Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]


Dr. Vick explains the difference between “Aligners” and “Braces”



If you like this, share it!

  • The decision to use “Aligners” (Invisalign) versus “Braces” involves a lot of different things; from the scope of the work to the discipline of the patient. The goal is how best to set up the patient for success.  In this short video, Dr. Vick Cheba explains the difference between “Aligners” and “Braces”.

    To schedule your next appointment, call 403-340-8000.

    Click here to learn all about Red Deer Orthodontics and the services they offer. 

    Dr. Cheba is a certified specialist in orthodontics and the owner of Red Deer Orthodontics.

    He grew up in Calgary and attended the University of Calgary for his Bachelor of Science, so he is no stranger to Alberta. Dr. Cheba was accepted into the dental program at the University of Manitoba, and after graduation remained in Winnipeg to practice general dentistry in a large group practice for five years. In 2009, Dr. Cheba returned to the University of Manitoba for his postgraduate program in orthodontics.

    You will quickly notice Dr. Cheba’s energy and passion for orthodontics. Building relationships and getting to know his patients on a personal level is what differentiates Dr. Cheba and his team at Red Deer Orthodontics.

    Dr. Cheba and his wife Arpit have two sons and are proud to live and be involved in the Red Deer community.

    If you like this, share it!

    Todayville Content Team works with a wide variety of clients to develop sponsored content solutions. Our experienced team develops strategic campaigns that use video and storytelling, digital advertising and social media to help our clients position and distinguish themselves in the market.


    Group challenges ruling requiring doctors to give referrals for services that clash with beliefs



    If you like this, share it!

  • TORONTO — Ontario doctors challenging a court ruling that found physicians must give referrals for medical services that clash with their moral or religious beliefs say there is no proof that removing that requirement would hamper patients seeking treatment.

    A group of five doctors and three professional organizations is appealing a divisional court decision that upheld a policy issued by the province’s medical regulator, arguing the lower court made several errors.

    The group, which includes the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies and Canadian Physicians for Life, is asking Ontario’s highest court to strike down the policy. The case is set to be heard in Toronto on Monday and Tuesday.

    Last year, the divisional court found that while the policy — which requires doctors who have a moral or religious objection to treatments such as assisted dying, contraception or abortions to refer patients to another doctor who can provide the service — does limit doctors’ religious freedom, the breach is justified.

    The court said the benefits to the public outweigh the cost to doctors, who could delegate the referral to staff or choose to practise a specialty where such issues are less likely to arise.

    In court documents filed ahead of Monday’s hearing, the group said the ruling was unreasonable because it gave more weight to an assumed problem with access to health care than to a real infringement of doctors’ rights.

    “The (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) elected to provide no objective, quantifiable evidence that mandatory referrals actually result in enhanced access to care,” it said. 

    There was also “no objective evidence of actual harm either before the policies or in any other jurisdiction in Canada,” it said.

    It further argued the court erred in finding that any violation of doctors’ rights stemmed from their decision to practise in an area where moral conflicts could emerge, saying that presumed physicians could easily switch jobs.

    “A consequence of these policies is that a number of physicians will be required to either retrain (notwithstanding severe personal consequences and no guarantee of finding work) or else leave Ontario altogether,” the group said. 

    “Can a policy which takes physicians out of Ontario rationally relate to the promotion of equitable access to health care?”

    The college, meanwhile, said in court documents that practising medicine is a privilege, not a right, and argued the policy aims to balance the moral beliefs of individual physicians while ensuring access to care, particularly for vulnerable patients.

    “The appellants’ claim that any patient capable of contacting their physician is capable of finding a second treating physician is directly contrary to the evidence,” the regulator said.

    “It ignores that vulnerable or frail patients may still be living at home, relying on family members for assistance…who may not support the patient’s choice. It ignores that care options may be more limited in remote or rural areas. It ignores that some patients with mental, emotional or linguistic challenges may be unable to advocate for themselves,” it said.

    “And it ignores the very real feelings of judgment, shame and stigma that patients experience when their physicians fail to provide the individualized care a patient seeks.”

    By comparison, it argued, the burden imposed on doctors through the policy is an administrative one, since the referral can be handled by other staff members.

    “The appellants put forward no evidence of a sincere religious objection to working with administrative staff who might connect patients with non-objecting providers, or to working in a practice group which can triage patients,” the college said.

    “More importantly, they put forward no evidence of the actual burden — financial, logistical or otherwise — of making such administrative changes.”

    What’s more, it said, “the relative power and privilege of physicians as compared to the vulnerable patients they refuse to assist” should be considered.

    Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press

    If you like this, share it!
    Continue Reading


    No plans to eliminate ‘duty to report’ for military sex misconduct: Vance



    If you like this, share it!

  • OTTAWA — Canada’s top general is promising better support for victims of military sexual misconduct, but says he will not get rid of a regulation that Canada’s auditor general has warned discourages some victims from coming forward.

