A deep divide
As you may have read, the members of the OMA have turned down the present form of the agreement that was negotiated with the Ontario government because 59% of votes cast by OMA members were against the agreement. The Ontario government has countered by saying that they will implement the agreement anyways (isn't that no longer called an agreement?!).
Anyways, the present politicking isn't the main issue that I want to write about. I am more interested in the way the vote was split. The overall numbers indicate that 51% of eligible OMA members voted and that 59% of the votes were "No"; however, contained within this overall figure is the fact that 50% of medical students voted, and 95% of their votes were "Yes".
This apparently caused a bit of an uproar with the OMA coucil, and a motion was put forward to exclude medical students from voting in any future referenda. Although this motion was shut down through support of the medical student vote from many representatives (including the OMA president John Rapin), it still concerns me that the council would even motion this to begin with.
I am simply one member of a very heterogeneous group that makes up the OMA; from medical students to family doctors to surgeons, each sub-group experiences the health care system in unique ways. Although we are members under the same OMA umbrella, the fact that our experiences are different would be expected to influence what we are looking for in an agreement and hence how we vote.
I voted in favour of the agreement because it is a good deal for medical students. I didn't feel the need to consider how this would affect all of the other types of doctors because I don't know anything about their present situation (i.e. I am not a doctor, I am a medical student). I would expect that each of the different sub-groups would vote for what's best for them, and in the end the OMA would have an overall vote that told them if the majority of their members think that they would be better or worse off with the agreement.
This is the pretty simple concept of voting, and I think that most doctors- including those on council- probably understand this. If it had turned out that surgeons voted much different than the majority of the OMA, I imagine council would simply have come to the correct conclusion that the deal had different appeal to surgeons than the rest of the OMA. This might provoke them to look at why, but I doubt that council would think to ban surgeons from voting.
Anyways, the present politicking isn't the main issue that I want to write about. I am more interested in the way the vote was split. The overall numbers indicate that 51% of eligible OMA members voted and that 59% of the votes were "No"; however, contained within this overall figure is the fact that 50% of medical students voted, and 95% of their votes were "Yes".
This apparently caused a bit of an uproar with the OMA coucil, and a motion was put forward to exclude medical students from voting in any future referenda. Although this motion was shut down through support of the medical student vote from many representatives (including the OMA president John Rapin), it still concerns me that the council would even motion this to begin with.
I am simply one member of a very heterogeneous group that makes up the OMA; from medical students to family doctors to surgeons, each sub-group experiences the health care system in unique ways. Although we are members under the same OMA umbrella, the fact that our experiences are different would be expected to influence what we are looking for in an agreement and hence how we vote.
I voted in favour of the agreement because it is a good deal for medical students. I didn't feel the need to consider how this would affect all of the other types of doctors because I don't know anything about their present situation (i.e. I am not a doctor, I am a medical student). I would expect that each of the different sub-groups would vote for what's best for them, and in the end the OMA would have an overall vote that told them if the majority of their members think that they would be better or worse off with the agreement.
This is the pretty simple concept of voting, and I think that most doctors- including those on council- probably understand this. If it had turned out that surgeons voted much different than the majority of the OMA, I imagine council would simply have come to the correct conclusion that the deal had different appeal to surgeons than the rest of the OMA. This might provoke them to look at why, but I doubt that council would think to ban surgeons from voting.
