Nova Scotia: make a call for conscience


Nova Scotia Call for Conscience 2018

Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience

Over recent months, it has become increasingly clear that the conscience rights of Nova Scotia doctors are not being adequately protected.

A leading Nova Scotia medical regulator recently told doctors they must participate in euthanasia by making an “effective referral” even if this would require them to violate their conscience. It was made clear that the penalty for refusing to comply could be discipline for “unprofessional conduct”. Performing or referring for assisted suicide and euthanasia involve killing a patient. This is directly opposed to the teachings of many faiths and the traditional Hippocratic oath. Most health care professionals embarked on their careers to heal people, not kill them. No Nova Scotian should be required to be involved against their will.

Other provinces have found ways to provide access without forcing people to act against their moral convictions.

We need to let the Minister of Health of Nova Scotia know that we need legislation to protect conscience rights in our province. In November, Manitoba legislators passed a Bill which said that Manitoba health care professionals could not be compelled to participate in assisted suicide. We need a similar bill here in Nova Scotia. Please write the Minister of Health using the form below. The letter will automatically be sent to the Premier and the leaders of the opposition parties. Conscience rights are an all party issue. We need our legislators to show their support for Nova Scotia health care professionals.

Take action here. Write to the Government of Nova Scotia.

Ontario: make a call for conscience


Ontario Call for Conscience 2018

Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience

The Problem

Assisted suicide has been legal in Canada since June 2016. Discussions are already taking place to  expand the criteria to minors, people with psychiatric illness and those with dementia. This puts people  who are lonely and isolated at risk of choosing euthanasia simply because they don’t have anyone  who cares and can give them hope.

Today in Ontario:

  • Physicians and other caregivers are forced to  participate in euthanasia against their will, by referring their patients.
  • Pro-euthanasia groups are threatening to sue faith based hospitals unless they allow  euthanasia on the premises.
  • Only a third of the population has access to adequate palliative care, so they are being  denied real choice on end of life issues.

This places physicians, nurses and other health  professionals in an impossible situation – assist in  the killing of their patients or lose the ability to care for patients at all.

This is happening despite constitutional protections for freedom of conscience and religion in the Charter  of Rights and Freedoms (s.2).

The Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience  represents more than 110 healthcare facilities (with  almost 18,000 care beds and 60,000 staff) and more than 5,000 physicians across Canada. Our members are unable to participate in taking a patient’s life due to moral or ethical convictions.

The Solution

The Ontario legislature has the power to protect conscience rights for individuals and facilities and to provide adequate palliative care and mental health services so that people will not see assisted suicide as their only option. Our efforts in Manitoba helped to ensure the province passed conscience protection legislation in November 2017.

In advance of the June 2018 provincial election in Ontario, we have the opportunity to ask candidates from all parties three important questions:

  1. Will you support legislation to protect doctors, nurses and other health care providers who are being forced to participate in assisted suicide/euthanasia through making a referral?
  2. How will you protect facilities from being forced to offer euthanasia/assisted suicide on their premises?
  3. How does your party plan to address the lack of quality palliative care in our province?

To get involved, please participate in your Church’s Sign Up Sunday. We will be collecting contact information to help mobilize a large database of people to contact candidates for the 2018 Ontario provincial election.


For more information, visit

Answering Physicians Top 5 Legal Questions

In 2017, the medical students’ forum hosted by Canadian Physicians for Life included a question and answer session about legal issues. Albertos Polizogopoulos is lead counsel in the constitutional challenge to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) policy that demands effective referral for all morally contested services, including euthanasia and assisted suicide.  Phil Horgan, a Toronto lawyer, is President of the Catholic Civil Rights League, which jointly intervened in the case with the Faith and Freedom Alliance and Protection of Conscience Project.  Questions have been listed below with the corresponding time segments.  Links have been provided to background material concerning subjects covered in the answers.

