Thousands step up in support of doctors’ conscience fight

The Catholic Register

Michael Swan

An Ontario campaign to pressure politicians over the protection of health care conscience rights is “democracy in action,” said an organizer.

The Coalition of HealthCARE has so far collected 19,000 names and e-mail addresses in its “Call for Conscience Campaign.” That does not include results from the Archdiocese of Toronto.

The non-partisan campaign was launched to oppose and raise awareness about regulations that force doctors to refer for assisted suicide and euthanasia against their moral convictions.

By the end of March, people who have signed up during the campaign should receive instructions about how to e-mail all the candidates in their ridings in the run-up to Ontario’s June 7 provincial election. . . [Full text]

The courts keep inventing new rights, turning our Charter on its head

National Post
Reproduced with permission

John Carpay

If I told you that I wanted to rob a home or store, would you sell me a gun? Presumably not. But what about giving me the name and contact info of another person who is willing to sell me a gun? If you wanted to avoid any participation in my planned robbery, you would refuse to provide a referral.

When it comes to female genital mutilation (the cutting and removal of some or all of a young girl’s external genitalia) the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) recognizes that referring is as bad as providing. The CPSO prohibits this practice, common in many African and Middle Eastern countries. Female genital mutilation causes infection, disease and death in many girls, and life-long health problems for millions of women.

The CPSO policy prohibits physicians from performing, and from referring for, female genital mutilation procedures. Both performing and referring constitute professional misconduct. The reasoning is obvious. If mutilating a girl is wrong, then it’s also wrong to provide a referral for this barbaric procedure.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in Toronto, Ont. on Tuesday April 9, 2013.

Sadly, the CPSO abandoned this common-sense approach in the case of Christian Medical and Dental Society vs. CPSO. This court case was about a challenge to the CPSO policy requiring all doctors in Ontario to provide referrals for abortion, assisted suicide, and other medical procedures which some doctors view as harmful to patients and morally wrong. In court the CPSO argued that “a referral is neither an endorsement of the service for which the referral is provided, nor a guarantee that it will be provided.” The CPSO argued that providing a referral is trivial and insignificant, so a doctor would not be violating her conscience when referring a patient for a procedure that the doctor considers harmful. If the CPSO’s courtroom arguments are true, then why prohibit referring for female genital mutilation?

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the CPSO policy violates the Charter freedom of religion and conscience, but then justified this violation as necessary to ensure “equitable” access to health-care services.

Abortion and assisted suicide are both legal medical procedures. Plenty of doctors are available to provide the one, the other, or both. Having to ask two, three or more doctors for a particular medical service is inconvenient for patients, to be sure.

But does the Charter provide citizens with a legal right to be free from inconvenience? Beyond a bald declaration, the court provides no explanation as to how or why being inconvenienced is a violation of the Charter. Nor does the court explain why it is necessary to force every single doctor in Ontario to provide referrals for abortion and assisted suicide. In other words, even if many doctors refuse to provide referrals for these services, the public would still have ready access to both.

The purpose of the Charter is to protect citizens from government. For example, the Charter should protect health-care workers (and everyone else) from being pressured or coerced by a government body to do what one believes to be wrong.

Conversely, there is no Charter right to force another human being to provide a service that runs contrary to their conscience. Interactions between citizens should be free from coercion. A patient’s power to compel a doctor to do what the doctor believes to be harmful is as destructive as a doctor’s power to compel a patient to do what the patient believes to be harmful.

The doctors who challenged the CPSO policy were not merely asking the court to be spared an inconvenience. Rather, an Ontario doctor who refuses to violate her conscience risks expulsion from the medical profession.

In upholding the CPSO policy, the court confuses fundamental Charter freedoms with personal interests and desires. The court has dismissed the Charter’s protection from government coercion as less important than a newly invented “right” to compel our fellow citizens (in this case doctors) to do what we want them to do. The court has turned the Charter on its head.

Lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (Jccf.ca), which intervened in Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada vs. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

 

Obliged to Kill

The Assault on Medical Conscience

The Weekly Standard
Reproduced with permission

Wesley J. Smith*

A court in Ontario, Canada, has ruled that a patient’s desire to be euthanized trumps a doctor’s conscientious objection. Doctors there now face the cruel choice between complicity in what they consider a grievous wrong – killing a sick or disabled patient – and the very real prospect of legal or professional sanction.

