Conscience Versus the Spirit of the Age
Jason Kenney | . . . This evening I wish to share with you, distinguished members of the bar
gathered under the patronage of Saint Thomas More, some thoughts about the
importance of conscience in the life of legislators like myself and those
who, like yourselves, are charged with the administration and adjudication
of those laws. I seek to do so because history in general— and the history
of Thomas More in particular —teaches us that the recognition of the rights
of conscience is an essential limitation of State power. Put another way,
where the rights of conscience are violated, the prospect of a State that
unjustly limits liberty becomes all too real throughout history. . . continue reading
"Autonomy",
"Justice" and the Legal Requirement to Accommodate
the
Conscience and Religious Beliefs of Professionals in Health Care
Iain T. Benson | Frank M. Archer's critical review, though it might seem to
some people to be a legal and ethical view is, with respect,
neither of these things. While it is, in its way, critical,
it does not deal with the legal or ethical principles that
are necessary in order to make an informed decision
regarding law or ethics in relation to the practice of a
profession in general or the question of "emergency
contraceptives" in particular. . .
continue reading
Re: Redefining the
Practice of Medicine
Euthanasia in Quebec
An Act Respecting End of Life Care
(June, 2014)
Sean Murphy |
Part 1: Overview - An Act Respecting End-of-Life Care
("ARELC")
is intended to legalize euthanasia by physicians in the province of
Quebec. It replaces the original Bill 52, the subject of a previous
commentary by the Project. The
original text of the Bill 52 did not define medical aid in
dying (MAD), but ARELC now makes it clear that Quebec
physicians may provide euthanasia under the MAD protocol.
. .
Part 2: ARELC in detail -
An
Act Respecting End-of-Life Care ("ARELC")
is intended to legalize euthanasia by physicians in the province of
Quebec. It replaces the original Bill 52, the subject of a previous
commentary by the
Project. ARELC purports to establish a right to euthanasia
for a certain class of patients by including it under the
umbrella of "end-of-life care." . . .
Part 3: Evolution or Slippery Slope? - Euthanasia laws frequently include guidelines and safeguards intended
to prevent abuse. Eligibility criteria are the most basic guidelines or
safeguards. In considering their stability, it is important to
consider not only the elasticity of existing statutory provisions, but
recommendations for expansion that might ultimately result in changes to
the law. . .
Part 4: The Problem of Killing -
The original text of Bill 52 did not define "medical aid dying"
(MAD), but it was understood that, whatever the law actually
said, it was
meant
to authorize physicians to kill patients who met MAD
guidelines. The Minister of Health admitted that it
qualifed as homicide, while others acknowledged that MAD
meant intentionally causing the death of a person, and that
its purpose was death. . .
Part 5: An Obligation to Kill - Statistics from jurisdictions where euthanasia and/or
assisted suicide are legal suggest that the majority of
physicians do not participate directly in the procedures.
Statistics in Oregon and Washington state indicate that the
proportion of licensed physicians directly involved in
assisted suicide is extremely small. . .
Part 6: Participation in Killing -
It appears that, even where euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal,
the majority of physicians do not actually provide the services. However, by establishing a purported legal "right" to euthanasia, ARELC generates
a demand that physicians kill their patients, despite the high probability that a majority of physicians will
not do so. . .
Part 7: Refusing to Kill - It is important identify problems that the
Act poses for those who object to euthanasia for reasons of conscience, and to consider how objecting health care workers might avoid or respond to coercion by the government and the state medical and legal establishments . . .
Part 8: Hospitality and Lethal Injection -
Under the
Act Respecting End of Life Care (ARELC) palliative care hospices may permit euthanasia under the MAD protocol on their premises, but they do not have to do so. Patients must be advised of their policy before admission. The government included another section of ARELC to provide the same exemption for La Michel Sarrazin, a private hospital. The exemptions were provided for purely pragmatic and political reasons. . .
Part 9: Codes of Ethics and Killing - Refusing to participate, even indirectly, in conduct believed to involve serious ethical violations or wrongdoing is the response expected of physicians by professional bodies and regulators. It is not clear that Quebec legislators or professional regulators understand this. . .