1. How can physicians best disclose to their patients their conscientious objections?  (00:00-11:18)

2. What happens when a patient reports a physician to their college for exercising their right to conscientious objection?  (11:18-20:00)

3. How can conscience and religious rights be exercised, practically speaking?  (20:00-23:33)

4. Is there a sense that other provinces are just waiting to see what is going to happen with these current cases going on in Ontario? (23:33-34:35)

5. Can you comment on institutions?  Do they have rights themselves?   (34:45-40:15)

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


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.


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.

Professor David Oderberg joins Protection of Conscience Project Advisory Board

News Release   

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project welcomes David S. Oderberg, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading, UK to the Project Advisory Board. Professor Oderberg joined the university after completing his doctorate at Oxford in the early 1990s. He is the author of many articles in metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and other areas. He is also the author of several books including Moral Theory and Applied Ethics (Blackwell, 2000) as well as co-editor of collections in ethics such as Human Values: New Essays on Ethics and Natural Law (Palgrave, 2004) and Human Lives: New Essays on Non-Consequentialist Bioethics (Palgrave, 1997).

Prof. Oderberg has been working on freedom of conscience in health care over the last few years, with a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics on co-operation, and a forthcoming policy monograph to be published by the Institute of Economic Affairs. He is Editor of Ratio, an international journal of analytic philosophy, and Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. In 2013 he delivered the Hourani Lectures in Ethics at SUNY Buffalo, and has a book forthcoming based on those lectures, to be called The Metaphysics of Good and Evil. [Faculty Profile] [Website]

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

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. 



Protection of Conscience Project welcomes new advisor from Scotland

News Release
For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project welcomes Dr. Mary Neal, PhD, LLB Honours, LLM to the Project Advisory Board. Dr. Neal is Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.  She researches, writes, and teaches in the fields of Healthcare Law and Bioethics, focusing on beginning and end-of-life issues.  In 2014-15, she was Adviser to the Scottish Parliamentary Committee scrutinising the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill, and she is a current member [2018] of the British Medical Association’s Medical Ethics Committee. She has published a wide range of academic articles and blogs on a range of topics including, most recently, conscientious objection by healthcare professionals; the nature of ‘proper medical treatment’; the role of the emotions in end-of-life decision-making; and the conceptual structure and content of human dignity.

Dr. Neal was a co-editor of and contributor to the recent volume Ethical Judgments: Re-writing Medical Law (Hart, 2017). Her works-in-progress include articles and book chapters on conscientious objection; the idea of ‘vulnerability’ in healthcare; physician-assisted suicide; and the role of dignity in human rights discourse. Among other research activities, Dr. Neal is currently leading two funded projects relevant to the issue of conscientious objection in healthcare. One is a British Academy/Leverhulme-funded project exploring conflicts between personal values and professional expectations in pharmacy practice. The other is a multi-disciplinary network of academics and healthcare professionals (the ‘Accommodating Conscience Research Network’, or ‘ACoRN’), funded by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and beginning with a series of roundtables exploring various aspects of conscientious objection in healthcare. Dr Neal is also a spokesperson for the Free Conscience campaign supporting the Conscientious Objection (Medical Activities) Bill currently before the UK Parliament.[Faculty Profile]

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

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. 

International constitutional and human rights lawyer joins Protection of Conscience Project Advisory Board

News release 

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project welcomes Dr. Iain Benson, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney and Extraordinary Professor of Law, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein South Africa to the Project Advisory Board.

Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, the father of seven children, Professor Benson is an academic, lecturer and practising lawyer specialising in pluralism and human rights.  His particular focus is on freedoms of association, conscience and religion, the nature of pluralism, multi-culturalism and relationships between law, religion and culture. He has been involved in many of the leading cases on rights of association, conscience and religion in Canada and abroad for two decades.  As a barrister he has appeared before all levels of court and his work has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitutional Court of South Africa.

He was one of the drafters of the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms (signed by all major religions in that country in September 2010) and remains closely involved in advancing the Charter in that country and similar projects elsewhere.

