Arkansas gov. signs law to protect the religious conscience of healthcare providers

The Christian Post

Emily Wood

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed legislation Friday to provide conscience protections for the religious objections of healthcare providers, payers and institutions.

Sponsored by Sen. Kim Hammer and Rep. Brandt Smith, both Republicans, “The Medical Ethics and Diversity Act,” S.B. 289, will protect medical professionals from providing services that go against their moral, religious or ethical beliefs, such as performing abortions or sex-change surgeries.

Hutchinson said in a statement that he “weighed this bill very carefully” before signing. 

The governor originally opposed the legislation in the 2017 legislative session until it was changed to ensure the ability to exercise the right of conscience is limited to “conscience-based objections to a particular health care service.” . . . continue reading

Portuguese assisted suicide/euthanasia law and freedom of conscience

Sean Murphy*

The Portuguese parliament passed Decree No. 109/XIV on 29 January, 2021, legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. It has been referred by the President of Portugal for a review by Portugal’s Constitutional Court.

The law permits physicians and nurses to assist in suicide or provide euthanasia for eligible patients.  Eligible patients are adult nationals or legal residents of Portugal who experience intolerable suffering as a result of an extremely severe and permanent injury or incurable terminal illness.  Eligible patients must also demonstrate a serious, voluntary, informed, continuing and reiterated decision to seek euthanasia/assisted suicide.  Physicians who are satisfied that a patient is eligible must obtain the approval of  the Committee for the Verification and Evaluation of Clinical Procedures for Advancing Death (CVA) before providing the procedure.

The law includes a protection of conscience provision.  Any health professional may decline to “practise or assist in the act of antecipação da morte de um doente“, which, literally translated, means the act of “anticipating the death of a patient.”  However, from the context it appears that this is more correctly translated as “advancing the death of a patient.”  To assist in “advancing the death of a patient” is broad enough to encompass diagnosis, evaluation and facilitation by referral or other means.

An objection can be based upon clinical, ethical or other grounds.  An objecting professional must advise a patient of the objection and reasons for it within 24 hours, presumably within 24 hours of a request from the patient.  Objectors must also give written notice to the person in charge of the health establishment where they work and to their professional orders.  Such an objection is permanently and universally valid and “does not need to be justified” (e não carece de fundamentação).  This appears to mean that objectors are not required to demonstrate that their clinical, ethical or other reasons for refusing to participate are correct.

The law is not clear about the freedom of health care facilities to refuse to be involved with euthanasia and assisted suicide or to prohibit the procedures on their premises. Article 12.1 states that it is up to the patient to determine the location for the procedure (“A escolha do local para a prática da morte medicamente assistida cabe ao doente.”). However, nothing in the law requires a facility to comply with a patient’s choice. The rest of Article 12 simply describes places where the services can be provided.

Lack of clarity on this point is likely to cause problems, especially if Portuguese euthanasia/assisted suicide advocates are as aggressive as those in Canada. See, for example:

These Are The 26 States Where Women Can’t Sue If They Suffer Harm After Being Denied An Abortion

Newsweek

Kashmira  Gander

Most U.S. states ban women from suing health care providers if they are harmed after being denied an abortion due to conscience laws, a study has revealed.

Conscience law enables institutions and individuals to refuse to participate in abortions on moral or religious grounds. The research published in the journal JAMA showed half of states have no limitations on the rights of institutions to refuse to terminate pregnancies in such circumstances.

The study was prompted in part by recent lawsuits against Catholic hospitals that refused abortions to women having miscarriages, study author Professor Nadia N. Sawicki, Co-Director of the Beazley Institute for Health Law and Policy at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, told Newsweek. . . [Fulltext]

Euthanasia: David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill passes final reading

Newshub

Zane Small

ACT leader David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill has passed its final reading in Parliament four years after it was first put in the ballot box.

The Bill – which will let terminally ill adults with less than six months left to live access assisted dying or ‘euthanasia’ – passed its final reading on Wednesday in a conscience vote, with 69 votes for it and 51 against.

But just because the legislation passed its final reading, it won’t actually become law unless the public vote to pass it at the 2020 general election. . . .[Full text] [End of Life Choice Act (2017): Protection of Conscience Provisions]

Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017

Sean Murphy*

On 19 April, 2018, the legislature of the State of Victoria, Australia, passed the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017, which will come into force in June, 2019.  It is currently the most restrictive euthanasia/assisted suicide (EAS) legislation in the world, running to 130 pages.  In brief, the law authorizes physician assisted suicide for terminally ill adults, but permits euthanasia by physicians only when patients are physically unable to self-administer a lethal drug.  In both cases a permit must be obtained in advance.