Talk:Canadian Medical Protective Association

Problems

This article has a lot of problems, it needs to be rewritten in a neutral encyclopaedic tone and all contentious statements need to be cited. I have tagged some of the more obvious problems. A query about this article was posted at WP:EAR#Canadian Medical Protective Association. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply - All, and I mean all, statements about the CMPA are verified. References are given for every item of data, whether it is contentious or not. Apparently user Jezhotwells did not actually read the References. Although there are many References, it is important to know their content before commenting. If you follow the links and read the References, you will find that all the material on the CMPA page is derived from those References. Note:

The References are placed sometimes at the end of a sentence, and sometimes at the end of a paragraph. My citation method was to place a footnote at the end of a single sentence, or at the end of a series of sentences, if that specific Reference verified ALL those sentences. For example, readers would not want footnote [N] appearing six times, at the end six separate sentences in a row, if footnote [N] applies to and verifies the entire segment. For a block-quote, the footnote appears either at the end of the preceding intro, or at the end of the quote.

The CMPA page is not as contentious as you might think. The References are all from authoritative sources such as peer-reviewed academic medical journals, the Library of Congress, and major Canadian newspapers (including The Medical Post, which exists to give priority to doctors). The finances of the CMPA are no longer in dispute or doubt, thanks to disclosure obtained through a 2008 Freedom of Information court case; the actual FOI legal decision is cited, as well as numerous newspaper reports on the topic. Further, the CMPA organization is represented fairly: I provided three links to the CMPA's own website (one is an External link and two are References, all to separate pages of course). From one of those website pages, I quoted re the CMPA's own written history and their attitude toward negligence claims; note the three block-quotes in the History section are all verified with footnote [3]. I quoted that material verbatim; I decided not to paraphrase, for the reason that the CMPA's own words are shocking and brutal. The CMPA itself said the words "sinews of war" in 1919, and they have carried on in that vein for a century. I repeat: Read the actual References. Have some respect for the investigative journalists who had the courage to report honestly on this corporation.

The CMPA page suffers repeated vandalism. Two users, Babixg, and Papertiger99, want to remove all the References and the objective facts, and replace it with material promoting the CMPA's public image and nothing else. Wiki calls this 'Corporate Vanity,' and according to Wiki guidelines, a firm stand should be taken to prevent any large corporation from using an encyclopedia page for self-serving purposes. Another user, with IP Address 207.35.222.3, also vandalizes the page, deleting all the carefully researched facts and replacing it again with vague self-promotional material from the CMPA. This user is in a clear Conflict of Interest -- A 'Whois' search shows this IP Address to belong to the Canadian Medical Protective Association itself. Check it. Medical Rights (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Medical Rights

Note I will respond directly in your reply as I think this makes it easier to keep track of what we're talking about rather than simply re-quoting things Koppertone (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Jezhotwells and Koppertone are correct in stating that the current article has many problems and needs work. As currently written, the article violates a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, that is, a neutral point of view. No matter how well it may be researched (which is also debatable, see my comment in "Discussion of Sources" below), the current article fails to provide readers with an accurate picture of Canada's medical liability system generally and the CMPA's role specifically. Almost every sentence contains a critical editorialization of the facts (rather than simply presenting the facts), which by any reasonable standard makes it a weak encyclopedic entry.

"Medical Rights" alleges this page was vandalized and that his "well researched" references were removed. In fact, a simple review of the History page reveals that no factual information was altered and no existing references were removed or modified. Rather, only the editorial commentaries were removed or rewritten where necessary, thereby creating a more balanced, neutral article. The facts on both sides of the medical liability debate can stand for themselves, and intelligent readers can arrive at their own conclusions. Regrettably, the improved version was subsequently undone, leaving the article in its current state. Papertiger99 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of Companies

