Category: Repression of Conscience

The CCRL Strongly Opposes Parliamentary Committee’s Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia Recommendations

News Release

Catholic Civil Rights League

TORONTO, ON February 25, 2016 – The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) strongly opposes the recommendations of the Report of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, titled “Medical Assistance in Dying:  A Patient-Centred Approach.” The CCRL uses the more accurate terms “assisted suicide” and “euthanasia” since there is nothing medicinal whatsoever in the process of killing a patient or intervening so that a patient may commit suicide more easily.

The majority report is problematic as it brings Canada further along the path of unrestricted assisted suicide and euthanasia, a regime which began with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Carter v. Canada and with it, the overturning of the prohibition against assisted suicide and euthanasia from the Criminal Code. In the twenty-two years since the 1993 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Rodriguez, Parliament not only continued to oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia in six separate votes, but rather passed near unanimous resolutions for a national anti-suicide prevention policy, and for a further national strategy to support increased palliative care throughout Canada.

The Joint Committee’s majority recommends the practically unfettered and immediate implementation of death on demand for Canadians. The CCRL made submissions to previous consultation panels on euthanasia in response to the decision in Carter, but the League was not prepared to collaborate in the legislative process of advocating for a liberal bill as now proposed.  The CCRL remains of the view, based on the experience of other jurisdictions, that “safeguards”, even as minimally expressed by the Joint Committee, are illusory.  The League fears for the elderly, the disabled, and the those with mental health afflictions, that they will be the subject of increased pressure to take their own lives, rather than gain access to treatment, or palliative care.  In every other jurisdiction, the scope of assisted suicide and euthanasia widens, and instances of egregious circumstances of premature death prevail.

Of particular concern to the CCRL is recommendation #11:

That the Government of Canada work with the provinces and territories to ensure that all publicly funded health care institutions provide medical assistance in dying.

Catholic health institutions cannot and will not participate in the intrinsically evil act of assisted suicide/euthanasia. The Liberals, as professed guarantors of the Charter, cannot in good conscience merely deny the religious and conscientious rights of such institutions. Is the government’s enthusiasm for such a proposal intended to bring about the demise of the Catholic health system?

Recommendation #10 is wholly unacceptable:

That the Government of Canada work with the provinces and territories and their medical regulatory bodies to establish a process that respects a health care practitioner’s freedom of conscience while at the same time respecting the needs of a patient who seeks medical assistance in dying. At a minimum, the objecting practitioner must provide an effective referral for the patient.

As the CCRL has stated many times, the compulsion to make an “effective referral” is an infringement of the Charter right of freedom of conscience and religion.  Compelling an objecting physician to provide an effective referral to another physician, health-care provider, or third party agency in order to carry out assisted death or euthanasia, involves that physician in the objectionable procedure.  The Parliamentary Committee has ignored numerous presentations and submissions opposing any compulsion to force a physician to violate his or her own conscience by being a participant in the very act, the very procedure to which he or she objects in the first place.

We urge members of the media and others who care for the future of Canada to have reference to the dissenting report of four Conservative MPs who have taken issue with the majority recommendations of the Joint Committee.

Canada is entering fully into the culture of death.

The CCRL asks all of our supporters to join us in rejecting this report and we plead with all Canadians, and indeed all Catholics to wake up and join us in this fight, spiritually through prayer, and politically by using our collective voice. Let us announce that we will not accept this.

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.

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

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 compelledCanadian 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.

Contact:

Sean Murphy, Administrator (protection@consciencelaws.org)

 

Archbishop alarmed at erosion of respect for life

Report fails to reflect witnesses’ call for palliative care, conscience rights

News Release

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver

VANCOUVER (Feb. 25, 2016) – The leader of the Catholic community in the Lower Mainland called the joint Senate-Commons committee report on assisted-suicide “deeply disappointing.”

Archbishop J. Michael Miller said “Canadians, especially those dying or suffering from illness, deserve better. It’s alarming how easily suicide is being offered and respect for life eroded.”

Miller pointed out a serious omission in the report. “Where is the plan for protecting the Charter rights of Canadians who don’t want to participate in causing patients to die?” he asked. “Many health-care workers believe strongly in saving lives and ending suffering—but not in ending lives. Canadians from many ethical traditions just won’t be able to go along with this. Where is there room for them in medical care? No one can ethically be forced to take part in causing their patient to die. New laws need to ensure their Charter rights are protected as well.”

The Archbishop said he was troubled that the committee disregarded the testimony of so many witnesses who had called for conscience protection for health-care workers and institutions.