    The “duty to report” regulation compels service members to report any type of inappropriate or criminal behaviour — whether sexual or not — to higher authorities, which begins a formal complaint process.

    Military police have previously cited this requirement as having helped increase the number of reported cases of sexual misconduct brought to their attention, particularly from bystanders or other third parties.

    However, auditor general Michael Ferguson reported in November that the requirement had contributed to underreporting of sexual misconduct among victims who did not want to trigger formal complaints.

    In an interview, defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance said military officials are looking at ways to ensure victims are better supported and empowered when they or someone else reports misconduct.

    “If you’re a member of the armed forces and you see a crime, you’re supposed to report it,” Vance told The Canadian Press. “We all want this to stop, and one of the ways to stop it is to not turn a blind eye. Failure to report could also be deemed turning a blind eye. And so you can’t have it both ways.”

    Eradicating sexual misconduct has been a top priority for military commanders since a series of devastating reports several years ago uncovered a highly sexualized culture where misbehaviour was ignored or hidden.

    The auditor general did not specifically call for the regulation to be rescinded, but emphasized the importance of providing adequate support to victims when they do come forward given that some do not do so willingly.

    Vance admitted the Forces had fallen short on that count in the past, but said the military is now looking to address those shortfalls and ensure that victims of sexual misconduct don’t go through more hardship than they already have.

    “Duty-to-report and a bunch of other ways that we’ve dealt with victims has made that journey from being a victim to recovering too hard,” he said. “So we’re going to address that.”

    Exactly how remains to be seen. The military’s sexual-misconduct response centre is seized with the problem, Vance said, while outside experts are being consulted to determine the best way forward.

    The head of the response centre recently revealed that the organization was planning to start providing victims with case workers who will provide continuous support from the moment an incident is reported to the end of the case.

    Vance suggested victims could also be given more power over when a formal complaint is launched after an incident is reported to a commanding officer or using alternate-dispute resolution rather than launching a formal hearing.

    “Where the challenge will lie is if there’s a potential crime and the police want or need to get involved,” he said in reference to the fact military police operate independently of the chain of command. “We’re working through that. How do we manage that so the victim is best cared for?”

    In addition to the duty to report, the auditor general also flagged concerns with a lack of specialized training for chaplains and military health professionals to support victims.

    Most criminal cases took more than seven months to be closed by military police, who were also found to regularly skip procedures — including providing victims with support packages or referring them to assistance.

    The audit also found that poor training for all service members had produced only a vague understanding of what constitutes inappropriate behaviour, which actually threatened to undermine military cohesion and esprit de corps.

    “I don’t consider it negative criticism,” Vance said of the overall report. “It basically said to us: ‘You’ve gotten a start. Here’s some areas we’ve found that you need to work on. Keep going.’ We think the same thing.”

    —Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter.

    Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

    If you like this, share it!
    Continue Reading

    january, 2019

    mon14jan - 31jan 1410:00 amjan 31Kindergarten Registration Begins at Red Deer Public SchoolsRegister your child for Kindergarten10:00 am - 3:00 pm (31)

    thu17jan - 26jan 177:30 pmjan 26Ignition Theatre Presents: GRUESOME PLAYGROUND INJURIESPulitzer prize finalist Rajiv Joseph’s Gruesome Playground Injuries7:30 pm - 11:00 pm (26)

    wed23jan12:30 pm- 1:00 pmBusiness Professionals Video Lecture LunchThis course explains high-level business concepts in simple ways. 12:30 pm - 1:00 pm

    sat26jan9:00 am- 5:00 pmChildhood Anxiety: Understanding & Helping Children Heal Workshop9:00 am - 5:00 pm

    sat26jan1:00 pm- 4:00 pmMAGSaturday @ the MuseumMAGnificent Saturdays welcomes all ages and abilities to participate in a fun art project every week! 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm

    sat26jan8:00 pm- 10:30 pmRobbie Burns Night8:00 pm - 10:30 pm

    mon28jan11:30 am- 1:30 pmLending Cupboard Presents Jann Arden in 1st annual Winter LuncheonJann Arden \"Winter Luncheon\"11:30 am - 1:30 pm

    tue29jan5:00 pm- 7:00 pmRed Deer and District Chamber of Commerce presents: January Business After Hoursnetworking event 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm

    tue29jan7:00 pm- 12:00 amPaul BrandtThe Journey Tour 20197:00 pm - 12:00 am

    tue29jan7:00 pm- 11:30 pmLive Country Music @ Bo's Bar and GrillAaron Pritchett w/ Guest Kira Isabella and David James7:00 pm - 11:30 pm

    wed30jan12:30 pm- 1:00 pmBusiness Professionals Video Lecture LunchThis course explains high-level business concepts in simple ways. 12:30 pm - 1:00 pm