are enriched by your advancement of conservative issues.