News Releases Archives - Page 9 of 40 - Protection of Conscience Project News

Christian Medical Association Doctors Laud HHS Conscience Rule as Protecting Patients and Doctors

News Release

Christian Medical Association

WASHINGTON, May 2, 2019 /Standard Newswire/ — The 19,000-member Christian Medical Association, the largest national association of faith-based doctors, lauded a conscience law-enforcing rule finalized today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a protection for both patients and doctors.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens said, “Our patients need to know that we as doctors can be trusted to conscientiously adhere to objective ethical standards and moral commitments that serve to protect them. They need to know we are not going to lay aside longstanding ethical norms and medical concerns just because ideologically-driven politicians or bureaucrats or hospital administrators might pressure us to do so by threatening our ability to practice medicine.”

CMA Senior Vice President Dr. Gene Rudd, an OB/Gyn physician, said, “In recent years, some abortion advocates have proposed effectively banning pro-life physicians from medicine, essentially because we adhere to the Hippocratic Oath. That long-standing objective standard protects our unborn patients while also protecting our born patients from other abuses of medical power such as involuntary euthanasia and sexual abuse. Without pro-life OB/Gyn physicians, who will serve the millions of women and men who also hold to pro-life commitments?

“Conscience protection is one of the treasures of our society. It is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, reflecting its importance. Some would want to take this right away from others when they disagree on certain issues. But protection for each person is critical to protection for all. The HHS conscience rules are critical to preserving this freedom.”

CMA Executive Vice President Dr. Mike Chupp observed, “We are committed to serving every kind of patient with compassion and competence, but that’s very different from saying we will do any procedure or fill any prescription regardless of ethical or medical concerns. Healthcare professionals of faith and conscience are committed to the mantra ‘Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere but NOT Anything!’ Without conscience freedom in healthcare, whatever ideology the government chooses will be the grounds used to exclude all objectors. The result would be a loss of healthcare access for patients, and especially the patients of faith-based health professionals who often minister to the underserved and marginalized.”

CMA Vice President for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody noted, “This HHS rule enforces and educates regarding existing conscience laws passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis, back when Congress was more bipartisan. The rule reminds the government and the health community that we all live in a country that values freedom of conscience and tolerance of diverse views. Conscience freedoms protect liberals, conservatives and everyone in between, on issues ranging from capital punishment to abortion to research ethics. Without tolerance for diversity and conscience convictions in healthcare, patients lose access to doctors, and health professionals lose their careers.”

More information available at www.Freedom2Care.org:

Stories of conscience violations
Previous polling by Kellyanne Conway on conscience (e.g, 92 percent of faith-based physicians said they would leave medicine rather than compromise conscience)
CMA comments submitted to HHS on conscience rule

SOURCE Christian Medical Association

CONTACT: Margie Shealy, 423-341-4254

HHS Announces Final Conscience Rule Protecting Health Care Entities and Individuals

News Release
For immediate release

US Department of Health and Human Services

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced today the issuance of the final conscience rule that protects individuals and health care entities from discrimination on the basis of their exercise of conscience in HHS-funded programs. Just as OCR enforces other civil rights, the rule implements full and robust enforcement of approximately 25 provisions passed by Congress protecting longstanding conscience rights in healthcare.

The final rule fulfills President Trump’s promise to promote and protect the fundamental and unalienable rights of conscience and religious liberty, a promise he made when he signed an executive order in May 2017 protecting religious liberty. In October 2017, the Department of Justice issued guidance encouraging other Departments, including HHS, to implement and enforce all relevant religious freedom laws.

As a result, in January 2018, following the launch of its new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, HHS announced the proposed conscience rule. OCR received over 242,000 public comments, and analyzed and carefully considered all comments submitted from the public on the proposed conscience regulation before finalizing it.

This final rule replaces a 2011 rule that has proven inadequate, and ensures that HHS implements the full set of tools appropriate for enforcing the conscience protections passed by Congress. These federal laws protect providers, individuals, and other health care entities from having to provide, participate in, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for, services such as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide. It also includes conscience protections with respect to advance directives.

The final rule clarifies what covered entities need to do to comply with applicable conscience provisions and requires applicants for HHS federal financial assistance to provide assurances and certifications of compliance. The rule also specifies compliance obligations for covered entities, including cooperation with OCR, maintenance of records, reporting, and non-retaliation requirements.

“Finally, laws prohibiting government funded discrimination against conscience and religious freedom will be enforced like every other civil rights law.” said OCR Director Roger Severino. “This rule ensures that healthcare entities and professionals won’t be bullied out of the health care field because they decline to participate in actions that violate their conscience, including the taking of human life. Protecting conscience and religious freedom not only fosters greater diversity in healthcare, it’s the law,” Severino concluded.

