Publications Archives - Page 10 of 28 - Protection of Conscience Project News

Conscientious refusal to kill deserves the protection of law. Bill C-14 doesn’t provide it.

News Release
For immediate release
Print | Audio

Protection of Conscience Project

In light of the assisted suicide/euthanasia bill introduced by the government of Canada (Bill C-14),¹ it is necessary to emphatically reaffirm that conscientious refusal to kill people is a manifestation of essential humanity that deserves the protection of law.

Notwithstanding the assurances of Canada’s Minister of Health,² Bill C-14 does not provide that protection. The government is deliberately ignoring the ongoing coercion of health care providers to compel participation in euthanasia, and Bill C-14 will allow coercion to continue.

The bill follows upon a report from a parliamentary Special Joint Committee formed to advise the government on a legislative response to the Supreme Court ruling in Carter v. Canada.³ Bill C-14 does not incorporate the Committee’s more radical recommendations. It does not, for example, make euthanasia and assisted suicide available as therapies for mental illness.⁴

However, it does indicate that the government intends to pursue this and other Committee recommendations.⁵ Two of them assert the authority of the state to command the use of deadly force: not merely to authorize it, but to command it.

The Special Joint Committee recommended that physicians unwilling to kill patients or help them commit suicide should be forced to find someone willing to do so. It also recommended that publicly funded facilities, like hospices and hospitals, should be forced to kill patients or help them commit suicide, even if groups operating the facilities object.⁶

The federal government cannot do this because the regulation of health professions and health care institutions is within provincial jurisdiction. Hence, the Committee urged the federal government to “work with the provinces” to implement this coercive regime.⁶Translation: get willing hands in the provinces to do the dirty work of coercion – and take the heat for it.

Now, the federal government can prevent such coercion because it has exclusive jurisdiction in criminal law. It can enact a law to prevent powerful groups, professions, or state institutions from forcing people to be parties to homicide and suicide. It can prevent those in power from punishing health care providers who refuse to arrange for their patients to be killed or helped commit suicide.

The federal government can do this, but Bill C-14 does not do it. Instead, it makes possible the coercive regime recommended by the Special Joint Committee.

And this is deliberate, because the Prime Minister and Minister of Health know full well that coercion and intimidation to force participation in euthanasia and assisted suicide are already occurring in Canada, notably in Quebec⁷,⁸,⁹,¹⁰ and Ontario.¹¹ ,Their bill “works with” willing hands in Ontario and Quebec by allowing coercion and intimidation to continue – and to spread.

It is true that the bill’s preamble states that the government will “respect the personal convictions of health care providers.”

But – aside from the fact that preambles have no legal effect¹² – what is that worth?

After all, the Special Joint Committee claimed that respect for freedom of conscience is exemplified by their recommendation that, “at a minimum,” objecting physicians should be forced to find colleagues willing to kill their patients.⁶ Behind this Orwellian perversion lies the Committee’s more astonishing premise: that the state can legitimately order people to become parties to homicide and suicide, and punish them if they refuse.

That is outrageous, indefensible and dangerous. It is not a mere “limitation” of fundamental freedoms, but an egregious attack on them. It is a grave violation of human dignity that deserves only the utter contempt of a free people.

The Prime Minister and a great many people in positions of power and influence need to be reminded of this as we approach the deadline for the proclamation of Bill C-14: the anniversary of the Allied landings at Normandy.

Whatever else it might decide about euthanasia and assisted suicide, parliament should make it the law of the land that no one and no institution in Canada can be forced to be a party to homicide or suicide, and no one will be punished or disadvantaged for refusing to do so.”¹³

-30-

Contact:
S.T. Murphy, Administrator
protection@consciencelaws.org

Notes
1. Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying) (Accessed 2016-04-20) (Hereinafter “Bill C-14”).

2. “’Under this bill, no health care provider will be required to provide medical assistance in dying,’” Health Minister Jane Philpott told reporters Thursday. Laucius, J. “Groups worry new assisted-dying legislation doesn’t protect physicians’ consciences.” Ottawa Citizen, 14 April, 2016 (Accessed 2016-04-14) Emphasis added. The statement does not mean that health care providers cannot be forced to become parties to homicide or suicide.

3. Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 (Accessed 2015-06-27)

4. Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach. Report of the Special Joint Committee on Physician Assisted Dying (February, 2016) (Hereinafter “SJC Report”) p. 13-14; Recommendations 3,4, p. 45. (Accessed 2016-03-09).

5. Bill C-14, Preamble, final paragraph.

6. SJC Report, Recommendations 10-11, p. 36.

7. Supreme Court of Canada, 385591, Lee Carter, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, et al. (British Columbia) (Civil) (By Leave): Robert W. Staley (Counsel for the Catholic Civil Rights League, Faith and Freedom Alliance, and Protection of Conscience Project) Oral Submission, [455:48/491:20].

8. Canadian Press, “Gaétan Barrette insists dying patients must get help to ease suffering.” CBC News, 2 September, 2016 (Accessed 2016-04-20).

9. Robert Y. “L’objection de conscience.” Collège des médecins du Québec, 10 November, 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-20).

10. The Canadian Press, “Justin Trudeau, Philippe Couillard hail era of co-operation after meeting in Quebec City: Prime Minister praises Quebec’s approach on controversial topic of medically-assisted deaths.” CBC News, 11 December, 2015 (Accessed 2016-04-15).

11. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Interim Guidance on Physician Assisted Death (January, 2016) (Accessed 2016-04-15).

12. University of Alberta, Centre for Constitutional Studies, The Constitution: Preamble (Accessed 2016-04-15).

13. Submission of the Protection of Conscience Project to the Special Joint Committee on Physician Assisted Dying (31 January, 2016)

Canadian parliamentary committee recommends mandatory participation in euthanasia, assisted suicide

Federal committee wants provincial governments to address most contentious issue

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

A special joint committee of the Canadian House of Commons and Senate has produced a first report concerning legalization of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

The report recommends that physicians who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to kill patients or help them to commit suicide should be compelled to find someone willing to do so. It also recommends that all publicly funded facilities – not excluding objecting denominational institutions – be compelled Canadian parliamentary committee recommends mandatory participation in euthanasia, assisted suicide
to provide euthanasia and assisted suicide. This goes beyond recommendations made by others to the effect that objecting institutions should at least allow an external provider to perform the procedures on their premises. It also ignores the advice of the Canadian Medical Association, which told the Committee that euthanasia and assisted suicide could be provided without suppressing freedom of conscience by forcing objecting physicians to refer for the procedures.

The main report is followed by a dissenting report signed by four Conservative (C) Members of Parliament. With respect to freedom of conscience, the dissenting report erroneously states, “Quebec physicians are free to act according to their conscience,” and recommends Quebec legislation that is purported to accommodate freedom of conscience and religion. The Quebec model has been rejected by many objecting physicians because it requires them to become parties to homicide by referring a patient to an administrator, who will arrange for euthanasia.

A supplementary opinion filed by two New Democrat (NDP) Members of Parliament states that legislation “must ensure that every eligible patient’s right to access medical aid in dying is upheld, and protect any healthcare professional who objects for reasons of conscience from disciplinary action.” However, the authors of the supplementary opinion do not dissent from the main report, so they must mean that objecting physicians should be disciplined if they refuse to arrange for someone to kill patients or help them commit suicide.

In Canada, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the regulation of medical practice or the operation of hospitals. In effect, then, the committee wants the federal government to pressure provincial governments to force unwilling physicians, health care workers and institutions to become parties to homicide and suicide. This is arguably more contentious than the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, so it is politically advantageous for the federal government to pass this particular buck to the provinces.

The federal government has full jurisdiction to prevent people from being forced to become parties to homicide and suicide, and this was recommended to the Committee by the Protection of Conscience Project and others. Instead, the Committee has taken the opposite tack, insisting that the state should impose and enforce an obligation to kill, even upon those who believe that killing people or helping them to commit suicide is gravely wrong.