The report also fails to make palliative care the high priority many witnesses called for. “Unfortunately the report treats palliative care almost as an afterthought. It’s dismaying that a committee would propose assisted suicide as a ‘choice’ to people who are suffering. Without a real, effective, alternative, what kind of free choice is that?”

He said the committee appeared to have made its preference for assisted suicide clear from the start by choosing the euphemism “medical assistance in dying.” “Doctors have always assisted people who are dying,” he said. “What we are talking about here is medically causing the patient to die.”

He urged Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to reject the report, to acknowledge the numerous sincere objections in the dissenting portion of the report, and to draft legislation taking into account the testimony of the many witnesses who brought forward concerns about implementing assisted suicide in Canada.

-30-

Paul Schratz Communications Director
communications@rcav.org
604-683-0281

Journalist: shut down Catholic health care facilities that refuse euthanasia, assisted suicide

Sean Murphy*

Doctor Examining an Elderly PatientFollowing a strong statement from the Catholic Bishops of Alberta that Catholic health care facilities will not provide euthanasia or assisted suicide, a columnist at the Edmonton Journal has accused them of defying the Supreme Court of Canada, breaking the law, and denying patients their “legal rights”.

Paula Simons wants to deny public funding to Catholic hospitals, hospices and nursing homes that refuse to allow patients to be killed or helped to commit suicide, which would force them to close, or (more  likely) to be seized by the state through expropriation or other means.

Simons’ column was published the day after statements issued by Covenant Health and Alberta’s Catholic bishops affirmed the traditional opposition of the Catholic Church to euthanasia and assisted suicide, despite the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that ordered legalization of the procedures.

Covenant Health’s Dr. Gordon Self emphasized that the organization was confident that it would “find a way to respond respectfully and compassionately to requests for physician assisted death that does not abandon the person in our care nor compromise the values of care providers or our organization.”

Throughout this process we are committed to upholding the right of both personal and institutional conscience. This will be important for all organizations as they grapple with the same issues of safe and timely co-ordination of care between institutions without abandoning the person in care when their own medical staff conscientiously object. Together we can all learn at this time and benefit from mutual dialogue and thoughtful, ethical reflection.

Alberta’s six Catholic bishops noted that “from a Catholic perspective, the intentional, wilful act of killing oneself or another human being is morally wrong,” so that “no Catholic may advocate for, or participate in any way, whether by act or omission, in the intentional killing of another human being either by assisted suicide or euthanasia.”

The following passage is taken from the bishops’ full statement:

Upholding Conscience Rights

Third, other provincial jurisdictions in Canada have proposed regulations that undermine the conscience rights of physicians and other healthcare workers. This must not be allowed to happen here. Physicians, other medical professionals, and our institutions have to be allowed the freedom that is theirs by right to exercise their conscience, not only to accord with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also as a matter of good medical practice. Morally wrong in itself, the attempt to force a physician to assist in a suicide or to kill another by euthanasia would also fundamentally redefine what it means to be a doctor. Killing is not medicine. Likewise, from an ethical perspective, and certainly from that of Catholic moral teaching, a physician who conscientiously objects to these practices must not be coerced into referring a patient to another professional for assisted suicide or to be euthanized. This would, in fact, be complicity and thus a violation of the person’s right to freedom of conscience. Furthermore, medical professionals who refuse for reasons of conscience direct or indirect participation must also be protected from intimidation and discrimination.

Patient rights and the rights of family members must also be respected – that is, their civil right to access medical care for themselves and their loved ones in which there is no pressure to request or to submit to assisted suicide or euthanasia, and indeed their natural right to be served by doctors and institutions that practice only medicine and are not involved in state-sponsored killing. This is essential to maintaining the relationship of trust between patients and doctors or other care-givers. A great many citizens still intend that their doctors, and the institutions to which they entrust themselves at need, be committed to the Hippocratic oath. They must not be deprived of access to such just because there are other citizens who desire assistance in committing suicide. If they are so deprived, this will have far-reaching consequences, disrupting the relationship of trust with the state as well as with the medical community.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada makes legally permissible in some circumstances what is morally wrong in every circumstance: the taking of innocent human life. This is unacceptable in a truly just and ethical society.

Most Reverend Richard W. Smith
Archbishop of Edmonton

Most Reverend Frederick Henry
Bishop of Calgary

Most Reverend Gregory J. Bittman
Auxiliary Bishop of Edmonton

Most Reverend Daniel Motiuk
Bishop of the Ukrainian Eparchy of Edmonton

Most Reverend Girard Pettipas,CSsR
Archbishop of Grouard-McLennon

Most Reverend Paul Terrio,
Bishop of St. Paul

Sweden has it all – except freedom of conscience

A court has ruled that abortion rights leave no room for a midwife to be exempted.