A little background: In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada conjured a right to lethal-injection euthanasia for anyone with a medically diagnosable condition that causes irremediable suffering – as defined by the patient. No matter if palliative interventions could significantly reduce painful symptoms, if the patient would rather die, it’s the patient’s right to be killed. Parliament then kowtowed to the court and legalized euthanasia across Canada. Since each province administers the country’s socialized single-payer health-care system within its bounds, each provincial parliament also passed laws to accommodate euthanasia’s legalization.

Not surprisingly, that raised the thorny question of what is often called “medical conscience,” most acutely for Christian doctors as well as those who take seriously the Hippocratic oath, which prohibits doctors from participating in a patient’s suicide. These conscientious objectors demanded the right not to kill patients or to be obliged to “refer” patients to a doctor who will. Most provinces accommodated dissenting doctors by creating lists of practitioners willing to participate in what is euphemistically termed MAID (medical assistance in dying).

But Ontario refused that accommodation. Instead, its euthanasia law requires physicians asked by a legally qualified patient either to do the deed personally or make an “effective referral” to a “non-objecting available and accessible physician, nurse practitioner, or agency .  .  . in a timely manner.”

A group of physicians sued to be exempted from the requirement, arguing rightly that the euthanize-or-refer requirement is a violation of their Charter-protected right (akin to a constitutional right) to “freedom of conscience and religion.”

Unfortunately, the reviewing court acknowledged that while forced referral does indeed “infringe the rights of religious freedom .  .  . guaranteed under the Charter,” this enumerated right must nonetheless take a back seat to the court-invented right of “equitable access to such medical services as are legally available in Ontario,” which the court deemed a “natural corollary of the right of each individual to life, liberty, and the security of the person.” Penumbras, meet emanations.

And if physicians don’t want to commit what they consider a cardinal sin, being complicit in a homicide? The court bluntly ruled: “It would appear that, for these [objecting] physicians, the principal, if not the only, means of addressing their concerns would be a change in the nature of their practice if they intend to continue practicing medicine in Ontario.” In other words, a Catholic oncologist with years of advanced training and experience should stop treating cancer patients and become a podiatrist. (An appeal is expected.)

This isn’t just about Canada. Powerful political and professional forces are pushing to impose the same policy here. The ACLU has repeatedly sued Catholic hospitals for refusing to violate the church’s moral teaching around issues such as abortion and sterilization. Prominent bioethicists have argued in the world’s most prestigious medical and bioethical professional journals that doctors have no right to refuse to provide lawful but morally contentious medical procedures unless they procure another doctor willing to do as requested. Indeed, the eminent doctor and ethicist Ezekiel Emanuel argued in a coauthored piece published by the New England Journal of Medicine that every physician is ethically required to participate in a patient’s legal medical request if the service is not controversial among the professional establishment—explicitly including abortion. If doctors don’t like it? Ezekiel was as blunt as the Canadian court:

Health care professionals who are unwilling to accept these limits have two choices: select an area of medicine, such as radiology, that will not put them in situations that conflict with their personal morality or, if there is no such area, leave the profession.

For now, federal law generally supports medical conscience by prohibiting medical employers from discriminating against professionals who refuse to participate in abortion and other controversial medical services. But the law requires administrative enforcement in disputes rather than permitting an individual cause of action in civil court. That has been a problem in recent years. The Obama administration, clearly hostile to the free exercise of religion in the context of health care, was not viewed by pro-life and orthodox Christian doctors as a reliable or enthusiastic upholder of medical conscience.

The Trump administration has been changing course to actively support medical conscience. The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced the formation of a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the HHS Office for Civil Rights, which would shift emphasis toward rigorous defense of medical conscience rights.

Critics have objected belligerently. The New York Times editorialized that the new emphasis could lead to “grim consequences” for patients—including, ludicrously, the denial by religious doctors of “breast exams or pap smears.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists joined the Physicians for Reproductive Health to decry the creation of the new office – which, remember, is merely dedicated to improving the enforcement of existing law – warning darkly that the proposal “could embolden some providers and institutions to discriminate against patients based on the patient’s health care decisions.”

The Massachusetts Medical Society joined the fearmongering chorus, opining that the new office could allow doctors to shirk their “responsibility to heal the sick.” Not to be outdone in the paranoia department, People for the American Way worried the new office might mean that “other staff like translators also refuse to serve patients, which could heighten disparities in health care for non-English-speaking patients.”

