General Medical Council guideline criticized by Protection of Conscience Project

Unfair to impose “long-discredited policies of forced conversion and exclusion”

NEWS RELEASE

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project has expressed concern that the state physician regulator in the United Kingdom intends to  prosecute those who refuse to convert to the religious, moral or ethical systems it approves.  If actual conversion is not required, it appears that by forcing physicians to do what they believe to be wrong as a condition of practising medicine, the regulator “may simply be resurrecting the Test Act in modern professional dress.”

The criticisms appear in a Protection of Conscience Project submission to the General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom in response to the draft GMC guideline Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice.  The Project comments that “it would be unfair to impose on physicians long-discredited policies of forced conversion and exclusion that would be plainly unacceptable to other professions and to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.”

The Project submission points out that it would be hypocritical for the GMC to discipline objecting physicians who refuse to refer  for morally contested treatments, since they act on the same principles applied by the GMC in its policies on organ trafficking and assisted suicide.  Strong exception is taken to the suggestion that physicians act like bigots if they refuse to facilitate adultery, premarital sex, and morally contested services like the mutilation or amputation of healthy body parts or the killing of human embryos or fetuses.

In other respects, the Project expressed qualified agreement with the provisions of Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice and identified parts of the guideline requiring clarification.  Specifically, physicians

  • should do their best to notify patients and employers in advance of treatments to which they object for reasons of conscience, though they cannot be expected to anticipate every possible conflict;
  • should not refuse to provide treatment or care to a patient on the grounds that she has had a previous morally contested treatment;
  • must be prepared to treat “the health consequences of lifestyle choices” with which they disagree or to which they object (though not to provide morally contested treatments);
  • should disclose beliefs only when the disclosure is solicited by a patient, or when it is reasonable to believe that it would be welcomed by the patient;
  • should limit discussion of beliefs to what is relevant to the patient’s care and treatment, taking into account the importance of dialogue that is responsive to the needs of the patient.

The Project cautioned the GMC that physicians should not be discplined or criticized for a conversation naturally arising from the disclosure of conscientious objection, since disclosure is required by its guidelines.  It also warned that an adverse emotional response by a patient is not necessarily evidence of professional misconduct.


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 desirability of controversial procedures or services.

Hercules versus Obama

ADF attorneys file suit against administration’s ‘abortion pill’ mandate on behalf of Denver’s Hercules Industries

NEWS RELEASE

Monday, April 30, 2012

Alliance Defence  Fund

ADF attorney sound bite: Matt Bowman

DENVER — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys representing a private Denver employer filed a federal lawsuit Monday against the Obama administration over its mandate that forces the family-owned business to violate its religious beliefs by requiring it to offer insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception.

Because the company, Hercules Industries, would be required to begin offering the new coverage when its self-insured plan renews on Nov. 1, the case is one of the only ones in the nation requesting a court order that would halt the mandate within the next three months.

“The government shouldn’t punish people of faith for making decisions in accordance with their faith,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “Every American should know that a government with the power to do this to anyone can do this–and worse–to everyone. The abortion pill mandate unconstitutionally coerces the leadership of Hercules Industries to violate their religious beliefs and consciences under the threat of heavy fines and penalties. That is simply not acceptable in America.”

Hercules owners William Newland, Paul Newland, James Newland, and Christine Ketterhagen, and its vice-president, Andrew Newland, are practicing and believing Catholics. They desire to run the company, an HVAC manufacturer, in a manner that reflects their sincerely held religious beliefs, including their belief that God requires respect for the sanctity of human life. Their lawsuit, Newland v. Sebelius, is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

In February, ADF attorneys filed suit against the mandate on behalf of two private Christian colleges, Geneva College in Pennsylvania and Louisiana College in Louisiana.


ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Bishops Issue Call To Action To Defend Religious Liberty: Urge strong lay involvement

Outline threats to First Freedom at all levels of government and abroad

Call upon dioceses to pursue religious liberty fortnight, June 21-July 4

NEWS RELEASE

US Conference of Catholic Bishops

WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops have issued a call to action to defend religious liberty and urged laity to work to protect the First Freedom of the Bill of Rights. They outlined their position in “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty.” The document was developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), approved for publication by the USCCB Administrative Committee March 13, and published in English and Spanish April 12.

“We have been staunch defenders of religious liberty in the past. We have a solemn duty to discharge that duty today,” the bishops said in the document, “… for religious liberty is under attack, both at home and abroad.”