At this planning stage, a comparison of corporations is useful. The CMPA is not like an oil company whose oil spills damage marine life in the sea. The Oil Company has a small "bad" side (the oil spill) and a large "good" side (drilling for oil and providing light, heat and car fuel for an entire nation). The negative info is limited, and can be set apart in a Criticism section on the Wiki page. What the CMPA does resemble is a Tobacco Company whose actions benefit a very tiny self-interested segment of society (the company owners), but cause misery for the majority of citizens in the nation. I checked the Wiki tobacco page: There is no Criticism section. There is a Contemporary section which begins: "Following the scientific revelations of the mid-1990s, tobacco became condemned as a health hazard." That is the closest comparison I can make to the status of the CMPA: Their actions are so negative to the general populace, that no other realistic information exists. Medical Rights (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are comparing the CMPA (a company) to a tobacco company (an organization) I think it would be more accurate to look at the pages of a company such as the Altria Group rather than of tobacco (a product). Note the editing of that article. Whether publicly funded medicolegal defense (a concept) is ethical is a separate issue from this article. In addition to claim that no other realistic information exists assumes that all accusations brought towards physicians are true. This ignores the concept that there is potential for false accusations to be brought against a physician and that the CMPA acts to defend from these as well. Additionally, as I've stated prior, there has been an effort to delete information which details the CMPA's efforts to teach physicians about how to avoid medicolegal pitfalls. This does not conform with Wikipedia's expectation of a neutral point of view and is an example of Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing Koppertone (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply When I referred to a Tobacco Company, I capitalized the term to indicate any of the specific tobacco companies (the actual name doesn't matter to the argument). The comparison of the CMPA with the tobacco industry is apt. The CMPA page does not argue whether medicolegal defence is an ethical concept; the page educates the public about the unethical methods used to achieve that defence, and it discloses the fact that funding with taxpayer dollars was done without the knowledge or consent of the public. The CMPA page doesn't have room for a detailed account of the win/loss record of lawsuits; that belongs on the WIki pages for medical malpractice and negligence. The number of false claims is very small, and cannot be realistically measured because so many claimants drop out as they are too ill to continue a court case, or too poor, and because the CMPA makes a concerted effort to wear them down. And that is what the public needs to know. There are already three links to the CMPA's own website; that is enough. You are trying to re-create the CMPA website in microcosm, but that does not fit WIkipedia's expectation of a neutral point of view and is an example of the Wiki guideline "Articles With a Promotional Tone." Medical Rights (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Sources

My search for references showed that all newspaper reports are critical of the CMPA. No newspaper articles exist which praise the CMPA. The only pro-CMPA info which exists is published by the CMPA itself, and by other medical organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association. Medical Rights (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that assertion of bias of organization that you disagree with does not mean that bias is present. Also if information taken from the CMPA site is factual (ie. teaching modules are provided to physicians to avoid medicolegal pitfalls) then I see no reason why this should not be made available for people to know about. Koppertone (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I do not see why citations provided from the CMPA website would be deleted if the claims of such citations are not contentious. For example, as I've stated before, training is provided to physicians by the CMPA and the modules are freely available on their site. I would like to point out that you have quoted directly from the CMPA website as well; the majority of the historical section is taken from a CMPA publication. You also quote CMAJ, The Medical Post and JAMA. It is inconsistent to cite information from these sources while denying other users to cite the same sources with claims of bias. Koppertone (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply Assertion of bias was made by the CBC News program, by academic journals, by judges in court cases, by major Canadian newspapers, and by former CMPA insiders who became whistle blowers. That does indeed mean that bias is present, when the only countering material is from the CMPA itself. Re teaching physicians how to avoid mistakes, there are now dozens of publications on that topic, led by Health Canada, by citizen groups, and by academic journals. I cited several, but there are many, many more available. The References can be expanded on that point. Re the admission that MDs and hospitals can err, the CMPA jumped on board last, and certainly the whole picture should be stated on the CMPA page, by giving a timeline of publications. Medical Rights (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Note some provincial-level organizations (e.g. the Ontario Medical Association) are starting to circulate petitions on-line, written by doctors, which represent disillusioned MDs who ask to opt out of the CMPA so they can hire their own attorneys. In summary: The only positive info is from the CMPA itself. By now, journalists have uncovered such overwhelming negative info that it cannot be contained within a small Criticism section. On the Wiki page, I carried on with the Criticism section simply as a formality, because it was already on the page. Medical Rights (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Note. Relying on media reports as the basis of an encyclopedic entry presents obvious problems as is evident in the current weak Wikipedia entry about the CMPA. Secondary research such as this may highlight certain high-profile cases that have received media attention, while neglecting the many other activities in which organizations such as the CMPA are involved on a day-to-day basis. These activities are rarely, if ever, reported on by the media. Thus an objective, well researched encyclopedic entry should make use of a variety of sources that may include media reports, together with other published materials from academia, government, other NGOs, and so on. As Koppertone points out, the CMPA has itself published a number of research papers in recent years, among them a comparative analysis of medical liabililty systems internationally. This information is freely available on the CMPA's website, which can and should form a part of any serious research into the medical liability system in Canada and the CMPA's role in it. Papertiger99 (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-Profit Definition