The Ontario court ruling is a harbinger of our public policy future. Judging by the apocalyptic reaction against the formation of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, powerful domestic social and political forces want to do here what the Ontario court ruling – if it sticks on appeal – could do in that province: drive pro-life, orthodox Christian, and other conscience-driven doctors, nurses, and medical professionals from their current positions in our health-care system.


Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patients Rights Council.

Physicians seek leave to appeal Ontario court ruling against physician freedom of conscience

Introduction

Physicians and physician associations are seeking leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Divisional Court to the effect that physicians must collaborate in providing procedures and services to which they object for reasons of conscience, even if that means collaborating in euthanasia and assisted suicide.  The appeal will be costly.  Faye Sonier, Chief Executive Office of one of the associations that brought the challenge, has issued a plea for donations to support the appeal by Canadian Physicians for Life, the Christian Medical and Dental Society, and the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies.

Plea for donations to support the appeal of the Ontario Divisional Court decision

The time has come to further our fight to defend the conscience rights of doctors in Ontario. I’m asking you to support our efforts in this fight by making a donation today

As you know, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) decision was released on January 31. The court found the religious freedom rights of Ontario doctors are significantly violated by the CPSO’s policies, but that those violations can be justified to ensure patient access to healthcare. 

After lengthy consultation with the parties involved in our legal coalition and with over a dozen constitutional lawyers, we’ve decided to request permission from the Ontario Court of Appeal to appeal the decision.

We are pursuing an appeal as the decision was troubling and problematic on many fronts. We have numerous grounds of appeal from which to choose and we will narrow our focus in the coming days.

This is an important step in a process:

  • to ensure that policies that serve only to restrict the constitutional freedoms of physicians do not go unchallenged;
  • to dissuade other provinces from acting similarly;
  • and to communicate that patient access to healthcare is not hindered by maintaining the respect for conscientious objectors in the medical field.

The three physician groups involved in this legal fight, Canadian Physicians for Life, the Christian Medical and Dental Society, and the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies, are joining together to raise the $125,000 needed for this next step of litigation.

We’re coming to you to ask for your financial support.

Much of the legal costs will be accrued up front as we must conduct research and prepare our written arguments to file the legal documents requesting the opportunity to appeal.  One-time donations made here will directly support this legal fight.

Physicians for Life is a registered charity and issues tax receipts.

Sincerely,

Faye Sonier
Executive Director & General Legal Counsel

P.S. Thank you so much for enabling CPL to continue this battle to defend conscience rights by making your donation today. This case is urgent, and we need funds as soon as possible to ensure that our legal counsel can be in the best position possible to further this fight.

Court Holds Health Care Conscience Act Trumps County’s Immunity Claim

News Release

For immediate release

Mauck & Baker LLC

ROCKFORD, Ill.—On Monday, Chief Judge Eugene Doherty rejected Winnebago County’s primary defense that the Tort Immunity Act shielded it from liability for claims that Rockford nurse Sandra (Mendoza) Rojas brought against it after she was forced out of her job for refusing to participate in abortion-related services. Rojas’ right to refuse to participate in such services is protected under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act and Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A devout Catholic, Rojas worked for the Health Department for 18 years providing pediatric care, immunizations, and screenings.

In 2015, the county’s new Public Health Administrator, Dr. Sandra Martell, merged the pediatric clinic with women’s health services and mandated that all nurses be trained to provide abortion referrals and participate in the provision of abortifacients like Plan B. When Rojas, who Dr. Martell considered to be a “good nurse,” informed the administration of her conscientious objections to participating in any way in the provision of abortions, Dr. Martell gave Rojas two weeks to either quit or accept a demotion to a temporary job as a food inspector. Rojas refused the demotion and lost her job at the clinic.

The suit seeks damages under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which prohibits public officials from discriminating against a person in any manner because of their conscientious refusal to participate in any way in the provision of abortions. The Act provides for treble damages and the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs. “Nursing is more than just a job, it is a noble calling to protect life and do no harm. There is something terribly wrong when you are forced out of your job on account of your commitment to protect life,” said nurse Rojas.