Special Joint Committee on Physician Assisted Dying

Contact:

Sean Murphy, Administrator (protection@consciencelaws.org)

Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia

Re: Standard of Practice: Physician Assisted Death

Abstract

The Project considers the proposed standard of practice satisfactory with respect to the accommodation of physician freedom of conscience and respect for the moral integrity of physicians. Neither direct nor indirect participation in euthanasia and assisted suicide is required.

The Project offers simple and uncontroversial recommendations to avoid conflicts of conscience associated with failed assisted suicide and euthanasia attempts and urgent situations.

The standard does not adequately address the continuing effects of criminal law. The College has no basis to proceed against physicians who, having the opinion that a patient does not fit one of the criteria specified by Carter, refuse to do anything that would entail complicity in homicide or suicide. College policies and expectations are of no force and effect to the extent that they are inconsistent with criminal prohibitions.

While the standard is satisfactory with respect to freedom of conscience, the fundamental freedoms of physicians in Nova Scotia will remain at risk as long as the College Registrar and others persist in the attitude and intentions demonstrated in his presentation to the Special Joint Committee on Physician Assisted Dying.

Contents

I. Outline of the submission

II. Avoiding foreseeable conflicts

II.1    Failed assisted suicide and euthanasia
II.2    Urgent situations
II.3    Project recommendations

III. SPPAD and criminal law

IV. Remarks of the Registrar

IV.1    The Registrar before the Special Joint Committee on Physician Assisted Dying
IV.2    The Registrar, the Conscience Research Group, and “effective referral”
IV.3    The Registrar’s intentions
IV.4    The Registrar’s complaint
IV.5    An ethic of servitude, not service

V. Conclusion

Appendix “A” Supreme Court of Canada, Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5

A1.    Carter criteria for euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
A2.    Carter and the criminal law
A3.    Carter and freedom of conscience and religion

Appendix “B” Conscience Research Group

B1.    Attempts to coerce physicians: abortion
B2.    Plans to coerce physicians: assisted suicide and euthanasia
B3.   Plans to coerce physicians: the CRG Model Policy
B4.    CRG convenes meeting with College representatives

2ublic

Supreme Court of Canada respect for physician freedom of conscience and religion is not “a cop-out”

Responding to “Patient rights – even in death – must trump a doctor’s discomfort.” Globe and Mail, 1 February, 2016

Sean Murphy*

According to André Picard, the Supreme Court of Canada decided last year that patients could ask to be killed by physicians or ask physicians to help them commit suicide, but physicians could not be compelled “to actually kill a patient.” He describes this as “a perfectly reasonable balancing and reconciling of rights.”¹ Supreme Court of Canada respect for physician freedom of conscience and religion is not “a cop-out”

Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that physicians should not be forced to actually kill a patient. However, Mr. Picard is mistaken when he claims that the Supreme Court of Canada reconciled or balanced the rights of patients and physicians in the Carter ruling. The Court did not even attempt to do so, stating, instead, that patient and physician rights “will need to be reconciled.”²

With respect to physicians, the Court stated that “nothing” in the ruling would compel physicians to “provide” or “participate in” euthanasia or assisted suicide. This is precisely the language and thinking adopted by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) in its policy framework.³ Mr. Picard is clearly angry about this, calling it “a cop-out that creates real barriers for desperately ill patients,” one that “regulators and legislators cannot and should not accept.”

However, in the face of the Carter ruling, Mr. Picard cannot expect the CMA, regulators and legislators to impose his deeply held personal belief that refusing to compel physicians to provide or participate in homicide or assisted suicide is an unacceptable “cop-out.”

Mr. Picard clearly prefers the policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) on “effective referral,” which demands that physicians who refuse “to actually kill a patient” must help find someone willing to do the actual killing.

Contrary to his claim that effective referral is a “well-established policy,” it was first imposed by the CPSO in Ontario last year in the face of overwhelming opposition, on the basis of deficient, erroneous and seriously misleading briefing materials, and without evidence that even a single person in Ontario had ever been unable to access medical services because of conscientious objection by a physician.⁴ It is the subject of an ongoing constitutional court challenge,⁵ and is not supported by the BC Civil Liberties Association – one of the driving forces behind Carter’s challenge to the law.⁶ None of this seems to concern Mr. Picard.