Reply to your comments: I agree that a temporal history of the CMPA would be informative. I was searching for the date when the CMPA became "non-profit." It was not founded as a non-profit corporation, as the Articles of Incorporation 1913 do not contain that term. At that date in Canada, the legislation may not have existed to define profit versus non-profit companies. The uncertainty of the date is why I took the phrase "non-profit" out of paragraph one, and placed it in paragraph two. Through my life, I always though "non-profit" meant a charity, and couldn't understand how the CMPA could be non-profit and also accept millions of involuntary taxpayer dollars. Thus I looked up the definition of "non-profit" and typed a very succinct explanation. I think it is necessary, because of my own journey of learning on that point. If a physics graduate can mistake the term, then so could the average reader. To not explain it, leaves a wrong impression. In that paragraph, I did link to the internal Wiki page for "non-profit," but that link was repeatedly deleted. Medical Rights (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree that it may be confusing, that is the purpose of being linked to other wiki topics; so that if people are unaware of the definition of a topic then they may click the link to learn more. Otherwise it clutters the main page. I think that if people are deleting the internal link then it should be discussed in the talk page as I do not see the reason why anybody would delete an internal link. Koppertone (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply The definition of "non-profit" is so succinct that it does not clutter the CMPA page. I know why you object: The term "non-profit" is associated in the public mind with charities or altruism, and you capitalize on that perception if you leave the definition out. The definition of "non-profit" is essential for this reason: Much of the modern information about the CMPA refers to the lack of accountability of this organization, and the accumulative effect over a century. To verify that it can happen, and to explain how, one needs to define the legal parameters of a non-profit company. Such corporations are not required to be accountable to the public. I don't know why the internal link was deleted, but you only need to check the history pages to see the changes. Medical Rights (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also: The pro-CMPA material, as you call it, is mainly from users Babixg, PaperTiger99, and IP Address 207.35.222.3. None of these authors provide any independent verification of their material. They provide no References at all. The source they cite is always a page within the CMPA's own website at http://www.cmpa-acpm.ca. That is not sufficient. The term "non-profit" actually becomes important here. Such a corporation, by definition, has no obligation to the public; by law, the company exists to serve its own agenda. According to the Corporations Act, for a non-profit company, public accountability is not required. My own References verify that. In summary: Because I am educated and have researched information on the CMPA for over twenty years, I want to do a good job of the WIki CMPA page. I will read each of your comments and apply them if they fit WIki guidelines. And I do thank you for your interest. However: There cannot be a double standard. Both the positive and the negative information about the CMPA must have independent verification. ---- Medical Rights (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Medical Rights

Vandalism and Conflict of Interest

Please note that the wiki page is a group effort. As such, editing by multiple users is promoted and desired. Repeated reversions of article to former edits is generally frowned upon. The objective is not for any of us to promote a particular view but rather to work together to create a neutral tone. Koppertone (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Every legitimate user understands that WIki is a group effort. But Babixg, PaperTiger99 and IP Address 207.35.222.3 were vandals, not legitimate users. Each of them, repeatedly, deleted the entire page of fact-based text and the 45 References, and replaced it with corporate hype parroted directly from the CMPA website. I wondered why the CMPA did not consider that infringement of copyright. At least one user (IP Address 207.35.222.3) was in a conflict-of-interest, as we traced his IP address to the Canadian Medical Protective Association. I have a question for you, Koppertone. Do you have any connection, in any way, for any reason, with the CMPA organization? Can you give me a direct answer? Medical Rights (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Editor Request Page . Koppertone (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Cases re CMPA