Rojas’ attorney, Noel Sterett, from the law firm Mauck & Baker in Chicago, said, “The Conscience Act was written to ensure that both public and private health care professionals would be protected from government efforts to force them out on account of their conscientious objections.” Denise Harle, Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel said, “Pro-life nurses shouldn’t be forced to perform or assist in abortion procedures. An individual’s conscience and commitment to the Hippocratic Oath to ‘do no harm’ is often what draws health care workers into the medical field.”

View Complaint

View Order

Contact:
Mauck & Baker Attorney
Noel W. Sterett, Esq.
312-726-6454

Canadian court rules that state can compel participation in homicide and suicide

News Release

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

Three judges of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court have unanimously ruled that, notwithstanding religious convictions to the contrary, Ontario  physicians can be forced to help patients access any and all services and procedures, including euthanasia and assisted suicide.

“In the end,” observed Project Administrator Sean Murphy,  “the ruling effectively gives the state the power to compel citizens to be parties to homicide and suicide, even if they believe it is wrong to kill people or help them kill themselves.”

The Protection of Conscience Project jointly intervened in the case with the Catholic Civil Rights League and Faith and Freedom Alliance on the issue of freedom of conscience.  The court acknowledged the submission, but explicitly limited its ruling to the exercise of freedom of religion.  It did not address freedom of conscience.

The court approved the reasoning of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the state medical regulator.  The College argued that “physicians must be prepared to take positive steps to facilitate patient access” to euthanasia and assisted suicide, and that there is “no qualitative difference” between euthanasia and “other health services.”

With respect to options of objecting physicians, the court observed that they are free to change their field of practice in order to avoid moral conflicts.  The judges added that those who fail to do so are to blame for any psychological distress they might experience if compelled to violate their convictions.  It appears that they were unconcerned that this might further reduce the number of family and palliative care physicians, noting that there was “no evidence” that coercive policies would adversely affect physicians “in any meaningful numbers.”

Dr. Shimon Glick, advisor to the Project and Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Israel, described the ruling as “sad.”  Commenting on the decision, Project Advisor Professor Roger Trigg of Oxford said, “once the perceived interests of the State override the moral conscience of individuals  – and indeed of professionals- particularly in matters of life and death, then we are treading a slippery slope to totalitarianism.”

“Even the first steps- that may not seem important to some,” he warned, “are taking us in that direction.”

Professor Trigg’s warning was echoed by Professor Abdulaziz Sachedina, a leading Islamic scholar and philosopher who also serves on the Project Advisory Board.  Professor Sachedina asked, “Are we  going to submit to “totalitarian ethics” reflected in such court decisions, making suicide a tempting option without any regard to conscientious objection?”

The decision concluded legal proceedings launched jointly by five Ontario physicians, the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, Canadian Physicians for Life, and the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies.  They are considering the possibility of appeal.

Contact:
Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
E-mail: protection@consciencelaws.org


The Protection of Conscience Project is a non-profit, non-denominational initiative that advocates for freedom of conscience in health care. The Project does not take a position on the morality or acceptability of morally contested procedures. Since 1999, the Project has been supporting health care workers who want to provide the best care  for their patients without violating their own personal and professional integrity. 

 

 

Canadian court tells doctors they must refer for euthanasia

Will they be hounded out of their profession?

MercatornNet

Michael Cook

For years bioethicists of a utilitarian cast have argued that conscientious objection has no place in medicine. Now Canadian courts are beginning to put their stamp of approval on the extinction of doctors’ right to refuse to kill their patients.

The Superior Court of Justice Division Court of Ontario ruled this week that if doctors are unwilling to perform legal actions, they should find another job.

A group of five doctors and three professional organizations were contesting a policy issued by Ontario’s medical regulator, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), arguing it infringed their right to freedom of religion and conscience under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, Justice Herman J. Wilton-Siegel wrote on behalf of a three-member panel:

“the applicants do not have a common law right or a property right to practise medicine, much less a constitutionally protected right.

“Those who enjoy the benefits of a licence to practise a regulated profession must expect to be subject to regulatory requirements that focus on the public interest, rather than the interests of the professionals themselves.”

At issue is the policy of “effective referral”. A doctor who objects to participating in euthanasia cannot be forced to do it. But he is expected to pass the patient to another doctor who will. The CPSO argues that effective referral is necessary “to protect the public, prevent harm to patients and facilitate access to care for patients in our multicultural, multifaith society, by guiding all physicians on how to uphold their professional and ethical obligations of non-abandonment and of patient-centred care within the context of Ontario’s public health-care system.”

