Category: ChristianityNonCatholic

Doctors who conscientiously object to providing euthanasia referrals should not be forced to do so

National Post

Barbara Kay

From June 12 to 15, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard legal arguments relating to conscience rights for doctors in Ontario. Five doctors and three physicians’ organizations want the court to declare portions of policies created by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) a violation of doctors’ rights enshrined in the Charter. A decision is expected later this year.

CPSO, the respondent in the case, has stated they may suspend or sanction a doctor that refuses to participate in an assisted suicide, which they — duplicitously in my opinion — call “medical aid in dying” (MAID). Euthanasiasts prefer the euphemism because “aid in dying” sounds softer and gentler than “kill.” But the true definition of MAID is palliative care, whose future as a medical discipline has been thrown into uncertainty by the CPSO’s bullish stance on assisted suicide.

The CPSO’s conscience-hostile position is both unnecessary and unjust. . .  [Full text]

 

Ontario conscience rights case now in judges’ hands

Catholic Register

Michael Swan

TORONTO – Three days and nearly two dozen lawyers arguing the broad principles and technical details of constitutional law before a three-judge has panel left Christian Medical and Dental Society executive director Deacon Larry Worthen “cautiously optimistic.”

“The court certainly heard our arguments,” Worthen told The Catholic Register on June 15 outside the courtroom as lawyers shook hands and dispersed in the hallways of historic Osgoode Hall.

The trial before the Ontario Court of Justice was likely the first leg in a battle all the combatants expect will end in at the Supreme Court of Canada. Five dissenting Christian doctors who all object to abortion, chemical birth control, petri-dish human fertilization and assisted suicide asked the court to strike down a 2015 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario rule that forces them to provide an “effective referral” for services they reject on the basis of their religious faith or conscience. . . [Full text]

 

Ontario doctors challenge policy forcing referrals for medically assisted dying

College’s rules infringe on doctors’ right to object on conscientious, religious grounds, groups argue

CBC News

Amanda Pfeffer

Rules forcing Ontario doctors to offer medically assisted dying — or at least a timely referral — infringe on their constitutional right to object on conscientious or religious grounds, several physicians’ groups told a divisional court tribunal this week.

Their lawyer is asking the tribunal for a judicial review of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s (CPSO) recent policy on assisted dying, which requires doctors to perform an “effective referral.”

But several groups including the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies and Canadian Physicians for Life, along with five individuals, are arguing the policy is the moral equivalent of offering the procedure themselves. . . [Full text]

 

Swedish midwife turns to European Court of Human Rights

News Release

Alliance Defending Freedom

STRASBOURG, France – A Christian midwife filed her application with the European Court of Human Rights Wednesday against Sweden. Elinor Grimmark had to seek work in another country because she refused to participate in abortions. Because the Swedish courts have failed to recognize her freedom of conscientious objection, she is asking the European court to hear her case, Grimmark v. Sweden.

“The desire to help bring life into this world is what leads many midwives and nurses to enter the medical profession in the first place. Instead of forcing desperately needed midwives out of a profession, governments should look to safeguard the moral convictions of medical staff,” said ADF International Director of European Advocacy Robert Clarke. “Ellinor’s case could determine whether people who value life at all stages of development will be able to pursue a medical career in the future. Sweden has failed to protect this midwife’s fundamental right to freedom of conscience guaranteed by international law.”

Three different medical clinics had refused to employ Grimmark because she would not assist with abortions in light of her convictions about the dignity of all human life. On April 12, the Swedish Labour Court of Appeal refused to protect her freedom of conscience and instead found that Grimmark’s rights had not been violated.

The court required her to pay the local government’s legal costs, amounting to more than 150,000 euros. ADF International filed an expert brief in support of her case with the Swedish court, highlighting the protection for freedom of conscience that exists under international law.

“I chose the midwifery profession because I wanted to help bring life into this world,” explained Grimmark during a media background briefing in Strasbourg Wednesday. “I cannot understand why the Swedish government refuses to accommodate my conscientious convictions. I am now working in Norway, where my conscience is respected, but no one can explain why Sweden cannot do the same.”

