Postscript for the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada
Morgentaler vs. Professors Cook and Dickens

---

Notes

1.  Cook RJ, Dickens BM, Access to emergency contraception. J. Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003;25 (11):914-6

2.  Bright, H. Access to emergency contraception [letter]. J. Obstet Gynaecol Can 2004; 26(2)111

3. Cook RJ, Dickens BM, "In Response". J.Obstet Gyanecol Can 2004; 26(2)112 

4. There was some resistance to publishing the Project's first letter, the editor citing Journal policy against publishing "letters that are responses to letters of response" and the fact that the original article had appeared six months earlier (Letter from the Editor in Chief, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada to the Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project, 7 May, 2004). The Administrator did not insist upon publication, but asked if the Journal would publish a correction to the legal misinformation supplied by Professors Cook and Dickens. (Letter from the Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project, to the Editor in Chief, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 14 May, 2004)This led to the appearance of the Project's letter with the rejoinder by Cook and Dickens and the announcement by the editor that the subject was closed. The Administrator later supplied the Journal's editor with the information in this paper and repeated his previously expressed concerns about misleading legal claims.  Unwilling to seem disrespectful of editorial autonomy, he limited himself to the suggestion that Professors Cook and Dickens might be allowed to write at greater length in the Journal in future, since they had suggested that they had not had the scope "for fully referenced legal or ethical reasoning." (Letter from the Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project, to the Editor in Chief, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 8 August, 2005).

5  Zimmer v. Ringrose (1981), 124 Dominion Law Reports (3d) 215 (Alberta Court of Appeal)

. Cook RJ, Dickens BM, Access to emergency contraception [letter] J.Obstet Gynaecol Can 2004; 26(8):706.

7.  Riebl v. Hughes (1980), 114 DLR (3rd) 1, (1980) 2 SCR 880, 14 CCLT 1, 33 NR, 361; Hopp v. Lepp (1980), 112 DLR (3d) 67, (1980) 2 SCR 192, (1980) 4 WWR 645, 22 AR 361, 13 CCLT 66, 32 NR 145, followed; Trogun v. Fruchtman (1973), 207 NW 2d 297; Downer v. Veilleux (1974), 322 A. 2d 82, referred to.

8. Zimmer v. Ringrose (1981), 124 DLR (3d) 225-226 (Alberta Court of Appeal); Zimmer v. Ringrose (1978), 89 Dominion Law Reports (3d) 657 (Alberta Supreme Court)

9. Zimmer v. Ringrose (1981), 124 DLR (3d) 219 (Alberta Court of Appeal); Zimmer v. Ringrose (1978), 89 DLR (3d) 649 (Alberta Supreme Court)

10. Zimmer v. Ringrose (1981), 124 DLR (3d) 219 (Alberta Court of Appeal); Zimmer v. Ringrose (1978), 89 DLR (3d) 649 (Alberta Supreme Court)

11. Zimmer v. Ringrose (1981), 124 DLR (3d) 226 (Alberta Court of Appeal)

12. Zimmer v. Ringrose (1978), 89 DLR (3d) 657-658 (Alberta Supreme Court)

13. Zimmer v. Ringrose (1981), 124 DLR (3d) 226 (Alberta Court of Appeal); Zimmer v. Ringrose (1978), 89 DLR (3d) 657 (Alberta Supreme Court)

14. McInerney v. MacDonald (1992), 93 Dominion Law Reports (4th) 415 (Supreme Court of Canada)

15. Recalling an earlier case (Canson Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton & Co. [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534)

16. Quoting LeBel, J. in Henderson v. Johnston, [1956] O.R. 789 at p. 799.

17. Malette v. Shulman (1990), 67 DLR (4th) 321 (Ont. Court of Appeal)

18. Telephone conversation between Dr. John R. Williams and the Project Administrator, April, 2000.

19. Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association (October 15, 1996), 8;  Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association (Update 2004), 12.

20. Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association (October 15, 1996), 10. The Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association (Update 2004), 19 substitutes "reasonable" for "adequate" notice.

21.   Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association (October 15, 1996). The preface has been replaced in the 2004 Update of the Code with abbreviated introductory remarks, including a statement that adverts to the relevance of other CMA policies: "The Code, together with CMA policies on specific topics, constitutes a compilation of guidelines that can provide a common ethical framework for Canadian physicians." (emphasis added)

22.   Position of the Canadian Medical Association on Induced Abortion (15 December, 1988) (Accessed 2005-06-11)

23. Cook RJ, Dickens BM, Access to emergency contraception [letter] J.Obstet Gynaecol Can 2004; 26(8):706 

24. Nancy B v Hotel Dieu de Quebec (1992), 86 DLR (4th) 385 (Quebec Superior Court)

25<. Benson, Iain T., "Autonomy", "Justice" and the Legal Requirement to Accommodate the Conscience and Religious Beliefs of Professionals in Health Care (Revised March 2001) 

26. Dickens, Bernard M., "Medically Assisted Death: Nancy B. v. Hotel-Dieu De Quebec."38 McGill L.J. 1053

27. R. v. Morgentaler (1988) 44 DLR (4th) 385 (Supreme Court of Canada)

28. R. v. Morgentaler (1988) 1 S.C.R.95-96 (Supreme Court of Canada) (Accessed 7 June, 2005)

29. R. v. Morgentaler (1988) 1 S.C.R. 165 (Supreme Court of Canada)  (Accessed 7 June, 2005)

30<.   R. v. Morgentaler (1988) 1 S.C.R. 175-176 (Supreme Court of Canada)  (Accessed 7 June, 2005)

31.  R. v. Morgentaler (1988) 1 S.C.R. 166 (Supreme Court of Canada)  (Accessed 7 June, 2005)

32. R. v. Morgentaler (1988) 1 S.C.R. 178-179 (Supreme Court of Canada) (Accessed 7 June, 2005)

33. The Belgian Act on Euthanasia of 28 May, 2002, Section 3§1. Unofficial translation by Dale Kidd under the supervision of Prof. Herman Nys, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Ethical Perspectives 9 (2002) 2-3, p. 182. (Accessed 2005-10-27)

34.  Standpunt over medische beslissingen rond het levenseinde en euthanasie [Policy Statement on End of Life Decisions and Euthanasia]. In Flemish and English 

35.  United Kingdom Parliament, House of Lords Select Committee on Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. Selections from the First Report: Examination of Witnesses;  United Kingdom Parliament, House of Lords Select Committee on Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. Selections from the First Report: Written Evidence

36.  United Kingdom Parliament, House of Lords Select Committee on Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill: First Report, Chapter 7, Conclusions, Paragraph 261. (Accessed 2005-10-25)
United Kingdom Parliament, Joint Committee On Human Rights: Twelfth Report, Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, para. 3.11 to 3.16 (Accessed 2005-10-25)

37.  United Kingdom Parliament, House of Lords Select Committee on Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill: Minutes of Evidence- Examination of Witnesses. 16 September, 2004, Q 70: the Lord Joffe.  (Accessed 2005-10-25)