Without the policy of effective referral, equitable access would be “compromised or sacrificed, in a variety of circumstances, more often than not involving vulnerable members of our society at the time of requesting services,” Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel wrote. People in remote communities might request euthanasia. If their doctor refused, they might suffer needlessly and taxpayers would have to foot the bill to subsidise the refusnik’s conscience.

It is remarkable how closely Justice Wilton-Siegel’s text hews to the arguments of bioethicists who have been chipping away at the right to conscientious objection for years.

In 2005 American legal scholar Alta Charo described conscientious objection as “an unfettered  right to personal autonomy while holding monopolistic control over a public good … an abuse of the public trust—all  the worse if it is not in fact a personal act of conscience but, rather, an attempt at cultural conquest’.

In 2006 Oxford’s Julian Savulescu argued in the BMJ that “when conscientious objection compromises the quality, efficiency, or equitable delivery of a service, it should not be tolerated”.

More recently, Canadian bioethicist Udo Schuklenk and a colleague contended in the BMJ that

“If at any given time a doctor is unable to continue practicing due to their—ultimately arbitrary—conscience views, nothing would stop them from leaving the profession and taking up a different vocation. This happens across industries and professions very frequently. Professionals can be expected to take responsibility for the voluntary choices they make.”

Responding to the ruling, Larry Worthen, executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, said: “We heard from our members and other doctors with conscientious objections over and over again that they felt referral made them complicit and that they wouldn’t be able to live with themselves or stay in the profession if effective referral is still required.”

The case is sure to be appealed, but if the doctors championing conscientious objection fail, the consequences will be dire.

Throughout Canada, doctors would be required to refer for euthanasia. If they refuse, they will be hounded out of their profession, or, at best, shunted into specialties where the question will not arise, like pathology or dermatology.

This ruling shows how quickly tolerance vanishes after euthanasia has been legalised. In the Carter decision which legalised it, Canada’s Supreme Court explicitly stated that legalizing euthanasia did not entail a duty on the part of physicians to provide it. Now, however, 18 months and more than a thousand death after legalisation, conscientious objection is at risk.

It also shows how vulnerable religious-based arguments can be. The plaintiffs contended that referring patients violated their right to religious freedom. While this is true, is this the main ground for conscientious objection? As several doctors pointed out in the Canadian Medical Association Journal last year, “Insofar as all refusals of therapy are ultimately justified by the ethical belief that the goal of therapy is to provide benefit and avoid harm, all treatment refusals are matters of conscience.”


This article is published by Michael Cook and MercatorNet under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation to MercatorNet. Commercial media must contact MercatorNet for permission and fees.

Ontario court ruling “a significant loss for the entire health care system”

News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CMDS, CFCPS, CPFL

Toronto, Ontario – From June 13-15, 2017, the legal application of three physicians’ organizations – the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada (“CMDS Canada”), the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies (“CFCPS”) and the Canadian Physicians for Life – and five physicians – was heard in the Ontario Divisional Court. The respondent in the case is the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

An application was filed asking the Court to declare that portions of the CPSO’s Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. An application for judicial review was simultaneously filed asking the Court to declare the same of the CPSO’s Medical Assistance in Dying policy.

Today, January 31, 2018, the Court declared that these CPSO policies violate freedom of religion by requiring physicians and surgeons to make referrals when their consciences will not allow them to perform a procedure or treatment. The Court stated, (at para. 87): “I am of the opinion that the Policies infringe the rights of religious freedom of the Individual Applicants as guaranteed under the Charter …”

However, the Court found that the violations were justified because of the importance of providing access to these services.

“The Court held that other jurisdictions had chosen less restrictive means of ensuring access. The Court also held that there was no evidence that conscientious objection ever results in a failure of access. The Court also held that the implications for physicians were serious and more than trivial or insubstantial. We are left wondering why an effective referral is necessary,” Larry Worthen, Executive Director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada said.

“Canada represents itself on the world stage as being a cultural mosaic. This is evidence that we are losing sight of that reality. To say we respect all cultures and beliefs, we need to respect their strongly held moral convictions. We heard from our members and other doctors with conscientious objections over and over again that they felt referral made them complicit and that they wouldn’t be able to live with themselves or stay in the profession if effective referral is still required. We are currently reviewing our options regarding an appeal.”

