Entrenching a ‘duty to do wrong’ in medicine

Canadian government funds project to suppress freedom of conscience and religion

 Sean Murphy*

A 25 year old woman who went to an Ottawa walk-in clinic for a birth control prescription was told that the physician offered only Natural Family Planning and did not prescribe or refer for contraceptives or related services. She was given a letter explaining that his practice reflected his “medical judgment” and “professional ethical concerns and religious values.” She obtained her prescription at another clinic about two minutes away and posted the physician’s letter on Facebook. The resulting crusade against the physician and two like-minded colleagues spilled into mainstream media and earned a blog posting by Professor Carolyn McLeod on Impact Ethics.

Professor McLeod objects to the physicians’ practice for three reasons. First: it implies – falsely, in her view – that there are medical reasons to prefer natural family planning to manufactured contraceptives. Second, she claims that refusing to refer for contraceptives and abortions violates a purported “right” of access to legal services. Third, she insists that the physician should have met the patient to explain himself, and then helped her to obtain contraception elsewhere by referral. Along the way, she criticizes Dr. Jeff Blackmer of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) for failing to denounce the idea that valid medical judgement could provide reasons to refuse to prescribe contraceptives. . .
Full Text

 

Liberal Party of Canada adopts pro-euthanasia/assisted suicide policy

Canada’s Liberal Party, meeting at a policy convention in Montreal, Quebec, has overwhelmingly adopted a policy resolution favouring the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.  However, the policy is not binding on the party leader, Justin Trudeau, so it is not certain that it will be included in his official platform in the next Canadian federal election.  The policy resolution calls for a change in the law after public consultation.  [National Post]

Quebec euthanasia bill stalled

The government of Quebec was unable to convince the opposition Liberal Party to complete debate on Bill 52, legislation to legalize euthanasia, in order to bring it to a vote before the Quebec National Assembly adjourned for two weeks.  The government has tabled a budget, which takes precedence over other bills.  It is believed that the government will call an election when the Assembly returns, which means that the euthanasia bill will not pass.  It could be resurrected by a government formed after the election. [CBC News]

Belgium extends euthanasia to children

By a vote of 86-44, the Belgian House of Representatives has approved a bill to extend euthanasia to children.  The bill had previously passed the Belgian Senate.  The law will apply to children who have a terminal and incurable illness, are near death, and suffering “constant and unbearable physical” pain.  Parents and health care professionals must agree, and a paediatric psychiatrist or psychologist must certify that the child has the capacity to discern that being killed is the ‘best choice.’ [The Guardian]

Quebec official considers expanding euthanasia to minors, dementia patients

Although Bill 52, Quebec’s euthanasia legislation, has not yet passed the National Assembly, the secretary of the Collège des médecins du Québec, the state regulator of medical practice, has suggested that grounds for euthanasia will likely be broadened after the bill passes.  Dr. Yves Robert, speaking of Alzheimer patients and those under 18, said “We will have to think about that, not only for [incapable] adults but
obviously for youngsters who face terminal diseases.” [National Post]  His statement is consistent with statements made by various groups giving evidence in committee hearings.  For example, the Quebec Commission on Human Rights and Youth Rights takes the position that failing to provide euthanasia for mentally incompetent patients and minors would constitute a violation of human rights, and warned legislators that if they did not amend the bill to include it, the change would be forced through civil action.