The document lists concerns that prompt the bishops to act now.  Among concerns are:

• The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate forcing all employers, including religious organizations, to provide and pay for coverage of employees’ contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs even when they have moral objections to them. Another concern is HHS’s defining which religious institutions are“religious enough” to merit protection of their religious liberty.

• Driving Catholic foster care and adoption services out of business. Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia and Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities adoption or foster care services out of business by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit.

• Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. Despite years of excellent performance by the USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services in administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed its contract specifications to require USCCB to provide or refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching. Religious institutions should not be disqualified from a government contract based on religious belief, and they do not lose their religious identity or liberty upon entering such contracts. Recently, a federal court judge in Massachusetts turned religious liberty on its head when he declared that such a disqualification is required by the First Amendment—that the government violates religious liberty by allowing Catholic organizations to participate in contracts in a manner consistent with their beliefs on contraception and abortion.

The statement lists other examples such as laws punishing charity to undocumented immigrants; a proposal to restructure Catholic parish corporations to limit the bishop’s role; and a state university’s excluding a religious student group because it limits leadership positions to those who share the group’s religion.

Other topics include the history and deep resonance of Catholic and American visions of religious freedom, the recent tactic of reducing freedom of religion to freedom of worship, the distinction between conscientious objection to a just law, and civil disobedience of an unjust law, the primacy of religious freedom among civil liberties, the need for active vigilance in protecting that freedom, and concern for religious liberty among interfaith and ecumenical groups and across partisan lines.

The bishops decry limiting religious freedom to the sanctuary.

“Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans,” they said. “Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith?”

“This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue,” they said.

The bishops highlighted religious freedom abroad.

“Our obligation at home is to defend religious liberty robustly, but we cannot overlook the much graver plight that religious believers, most of them Christian, face around the world,” they said.“The age of martyrdom has not passed. Assassinations, bombings of churches, torching of orphanages—these are only the most violent attacks Christians have suffered because of their faith in Jesus Christ. More systematic denials of basic human rights are found in the laws of several countries, and also in acts of persecution by adherents of other faiths.”

The document ends with a call to action.

“What we ask is nothing more than that our God-given right to religious liberty be respected. We ask nothing less than that the Constitution and laws of the United States, which recognize that right, be respected.” They specifically addressed several groups: the laity, those in public office, heads of Catholic charitable agencies, priests, experts in communication, and urged each to employ the gifts and talents of its members for religious liberty.

The bishops called for “A Fortnight for Freedom,” the two-week period from June 21 to July 4—beginning with the feasts of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher and ending with Independence Day—to focus “all the energies the Catholic community can muster” for religious liberty. They also asked that, later in the year, the feast of Christ the King be “a day specifically employed by bishops and priests to preach about religious liberty, both here and abroad.”

Members of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty include

  • Archbishop-designate William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman
  • Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington
  • Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap, of Philadelphia
  • Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory of Atlanta
  • Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St. Paul–Minneapolis
  • Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi, of Mobile, Alabama
  • Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle
  • Bishop John O. Barres of Allentown, Pennsylvania
  • Bishop Daniel E. Flores of Brownsville, Texas
  • Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix
  • Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois

Consultants include

  • Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles
  • Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton. California
  • Bishop Joseph P. McFadden of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
  • Bishop Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa
  • Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne–South Bend, Indiana

Media contact only:

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh Office: 202-541-3200 Mobile : 301-325-7935 Email

Quebec Commission on Dying with Dignity Releases Death with Dignity Report

 Improvements to hospice palliative care recommended

NEWS RELEASE

Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association

April 2, 2012 (Ottawa, ON) – The Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) is optimistic about many of the recommendations put forth in the Special Commission on Dying with Dignity’s (Commission spéciale sur la question de mourir dans la dignité) report, Dying with Dignity. On March 22, the Committee made 24 recommendations to the Minister of Health and Social Services as to how end-of-life care should be improved in Quebec. Among the recommendations, the CHPCA applauds those focused on the further development of hospice palliative care in Quebec; these include improved training for hospice palliative care professionals, earlier access to hospice palliative care for patients, and the implementation of end-of-life care policy in Quebec.

The CHPCA commends the Committee for their efforts and inclusion of recommendations around improving the quality and delivery of hospice palliative care in Quebec. The Commission conducted extensive hearings with hospice palliative care professionals across Quebec to ensure that all viewpoints were equally represented. The resulting report is a strong first step towards implementing standardized hospice palliative care in Quebec so that all patients may have the highest quality of life and quality of dying

Among the recommendations however, were several advocating for the legalization of physician assisted death**, should the patient request. “Many of the Committee’s recommendations show a positive future for hospice palliative care in Quebec,” stated Sharon Baxter, Executive Director of the CHPCA, “however we need to have a clear distinction between hospice palliative care and physician assisted death. Physician assisted death should not be considered a part of or linked to hospice palliative care ideology or practice.”