ADF International is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
# # # | Ref. 44753

CLF, EFC and ACBO Form Coalition in Physicians’ Conscience Case

News Release

For immediate release

Christian Legal Fellowship, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario

The Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF), The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), and the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario (ACBO) have filed a joint factum with the Ontario Divisional Court in the physicians’ conscience case: Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS) v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The CPSO has adopted (1) a Human Rights Policy mandating effective referrals and obligatory emergency care even if it conflicts with conscience or religious beliefs; and (2) a Medical Assistance in Dying Policy that specifically requires effective referrals for euthanasia and assisted suicide. The “effective referral” requirement imposed by the CPSO mandates referral for all procedures and pharmaceuticals including euthanasia, assisted suicide and abortion, despite any conscientious or religious objection the physician may have.

The joint interveners support the CMDS in its position that, among other things, these policies violate religious freedom, freedom of conscience and equality, are not in the public interest, limit patient choice and undermine the principle of state neutrality. Derek Ross, CLF’s Executive Director & General Counsel (co-counsel to the joint interveners along with CLF Legal Counsel Deina Warren), explains:

Forcing physicians to participate in the purposeful and premature ending of a patient’s life contrary to their convictions is truly unconscionable. The Supreme Court’s decision in Carter allows room for conscientious objectors in the practice of medicine, and their freedoms must be robustly protected. In the same way, patients should be free to seek health care from professionals whose ethical framework reflects their own convictions, including those related to the value of human life. It is difficult to comprehend how it could possibly be in the ‘public interest’ to expect patients to receive health care from professionals who have been required by their regulatory body to abandon their core ethical convictions.

The interveners’ joint factum points to a comprehensive definition of religious freedom that informs the very understanding of human life, its beginning and end, the inherent value and dignity of each person and the moral considerations involved in ending another’s life. Religion cannot be compartmentalized or restricted to the performance of sacred rituals but includes outward expression and impacts all aspects of a believer’s life. Bishop Ronald Fabbro, President of the ACBO and Bishop of London, explains:

For Christians, adherence to Biblical teaching is not an optional exercise but a necessary, inescapable requirement of their faith. If one holds sincere religious beliefs which inform one’s view about human nature, morality and eternity, one is not free to temporarily disregard or suspend those beliefs in order to act contrary to them. The state cannot demand physicians or other healthcare professionals set aside the moral framework that guides their conduct, just as it cannot coerce believers to renounce their faith.

The joint submission explains that physicians’ Charter rights to religious belief, conscience and equality are not erased simply because they practice in a regulated profession. These rights exist to protect physicians against the power of the state, in this case the CPSO. Protecting physicians’ Charter rights allows patients to choose medical professionals whose ethical framework aligns with their own, and enhances patients’ interests by protecting physicians’ professional judgment, which is an inseparable combination of ethical and clinical assessments.

The submission also explains that there is no competing patient Charter right to health care, let alone euthanasia or assisted suicide. Decriminalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide does not create a “right to euthanasia or assisted suicide”. Even if such a right existed, there is nothing to demonstrate that protecting conscience inhibits access.

The policies violate physicians’ equality rights and violate the principle of state neutrality, which means welcoming and accepting religious individuals in the public sphere. The Charter ought to protect diversity, not enforce conformity. Bruce Clemenger, EFC President explains:

Physicians, like all Canadians, ought not to be excluded from the public sphere or their vocation because of their religious beliefs and practices. The state in a religiously diverse and secular society has the obligation to welcome and accept religious individuals in the public sphere. It must respect religious differences, not seek to extinguish them. Requiring individuals to renounce, deny or hide their beliefs is not state neutrality, but coerced conformity. This is contrary to the principles we value in a free and democratic society.

The CLF-EFC-ACBO factum can be read in full here.

The joint interveners will present oral arguments before the court during the three-day hearing, which is scheduled for June 13-15, 2017.

-30-

For additional information or an interview, please contact:

Rick Hiemstra, Director of Media Relations
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
MediaRelations@theEFC.ca
613-233-9868 x332

Ruth A.M. Ross, Special Advisor
Christian Legal Fellowship
ramross@christianlegalfellowship.org
519-208-9200

Neil MacCarthy
Director, Public Relations & Communications
Archdiocese of Toronto
neilm@archtoronto.org
416-934-3400 x552