I obtained a complete list of all Canadian legal cases which mention the CMPA. The source is the CanLII website (Canadian Legal Information Institute), which is free and is a major site used by lawyers. I searched all Canadian courts, including local courts (Provincial Court, Queen's Bench Court, and Appeal Court in each province and territory) and federal courts (Supreme Court, Tax Court, and others). There are two lists. First: In the general search field, I typed in "Canadian Medical Protective Association." This brought up cases containing that term anywhere in the legal decision. There are 111 cases, and I will (slowly) go through them. That list, however, is not very useful. In most, the CMPA is mentioned in a minor way, as the agency funding the doctor's defence. In most, the CMPA does not appear in the title of the case, which means the CMPA was not being sued or taking legal action. The CMPA did not win or lose anything in such cases, and their parameters did not change. Next: I narrowed the search. I typed "Canadian Medical Protective Association" into the title field (also called Style of Cause). That produced just six cases. In one (Loukidelis) the court ordered financial disclosure from the CMPA; it was a landmark decision and is already on the WIki page. Two others are from Federal Tax Court (the same case, heard and then taken to appeal); that case allowed a GST exemption on the salary of the investment advisor employed by the CMPA. That could be mentioned in the "non-profit" paragraph. The final three cases (Kuntz x2, and Shannon) just argue whether the CMPA can be defined as an "insurer." I will go through those.

List 1 - CMPA anywhere in decision http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&sortOrder=relevance&searchPage=eliisa%2FmainPageSearch.vm&text=%22Canadian+Medical+Protective+Association%22&id=&startDate=&endDate=&legislation=legislation&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals

List 2 - CMPA in Style of Cause http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&searchPage=eliisa%2FmainPageSearch.vm&text=&id=%22Canadian+Medical+Protective+Association%22&startDate=&endDate=&legislation=legislation&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals

Medical Rights (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Medical Rights

Reply: The intent of the "Prominent legal cases" section is unclear. Wikipedia editors are invited to determine whether the cases as presented are consistent with a neutral point of view. It may be appropriate to reframe these cases from a neutral standpoint: to balance these rare and exceptional cases with examples of other cases that may not have garnered extensive media attention. The CMPA uses its discretion to assist member physicians and if experts conclude that a physician's standard of care was not met and this failure harmed the patient, the CMPA provides financial compensation to the injured patient or their estate. Papertiger99 (talk)

Overall Analysis

Overall Comment - You say none of my original writing was ever deleted or changed. Actually, it was. There was repeated vandalism, with my entire contribution being completely deleted and over-written with self-promoting hype lifted wholesale from the CMPA website. The authors provided no References for independent verification. Their only source was the CMPA website. That fits the definition of Corporate Vanity. Refer to the WIki guidelines "Category: Articles with a promotional tone." Also, user Babixg once left my text intact, but deleted important links, claiming they didn't function. In fact, the links did function and were current, and I had to undo the vandalism. Re further references for No-Fault Compensation: The "Prichard Report" from Health Canada would make a better addition, as it contains detailed viewpoints from several sources (including the CMPA). The extra source you suggested contains only the view of the CMPA itself, taken from its own website. Final point: You say the issue is not whether any of the information presented is true or not. But in my view, that is the mainstay of an encyclopedia. If information is true, then it can be verified independently, and by definition belongs on the Wiki page. If information is false, or vague, or self-promotional, then no sources will exist to verify it. Verification is the key issue. The actions, methods, and finances of the CMPA are reported by independent sources including court decisions, all major Canadian newspapers, and academic journals. One former CMPA employee, an insider who had first-hand knowledge, became a whistle blower. The ratio of information about the CMPA which exists in public documents is certainly weighted to the negative. The WIki page should reflect the same ratio, in order to be realistic. But upgrading the page will take time. During the last few weeks it required many hours to undo the vandalism. My time will be better spent developing the page.

Prichard Report from Health Canada http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/qual/2001-patient-securit-rev-exam/legal-eng.php

Medical Rights (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Medical Rights

Reply - The issue is not that any of the information presented is either true or false, it is that it does not fit the format of an encyclopedic entry. A more unbiased article can be found ((here http://www.hartelaw.com/artl_cmpa.htm)) Please note that none of your original writing was ever deleted or changed, it was just reorganized to comply with Wikipedia formatting regulations.