Re: "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights
Code"
Ontario Human Rights Commission attempts to suppress
freedom of conscience
Sean Murphy | The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is
the regulatory and licensing authority for physicians and surgeons
practising in Ontario, Canada. In February, 2008, the Ontario Human
Rights Commission recommended that the exercise of freedom of conscience by
physicians be restricted. The College then drafted a policy that
demanded that Ontario physicians sacrifice their freedom of conscience to
avoid prosecution by Ontario's human rights apparatus. . .continue reading
Freedom of Conscience and Human Rights
Michelle Davis | A series of Bioethics Matters will look at the Ontario
Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to explore the
issues of religious discrimination, the right to be free
from discrimination based on creed (religion), and the
freedom of conscience and religion. . .continue reading
The
New Inquisitors
Sean Murphy | .
. . OHRC agents have broad
powers to enter private property without
warrant, and can, without warrant, search
premises, examine, measure, photograph the area and
and seize they think relevant to the investigation.
. . police can be called upon to assist, using force
if need be.
. .All of this for the purpose of
investigating, not unlawful conduct, but mere
"tension or conflict," or conditions that might lead
to either. In contrast, Canadian police have far
less power to investigate criminal offences -
including murder. . . continue reading
Re: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
and "effective referral"
Ontario court affirms right of state to compel participation in euthanasia
Doctors must refer patients for 'medical assistance in dying'
Michael Cook | Back in 2006, Oxford University's Professor Julian Savulescu published a frontal attack on the notion of conscientious objection in medicine in the BMJ, a popular medical journal. At the time it seemed odd rather than dangerous, the dream of an ideologue rather than sober policy. . . .continue reading
With Ontario court's ruling on doctors, the revolution continues
There is a growing antipathy among Canadian elites against conscientious individuals who refuse to accept their views
Barry W. Bussey | How is it that such a simple decision could be made so complicated? Given the history of accommodating individual conscience in the medical profession and in Canadian law, the case before the Ontario Court of Appeal to accommodate doctors' consciences was a "no-brainer." The law, history, and basic human decency cried out: "Accommodate the physician!" Instead, the highest court in Ontario followed the worrying legal revolution against accommodation and stomped on conscience. . .continue reading
Forced Referral and Freedom of Religion vs Freedom of Conscience
Without freedom of conscience our free democracy would not exist
Shawn Whatley, MD |
A recent court decision in Ontario missed the mark when it ignored the impact forced referral has on freedom of conscience.
On May 15, the Ontario appeals court ruled that doctors must give patients a referral for euthanasia, abortion, and other contentious issues, regardless of what an individual doctor thinks about them. . .continue reading
Physicians,
conscience, and assisted dying:
By requiring that physicians make referrals for assisted
dying, Ontario is forcing them to leave medicine or abandon
their ethical framework.
Deina Warren, Derek Ross |
Of all the jurisdictions worldwide that permit some form
of assisted suicide, Ontario stands alone in mandating that
physicians participate in it. . . [C]ompelling physicians to
participate in MAID results in the state deciding
what everyone should believe; and second, it
undermines physicians' moral integrity, a
foundational component of medical ethics and
principled health care. . .continue reading
Ontario must amend its assisted dying
legislation to recognize conscience rights
John Milloy | Canadians ask a lot of our physicians – years
of education, long hours, complex cases and
demanding patients (full disclosure – I am
married to a doctor). Since June of last year, we have also been
asking them to help some of their patients take
their own lives. . . Should we not respect the fact that some
doctors and other health-care providers simply
don't want to be involved in assisted dying for
reasons of conscience?. . . continue reading
Barry W. Bussey | While it may initially seem strange that a decision of one appellate court would result in proposed legislation in a different province altogether, such is the state of politics and law in this country. . .
The ONCA decision is but the latest in an ongoing attack against religious conscience. It is, therefore, not surprising that legislators are taking a stand in response to their constituents' legitimate concerns that the courts have overstepped their jurisdiction in implementing a "progressive ideology. . ."continue reading