Author of over 40 academic articles and book chapters, he is co-editor with Barry W. Bussey, of Religion Liberty and the Jurisdictional Limits of Law (Toronto: Lexis Nexis, 2017) and authored Living Together with Disagreement: Pluralism, the Secular and the Fair Treatment of Beliefs by Law (Ballan Australia: Connor Court, 2012). His scholarly work is referred to in many books and articles.

He teaches Legal Philosophy, Legal History, Public International Law, Human Rights and Contemporary Legal Issues. He works in English and French, dividing his time between Australia (where he now lives) and France, South Africa and Canada (in the latter two of which he has appointments).[Faculty profile]

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

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. 

Munich university remembers executed students: “Law changes, the conscience doesn’t”

Ludwig Maximilians Universität München

Justice, freedom, human rights, moral consciousness, courage, willingness to accept responsibility – what do these values and virtues cost? . . . On 18 February 1943, Hans and Sophie Scholl were arrested by the Gestapo, after they had scattered copies of their latest leaflet around the Main University Building. Further arrests were made in the days following and, in several separate trials, the leading members of the White Rose were convicted by an inhuman regime and put to death. [Full text]

Catholic Medical Association Joins with 25,000 Physicians Fighting Proposed Global Abortion Policy to Strip Conscience Rights Protections

News Release

Catholic Medical Association

PHILADELPHIA, PA – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 – Conscience rights protections for health care providers in the U.S. and abroad are once again under attack. The World Medical Association (WMA) representing 10 million physicians worldwide is poised to approve a policy that would demand doctors refer for abortion, even against their conscience.

Although current federal statutes in the U.S. protect health care provider’s conscience rights and prohibit recipients of certain federal funds from discriminating against health care providers, WMA ethics policies greatly impact future regulations of the medical profession globally.

The WMA was founded in 1947 in response to Nazi atrocities during WW II. The organization promotes itself as “evaluating and codifying ethics in healthcare.” Currently the WMA policy requires doctors ensure continuity of care for patients who choose abortion, but not force doctors refer for the procedure. However, the WMA’s proposed revision threatens the conscience rights of all physicians and health care professionals by proposing the following amendment:

“Individual doctors have a right to conscientious objection to providing abortion, but that right does not entitle them to impede or deny access to lawful abortion services because it delays care for women, putting their health and life at risk. In such cases, the physician must refer the woman to a willing and trained health professional in the same, or another easily accessible health-care facility, in accordance with national law. Where referral is not possible, the physician who objects, must provide safe abortion or perform whatever procedure is necessary to save the woman’s life and to prevent serious injury to her health.”

The proposed changes in policy would also eliminate the provision that “requires the physician to maintain respect for human life.”

“We do not believe abortion is healthcare. The international impact on this global abortion policy is incalculable,” said CMA President Dr. Peter T. Morrow. “We join with the representatives of over 25,000 physicians, nurses, health care providers and patient advocates who provide excellent, scientific, ethical and moral healthcare in accordance with the principles of the Oath of Hippocrates. Collectively we request that the WMA’s revision be rejected, it is subversive of physician freedom of conscience concerning abortion in the short term, and euthanasia and assisted suicide in the long term.”

The American Medical Association (AMA) is an associate member of the WMA and can recommend rejections and or revisions.  The CMA supports conscience rights of all healthcare professionals with regards to abortion as well as physician assisted suicide, and is jointly sending a letter co-written by: American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Pediatricians, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, National Association of Catholic Nurses-U.S.A. and The National Catholic Bioethics Center to the AMA strongly denouncing the WMA’s proposed change forcing physicians to violate their conscience rights.

The WMA’s proposed changes could become a global policy. The general assembly is scheduled to vote in October.


Susanne LaFrankie, MA
Diector of Communications

The Catholic Medical Association is a national, physician-led community of over 2,400 health care professionals. CMA’s mission is to inform, organize, and inspire its members, to uphold the principles of the Catholic faith in the science and practice of medicine.

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

Mauck & Baker Attorney
Noel W. Sterett, Esq.