“This is a disappointing decision and puts our doctors – doctors who entered the field of medicine to provide quality, compassionate, and patient-centered care – in an impossible position,” states Dr. Ryan Wilson, President of Canadian Physicians for Life. “They don’t believe ending a patient’s life is medicine, and they don’t believe they can offer hope and healing in one room while assisting in killing a patient in another. Ultimately it is patient care that suffers, as our doctors will retire early, relocate, or change fields. For many, their religious and conscience rights are being violated and they won’t be able to practice medicine in Ontario. This is a significant loss for the entire health care system in the province and will have a direct impact on patient care.”

The CFCPS is very disappointed with this decision from this Ontario Court that denies conscience rights to many Ontario physicians. “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of religion for all Canadians,” stated Dr. Jim Lane, President of the CFCPS. “This decision forces many Ontario doctors to be unable to care for their patients. This decision also raises alarm bells to all health care workers and Ontario residents that their freedom of religion and conscience could also be jeopardized.”

CMDS Canada is a national association of Christian doctors and dentists who strive to integrate their Christian faith with medical or dental practice. CMDS Canada represents approximately 1600 medical doctors, dentists and medical and dental students, over 500 of which are located in Ontario.

The CFCPS is a national association of Catholic physicians’ guilds, associations and societies from eleven cities across Canada, four of which are in Ontario.

The physicians represented by CMDS Canada and CFCPS hold sincere religious and moral beliefs that form the basis of their moral or religious objection to physician-assisted death.

The Canadian Physicians for Life (“CPL”) is a national association of pro-life physicians, retired physicians, medical residents and students. CPL’s members are dedicated to building a culture of care, compassion and life. CPL was founded in 1975 and is a non-religious charitable organization. CPL’s members believe that every human life, regardless of age or infirmity, is valuable and worth protecting.

For more information and media requests contact:

Larry Worthen, Executive Director
Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada
902-880-2495 (cell)
office@cmdscanada.org

Washington State mother sues employer for denying insurance coverage to transgender son

Lawsuit claims Catholic health care organization is breaking law by denying coverage for all transgender services

Metro Weekly

John Riley

The ACLU of Washington has filed a civil rights lawsuit against a Catholic health care organization for refusing to cover the medically necessary surgery required by a transgender son of one of their employees.

The ACLU is suing on behalf of Cheryl Enstad, a medical social worker at PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center in Bellingham, Wash. Enstad decided to file a lawsuit after PeaceHealth refused to cover the medical expenses of her transgender son, Pax, even though the treatments that were denied were recommended to treat his gender dysphoria.

Because PeaceHealth is a Catholic health care organization, it tries to abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church when it comes to issues surrounding sexual orientation or gender identity. It used that as justification for refusing to provide coverage for a recommended chest reconstruction surgery and other treatments for gender dysphoria under its medical benefits plan. . . [Full text]

 

In US Supreme Court Brief, Christian Doctors Cite Conscience Conflicts Similar to Creative Artists

News Release

Christian Medical Association

WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2017 – The nation’s largest faith-based professional association of health professionals, the Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org), contends in a legal brief filed with the Supreme Court that its members’ conscience battles parallel those of creative artists sued for declining to participate in proceedings inconsistent with their conscience and convictions.

CMA has filed a brief with the Court in the case (Masterpiece Bakeshops v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission) of Jack Phillips, a cake artist sued for declining to participate in a same-sex wedding, an event that contradicts his moral persuasions. CMA contends in its brief that health professionals face similar challenges to their First Amendment freedoms in situations involving abortion and other matters involving ethical choices and professional medical judgment.

The brief contends, “To force Mr. Phillips to make this cake would threaten a core liberty that is of the greatest possible importance to medical professionals – protection against compelled speech contrary to conscience, including purely symbolic expression. [T]he implications for the rights of medical professionals in the practice of their professions are clear, and disturbing.”

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens commented, “This case reminds us that a threat to the First Amendment freedoms of one group is a threat to the First Amendment freedoms of everyone. Regardless of where one stands on controversial issues, as Americans we can all agree that the government cannot be allowed to compel any one of us to express ourselves in a way that violates our deepest held beliefs.

“Preserving freedom of medical judgment for doctors is an essential protection for patients. Imagine if the government were to dictate every medical decision and decide every medical prescription and procedure apart from the medical judgment of the doctors who know and care for their patients best.”

Contact:

Margie Shealy, Christian Medical Association, 423-341-4254