“Patient need takes precedence over physician discomfort,” he says, “and patient rights trump physician rights.”

However, the CMA’s Dr. Jeff Blackmer told the joint parliamentary committee on assisted dying that this is a false dichotomy. There are enough physicians willing to provide euthanasia or assisted suicide to meet the expected demand, he said, and other jurisdictions do not require “effective referral” by objecting physicians but there is no difficulty with access.⁷

“This should not be a debate between patient access OR the right to conscientious objection by health care professionals,” writes CMA President, Dr. Cindy Forbes. “We can absolutely accomplish both.”⁸

Mr. Picard’s demand that physicians must get over discomfort about killing people at least to the extent that they will contract out the actual killing no doubt reflects his deeply held personal beliefs. However, if the real goal is to ensure access – not ideologically driven ethical cleansing – there is no reason to demand that physicians do what they believe to be wrong. If the real goal is to ensure access to services – not to punish objecting physicians – that goal is best served by connecting patients with physicians willing to help them, and that can be done without demanding “effective referral.”

Notes

1. Picard A. “Patient rights – even in death – must trump a doctor’s discomfort.” Globe and Mail, 1 February, 2016 (Accessed 2016-02-04).

2. Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, para. 132. (Accessed 2016-02-04).

3. Canadian Medical Association, Principles-based Recommendations for a Canadian Approach to Assisted Dying (2016) (Accessed 2016-01-09).

4. Protection of Conscience Project, Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (5 June, 2015) Re: Conscientious Refusal (as revised). Appendix “A”: Ontario College briefing materials .

5. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Between the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada et al and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Notice of Application, 20 March, 2015. Court File 15-63717.

6. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, Report of Proceedings (Hansard), Select Standing Committee on Health. Wednesday, July 15, 2015, Issue No. 17, p. 270 (Accessed 2016-02-02).

7. Special Joint Committee on Physician Assisted Dying, Evidence: Wednesday, January 27, 2016. (Accessed 2016-02-04)

8. Forbes C. “Time for myth-busting on assisted dying.” Canadian Medical Association (4 February, 2016)

A “uniquely Canadian approach” to freedom of conscience

Provincial-Territorial Experts recommend coercion to ensure delivery of euthanasia and assisted suicide

Recommendations designed to broaden and maximize impact of Supreme Court ruling

Sean Murphy*

Abstract

A "uniquely Canadian approach" to freedom of conscience The Experts’ recommendations are intended to extend and maximize the impact of the Carter ruling. They will effectively require all institutions, facilities, associations, organizations and individuals providing either health care or residential living for elderly, handicapped or disabled persons to become enablers of euthanasia and assisted suicide. This will entail suppression or significant restriction of fundamental freedoms.

The broader the criteria for the provision of morally contested procedures, and the more people and groups captured in the Experts’ enablers’ net, the greater the likelihood of conflicts of conscience. Relevant here are recommendations to make euthanasia/assisted suicide available to mentally ill and incompetent persons, and to children and adolescents, even without the knowledge of their parents.

The Experts’ distinction between “faith-based” and “non-faith-based” facilities is meaningless. They impose identical obligations on both. All will be forced to allow homicide and suicide on their premises, or compelled to arrange for euthanasia or assisted suicide elsewhere.
Likewise, they recommend that objecting physicians be forced to actively enable homicide or suicide by providing referrals, arranging direct transfers or enlisting or arranging the enlistment of patients in a euthanasia/assisted suicide delivery system.

The Supreme Court did not rule that people ought to be compelled to become parties to homicide and suicide, but that is what the Experts recommend. This is not a reasonable limitation of fundamental freedoms, but a reprehensible attack on them and a serious violation of human dignity.

Other countries make euthanasia and assisted suicide available without attacking fundamental freedoms. In this respect, the Experts’ claim to have produced “a uniquely Canadian approach to this important issue” is regrettably accurate. They fail to provide any evidence that the suppression of freedom of fundamental freedoms they propose can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.