Much of the article, though, is editorialized and does not maintain a neutral point of view as per Wikipedia's guidelines. This is why I moved particular entries to the Controversy section. Some of the sections could actually be removed entirely and linked to other articles. For example the statement

Don't confuse non-profit with altruism: A for-profit organization exists to earn money and to distribute surplus funds to its owners and shareholders. A not-for-profit organization exists solely to provide programs and services that are of self-benefit. A non-profit organization (NPO) is allowed to earn a surplus or profit, but such earnings are retained by the organization for the future plans and self-preservation of its members. Types of NPOs vary widely (examples are charities, public arts organizations, and trade unions. In 2008, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the Canadian Medical Protective Association was a trade union.[2]

Could be entirely replaced by an internal link to the non-profit wiki as the definition of non-profit is an issue outside the scope of this article. Also the first sentence speaks directly to the reader which is not typical of an encyclopedic entry.

The majority of the entries provided are clearly not objective; it should be noted that in providing a citation you may only state the facts from the citation, not the opinion of the same. As the link above states, "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." An example of such errors can be found in the historic section:

here we find the seeds of the accountability crisis which imperils Canadian healthcare today

This statement is biased. What you could say is that such and such organization feels that this has "planted the seeds of the accountability crisis etc." but as it stands it is a matter of personal opinion.

Additionally there is no information in regards to an actual temporal history. Rather there are just select quotes placed in the article which collectively paint the CMPA in a negative tone. A more objective tone to this section would simply include something along the lines of "founding date" "founder" "historic organizational structure" etc. with neither positive nor negative quotations given outside of a controversy subtopic.

On the topic of funding these statements are biased:

The government delivers the cash without any strings attached, despite complaints that public money should not be used to defend doctors accused of criminal wrongdoing or over-billing.

It should be again noted who is complaining. Additionally in the article that you cite, there is only a single complaint about this issue against a single physician. The article itself does state that there are no strings attached, but whether this is actually true is not cited in the article. It is also not mentioned that the government does not pay the CMPA directly, but rather pays BC physicians directly to offset the costs of rising CMPA prices. It is also not noted why this reimbursement program was put into effect and if a lack of such a program would increase current fee for service billings. There have been prior edits that have addressed some of these points but they have been deleted.

The section on legal cases seems to contain only legal cases critical of the CMPA. All of the legal cases are also editorialized.

Additionally some past edits have been deleted which contained accurate information. For example:

The CMPA supplies medico-legal data to other medical organizations to develop specialty training programs such as MORE^OB, and develops resources to help physicians contribute to quality assurance processes. The CMPA raises awareness of the challenges presented by such issues as team-based care and wait time management, while providing advice and solutions to physicians, health care organizations and policy makers. In recent years, the CMPA has advocated strongly for legislative protections for health care providers’ discussions when they review quality improvement issues and ‘lessons learned’ following an adverse event. This learning is a critical part of the patient safety solution and is necessary to identify those system issues that may contribute to an adverse event.

These information teaching modules can be freely found on the CMPA website http://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/cmpapd04/docs/publications/com_education-e.cfm

Another prior edit included:

Some advocates want to replace the current tort-based system with so-called "no fault" compensation. In 2008, the Canadian Medical Association Journal printed a three-part series on this topic.

I am unclear why this was deleted.

Again the point of revising this article is not to remove information critical of the CMPA but rather a) establish some balance to this article b) give the article a more encyclopedic tone and c) categorize any pro/anti CMPA opinions as such so that they can be readily identified from the main body of the article.

Koppertone (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Subheading

Typically items that are up for controversy should be kept under a separate subheading. For example, if funding is discussed, the controversy surrounding that funding should be cited in a separate heading. So the sources of CMPA funding could be discussed under the funding section, but any editorialization of that funding should be limited to a separate section. I will try to format the article in this way.

Koppertone (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization of Article

I have reorganized the article so that any sections that deal with controversy regarding the CMPA are under a separate "controversy" heading. None of the actual text from these sections has been altered other than in minors ways to fit with the new categorization.

Koppertone (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization of Talk Page

Would you be interested in a reorganization of this talk page? It might prove more fruitful to structure this page so that it is categorized in the same way as the main article so that the different sections can be discussed separately.

Also I liked the table on lawsuits that you (Medical Rights) added. The presentation and writing to the left of it is very neutral and allows the reader to draw their own inferences from the data.