“. . .Physician assisted death should not be considered a part of or linked to hospice palliative care ideology or practice.”  . . . Should a legislation allowing physician assisted death be passed by the Quebec government in the future, the dedicated and committed personnel who work in hospice palliative care should not be expected to participate in this practice.

The CHPCA believes that hospice palliative care is about ensuring a good death for all Canadians through an interdisciplinary approach that includes pain and symptom management, psychological support, spiritual care, bereavement care, and much more to address the suffering of patients and their families.

Should a legislation allowing physician assisted death be passed by the Quebec government in the future, the dedicated and committed personnel who work in hospice palliative care should not be expected to participate in this practice.

Right now, only 16% of Canadians who die have access to or receive hospice palliative, and quality end-of-life care services. The CHPCA wants to ensure that all Canadians have the highest quality of life as they live with a life limiting or terminal illness. Too many Canadians die with suffering that could be addressed in a more effective manner. The CHPCA believes that we need to have a greater focus on quality end of life care and the right to high quality hospice palliative care at the end of life for all Canadians as we enter into the debate around the contentious issue of physician assisted death.

**incorporates both terms “euthanasia” and “assisted suicide”

-30-

For further information, please contact:

Vanessa Sherry Communications Officer Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association E-mail: vsherry@bruyere.org Phone: 613-241-3663 ext: 229


The Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association — the national voice for hospice palliative care in Canada – is dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in care for persons approaching death so that the burdens of suffering, loneliness and grief are lessened. The CHPCA operates in close partnership with other national organizations and continues to work to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they may live, have equal access to quality hospice palliative care services for themselves and their family.

Bishops promise to continue ‘vigorous efforts’ against HHS violations of religious freedom in health care reform mandate

Declare government has no place defining religion, religious ministry

Seek protection for conscience rights of institutions, individuals

Stress action with the public, White House, Congress, courts

NEWS RELEASE

US Conference of Catholic Bishops

WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops are strongly united in their ongoing and determined  efforts to protect religious freedom, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) said in a March 14 statement.

The Administrative Committee, chaired by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the USCCB, is the highest authority of the bishops’ conference outside the semi-annual sessions of the full body of bishops. The Committee’s membership consists of the elected chairmen of all the USCCB permanent committees and an elected bishop representative from each of the geographic regions of the USCCB.

[Full statement]

The Administrative Committee said it was “strongly unified and intensely focused in its opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day.” The bishops will continue their vigorous work of education on religious freedom, dialogue with the executive branch, legislative initiatives and efforts in the courts to defend religious freedom. They promised a longer statement on the principles at the heart of religious freedom, which will come later from the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty.

The bishops noted that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that forces all private health plans to provide coverage of sterilization and contraceptives – including abortion-inducing drugs – called for an immediate response. Of particular concern, they said, are a religious exemption from the mandate that the bishops deem “arbitrarily narrow” and an “unspecified and dubious future ‘accommodation’’’ offered to other religious organizations that are denied the exemption.

The bishops thanked supporters from the Catholic community and beyond “who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate.”

“It is your enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate.”

The bishops said this dispute is not about access to contraceptives but about the government’s forcing the Church to provide them. Their concerns are not just for the Catholic Church but also for “those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block.”

“Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church – consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions – to act against Church teachings,” they said.

The Church has worked for universal healthcare in the United States since 1919, they added, and said the current issue “is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.”

The bishops called the HHS mandate “an unwarranted government definition of religion,” with government deciding who is a religious employer deserving exemption from the law.

“The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom,” the bishops said.

“Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry,” they said.

“If this definition is allowed to stand, it will spread throughout federal law, weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity,” they said.

The bishops said the government’s foray into church governance “where government has no legal competence or authority” is beyond disturbing. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers,” the bishops said, “will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world.”

The bishops also called the HHS mandate “a violation of personal civil rights.”  The new mandate creates a class of people “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to live in accordance with their faith and values,” the bishops said. “They too face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values – whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees, or as insurers themselves – without even the semblance of exemptions.”

The bishops called for the Catholic faithful, and all people of good will throughout the nation to join them in prayer and penance “for our leaders and for the complete protection of our First Freedom – religious liberty.”

“Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength,” the bishops said, “for without God we can do nothing. But with God all things are possible.”

Contact Sr. Mary Ann Walsh