Click here to read the Final Conscience Rule.

Click here – PDF to read the Final Conscience Rule Factsheet.

###

*This HHS-approved document is being submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication and has not yet been placed on public display or published in the Federal Register. This document may vary slightly from the published document if minor editorial changes are made during the OFR review process. The document published in the Federal Register is the official HHS-approved document.

*People using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in these files. For assistance, please email OCR at OCRMail@hhs.gov or contact the OCR Call Center at (800) 368-1019.

Contact: HHS Press Office 202-690-6343 media@hhs.gov

Australian Medical Association Updates Advice to Doctors with Conscientious Objections

News Release

Australian Medical Association

The AMA has released its updated Position Statement on Conscientious Objection 2019 (replacing the Position Statement on Conscientious Objection 2013). The policy was reviewed as part of the AMA’s routine, five-year policy review cycle.

A conscientious objection occurs when a doctor, as a result of a conflict with his or her own personal beliefs or values, acknowledges that they cannot provide, or participate in, a legal, legitimate treatment or procedure that would be deemed medically appropriate in the circumstances under professional standards.

A conscientious objection is based on sincerely-held beliefs and moral concerns, not self-interest or discrimination.

AMA President, Dr Tony Bartone, said today that doctors are entitled to have their own personal beliefs and values, as are all members of the community.

“However, doctors have an ethical obligation to minimise disruption to patient care and must never use a conscientious objection to intentionally impede patients’ access to care,” Dr Bartone said.

The AMA advises that a doctor with a conscientious objection should:

inform the patient of their objection, preferably in advance or as soon as practicable;
inform the patient that they have the right to see another doctor and ensure the patient has sufficient information to enable them to exercise that right;
take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the patient’s access to care is not impeded;
continue to treat the patient with dignity and respect, even if the doctor objects to the treatment or procedure the patient is seeking;
continue to provide other care to the patient, if they wish;
refrain from expressing their own personal beliefs to the patient in a way that may cause them distress;
inform their employer, or prospective employer, of their conscientious objection, and discuss with their employer how they can practise in accordance with their beliefs without compromising patient care or placing a burden on their colleagues; and
always provide medically appropriate treatment in an emergency situation, even if that treatment conflicts with their personal beliefs and values.

Changes since 2013

The tone and emphasis of the Position Statement has been amended. Rather than taking a prescriptive line, the Position Statement now takes a reflective approach where a doctor is asked to focus on what really should matter the most: the impact of their decisions on the patient in front of them.

A new statement has been included that an objecting doctor should be aware that certain treatments or procedures are time critical.

A new section on institutional conscientious objection has been included. It advises institutions that do not provide particular treatments or procedures due to institutional conscientious objection to inform the public of this so (potential) patients can seek care elsewhere. This section also advocates that a doctor working within such an institution should be allowed to refer a patient (already admitted) who seeks such a service to another doctor outside the facility.

The AMA Position Statement on Conscientious Objection 2019 is at https://ama.com.au/position-statement/conscientious-objection-2019

CONTACT: John Flannery 02 6270 5477 / 0419 494 761

Maria Hawthorne 02 6270 5478 / 0427 209 753

The CCRL Participates In Ontario Court of Appeal with Oral Arguments in Support of Physicians’ Conscience Rights

News Release

Catholic Civil Rights League

Toronto, ON January 25, 2019 – The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) participated with oral arguments in the CMDS et al v. CPSO hearing at the Ontario Court of Appeal on January 21 and 22. Individual Catholic and Christian doctors and organizations had challenged the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which over the course of the past three years had stipulated an “effective referral” regime, forcing Ontario doctors who objected to morally objectionable procedures to provide an “effective referral” to a willing doctor for such services. Previously, doctors were relieved from any such obligation. Ontario is the only provincial or territorial jurisdiction which has made such demands of its doctors.

The Ontario Divisional Court had ruled in favour of the CPSO, on January 31, 2018, despite finding that the religious freedom of doctors had been infringed. The appellants and the League, in conjunction with the Faith and Freedom Alliance and the Protection of Conscience Project, had argued that such “effective referrals” made objecting doctors complicit in the provision of the objectionable procedures, such as abortion, or assisted suicide. The previous court decision allowed the infringement as a modest incursion into the rights of physicians, in the context of the ability of patients to access publicly available “services”. Moreover, the court previously ruled that objecting physicians could re-arrange their practice specialties to “accommodate” such referrals. The doctors and their respective organizations appealed.