Thanks! Koppertone (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think many of the changes that I've recommended need to take place, but I'm withdrawing any further contributions to this article as it is too time consuming. Koppertone (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Benefits section

As noted previously, this article does not meet Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" standard. The "Benefits" section is weak, containing only a brief mention of the CMPA's role in keeping Canadian healthcare costs in check. Wikipedia editors are invited to expand this section, such as:

· An article published in Scrub-In magazine (Ontarion Medical Assocation, Vol. 9, Issue 1, Jan 2014 http://scrub-in.dgtlpub.com/2014/2014-01-31/home.php) entitled "When medecine meets law: reflections from a CMPA internship", describes a medical student's experience working at the CMPA and of the efforts by CMPA to instill safe practices among medical students to help improve the quality in the system of care. Papertiger99 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• An article published in the Surrey North Delta Leader, "SMH lung cancer patients breathe easier thanks to a Canadian first" (April 13, 2013). This article credits the CMPA's research which contributed to the development of the Rapid Autopilot Program (RAP) -- enabling patients at risk of lung cancer to be diagnosed and treated within 45 days, almost one-quarter the time this usually takes.

• An article published in The Globe and Mail "Your doctor's office: e-mail's last frontier?" (May 8, 2013). This article describes the obligations of physicians to protect patient privacy and quotes former CEO Dr. John Gray who said, "There are a lot of physicians who don't realize they could run afoul...of regulations that require them to make sure that patient privacy and confidentiality are respected".

Papertiger99 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

History section

The History section relies exclusively on near century old documentation that is not reflective of the CMPA's evolution and its present-day role in advising physicians and its contribution to the Canadian healthcare system. Wikipedia editors are invited to edit this section with a view to presenting a neutral point of view. Moving the History section further down the article may also be appropriate as Wikipedia readers may have greater interest in more current information.

Papertiger99 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section

Wikipedia editors are invited to amend the "Controversy" section which, as currently written, fails to present a neutral point of view. Much of this section relies on decade-old news reports whose relevance in 2014 is questionable given the CMPA's present-day openness and transparency.

Papertiger99 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Revising article and removing irrelevant sections

As has been noted by previous editors, this article contains highly problematic sections. I am planning a major revision of this article and I will continue to update this section until I finalize the revision. There have been several discrepancies between editors over the years regarding some of this content, specifically, sections labelled controversy, benefits, freedom of information request, patient safety, and prominent legal cases. Most of these sections are citing newspaper articles with broken links. I'll describe what I am planning for each of these sections:

1. Controversy: This section includes two sub-headings: Modern Public Scrutiny & Public Financing. Almost every link in these sections is broken. Further, the "modern public scrutiny" section is citing an article from 2003. At the minimum, this content needs to be dramatically updated and moved to the history section. But given that the content is not written in a neutral or factual tone, perhaps it is best to archive this section. For example, the following statement is not neutral and cites a broken link: "Ontario taxpayers spent $112 million to subsidize the medical malpractice fees paid by doctors. Doctors themselves paid $24 million, which means taxpayers picked up 83 percent of the cost of the malpractice fees." Plan: delete.

2. Benefits: This section is devoid of context and doesn't meaningfully fit in the article. What is it contributing? Surely this content can be either expanded or relocated under another heading? This section cites two articles from the mid-90s. Plan: delete.

3. Freedom of information request: Again, this section is devoid of context. It cites a legal decision on a matter involving the CMPA, the OMA, and an applicant for a freedom of information act. This is esoteric and legalistic information not written in an accessible manner. Plan: delete.

4. Patient safety: This section is not written in a neutral tone and doesn't really discuss the CMPA. It mentions a CMPA policy but ultimately discusses the field of patient safety in Canada. Plan: major revision with update based on current CMPA initiatives.

5. Prominent legal cases: Frankly, this section is problematic. This isn't about the CMPA. This is about legal cases involving Canadian physicians. The CMPA provides medico-legal services but the legal cases in which it has been involved can be moved to a separate article. I will endeavour to move this content to another Wikipedia article in a neutral, factual tone. In the meantime, I'll be removing and archiving this content as it doesn't deal with the CMPA. Plan: delete.

Logotherapy (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Logotherapy