In addition to the arguments presented by the lawyers for the appellants, the CCRL and its partners raised the particular arguments that such demands were in breach of the conscience rights of Ontario doctors, as forcing individuals to do something that they considered “wrong”, and was a form of enforced servitude.

Click here to view the CCRL’s written factum, submitted in November 2018, which made reference to important principles of law and philosophy, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., Jacques Maritain, and others.

At the appeal hearings, held at Toronto’s Osgoode Hall, arguments focused on whether the CPSO could justify its referral policy as a “reasonable limit” on the rights of objecting doctors. The CCRL’s lawyer, Mr. Emrys Davis, submitted that moral rights are central to one’s sense of human dignity, and that it was unacceptable to marginalize objecting physicians as religious extremists. Moreover, given that the Ontario Medical Association likewise opposed the “effective referral” regime, such concerns were shared by a large numbers of Ontario doctors. The CCRL and its partners argued that the referral requirement imposed the values of the state upon individuals, forcing them to violate their own constitutionally protected consciences, without justification.

The CPSO’s lawyers had suggested that objecting doctors could go so far as to instruct an intake employee to make the proposed referrals on their behalf. We argued that such doctors would still be responsible morally to such a proposal, and would be left with no meaningful choice. Telling an employee to commit an immoral act would still offend the consciences of objecting doctors. The choice imposed by the CPSO was either to violate one’s conscience, or become subject to professional discipline for refusing to make such referrals.

In his closing remarks, Chief Justice of Ontario George Strathy thanked the many interveners for bringing their unique viewpoints and knowledge to the assistance of the court, which reserved its decision to a later date. The CCRL thanks the fine work of our lawyers at Bennett, Jones in Toronto, for its efforts on behalf of our interveners.

About the CCRL

Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. The CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization with a large nationwide membership base. The CCRL is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.

To donate to the CCRL, please click here.

For further information: Christian Domenic Elia, PhD CCRL Executive Director 416-466-8244 @CCRLtweets

Protection of Conscience at the Ontario Court of Appeal

Protection of Conscience Project

News Release

On 21/21 January the Protection of Conscience Project jointly intervened at the Court of Appeal of Ontario to support freedom of conscience against an oppressive policy of Ontario’s state medical regulator, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). CPSO policies demand that physicians who object to morally contested procedures – including euthanasia and assisted suicide – must help patients find a colleague willing to provide the contested services.

The Court was hearing the appeal of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies, Canadian Physicians for Life and five individual physicians against an Ontario Divisional Court decision . The Divisional Court had ruled in favour of the CPSO, ruling, in effect, that physicians unwilling to do what they believed to be wrong by providing “effective referrals” were free to move to medical specialties where they would not face conflicts of conscience.

Expert evidence from the appellants indicated that it is extremely difficult for physicians to retrain, and that only 2.5 per cent of all physician positions in Canada would be “safe” for objecting physicians: pathology, hair loss, obesity medicine, sleep disorders and research were among the few available specialities.

The appellants’ submissions were supported by the intervention of the Ontario Medical Association, representing more than 41,000 practising and retired physicians, medical students and residents.

Joining the Project as “Conscience Interveners” were the Catholic Civil Rights League and Faith and Freedom Alliance. The joint submission noted the difference between perfective freedom of conscience (doing what one believes to be good) and preservative freedom of conscience (refusing to do what one believes to be wrong), a distinction hitherto ignored in judicial analysis.

Acknowledging that freedom of conscience can be limited to safeguard the common good, the Conscience Interveners argued that it does not follow that limits on perfective and preservative freedom of conscience can be justified on the same grounds or to the same extent.

The joint intervention drew the Court’s attention to the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson in R v. Morgentaler, the only extended discussion of freedom of conscience in Canadian jurisprudence. Justice Wilson’s reasoning drew upon the key principle that humans are not a means to an end, and we should never be exploited by someone as a tool to serve someone else’s good – a principle championed by people like Martin Luther King Jr.

This principle – identified as the principle against servitude – was proposed as a principle of fundamental justice, a novel and constitutionally significant assertion. Alternatively, the Conscience Interveners argued that the principle against servitude is so foundational to human rights and freedoms it is difficult to imagine how violating it might be justified.

Forcing someone to participate in perceived wrongdoing demands the submission of intellect, will, and conscience, and violates the principle against servitude by reducing that person to the status of a tool to be used by others. This manner of servitude cannot be reconciled with principles of equality. It is an assault on human dignity that deprives physicians of their essential humanity.
Factum of the Conscience Interveners

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, B’nai Brith, and the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms intervened in support of the physician appellants. Dying With Dignity Canada and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened against them.

The Court reserved its decision.

Related: CCRL news release

Contact: Sean Murphy, Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project Email: protection@consciencelaws.org