Mercatornet

Carolyn Moynihan*

Because of its welfare state and gender equity policies Sweden has become a beacon of progressiveness in everything that affects women. But there is one kind of woman the Scandinavian state seems to have no time for: a health professional who objects to abortion.

Two years ago Ellinor Grimmark completed a midwifery internship at Hoglandssjukhuset women’s clinic in southern Sweden, but because she told the management that she had a conscientious objection to performing abortions, she was denied further employment there.

A voicemail message from the head of the maternity ward informed her that she was “no longer welcome to work with them”, and she was challenged about “whether a person with such views actually can become a midwife.” Her student funding was also cancelled.

Mrs Grimmark was subsequently turned down for employment at another clinic, where she was told that a “person who refuses to perform abortions does not belong at a women’s clinic”.

Finally she was offered a job at the Varnamo Hospital women’s clinic. But by then she had filed a civil rights complaint against the Hoglandssjukhuset clinic with the local Equality Ombudsman, and when the media got wind of it Varnamo withdrew its offer.

These days Mrs Grimmark practices her profession in Norway, where her conscience rights are respected, but her case is by no means closed.

The Ombudsman’s ruling held that she was not being discriminated against for her pro-life views but for not being available to fulfil the job description, thus threatening the “availability of abortion care” and the “protection of health” of patients requiring an abortion in Sweden.

Represented by the organisation Scandinavian Human Rights Lawyers, she then took her case against the county where the Hoglandssjukhuset clinic is located to the Jonkoping District Court, at the same time seeking compensation for damages and discrimination – a total of 140,000 Swedish kronas (around $20,000 USD).

Last week that court acknowledged that Mrs Grimmark’s rights had been infringed, but it still ruled against her, saying that maternity centres have the right to define job descriptions and a “duty to ensure that women have effective access to abortion.” The court also ruled that she is liable to pay for the other party’s legal costs, which will amount to more than USD $109,000.

The US-based Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mrs Grimmark, regards this order as calculated to scare others who might follow her example. Her wages as a midwife are unlikely to measure up to such punishing costs. Her husband has launched an appeal for funds on Facebook.

Strong grounds for appeal

There are, however, solid grounds for an appeal, as her senior counsel, Ruth Nordstrom, has indicated. She said it was disappointing that the lower court had “decided not to examine the right of freedom of conscience according to international law and the European Convention on human rights, at all.”

The fact is that freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right protected by the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), signed by Sweden in 1993. Article 9 (2) states:

“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and, in a democratic society, are necessary with regard to the general public safety or the protection of public order, health or morals or for the protection of other rights and freedoms.”

Is Sweden’s democracy and public health so fragile that it cannot stand the odd health worker being exempted from the grisly business of killing unborn babies?

It’s true that the country seems to have a pressing need for abortion – one in every two women who get pregnant during their lifetime has a termination. This gives Sweden the highest rate in Scandinavia and one of the highest rates in the world – especially among teenagers, who are schooled in birth control rather than abstinence.

Perhaps it is Sweden’s famously liberal sexual culture that makes it so defensive of abortion rights. Writing in National Review in May, Jacob Rudolfsson of the Swedish Evangelical Alliance noted:

* The Swedish Association of Health Professionals has offered no support for Ellinor Grimmark, since it is committed to abortion.

* “Only one hospital has offered her ‘assistance’, and it was for a counsellor to help her ‘overcome her aversion to abortion’ …”

* One local health administrator has declared that he “would gladly stand in the front with a baseball bat to prevent” conscientious objectors working in his hospital.

* Mona Sahlin, the national coordinator against violent extremism, has declared that “one who refuses to participate in abortions is an extreme religious practitioner,” one who is simply “on a different level from the Islamic State”.

Did you get that? A pro-life Swede is just a few notches down from jihadi terrorists, on the same scale.

And yet, says Rudolfsson, when the current Abortion Act was drafted in 1974, assurances were given that medical workers would, for ethical or religious reasons, be able to opt out of participating in abortions. “Forty years later, the consensus has changed.”

‘Consensus’ may carry the day, but whose consensus?

But this freedom-stifling “consensus” actually puts Sweden out of step with a 2010 resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that states:

“No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which would cause the death of a human fetus or embryo, for any reason.”

Clear enough, surely, but Sweden has wriggled around resolution 1763 by arguing that it is “soft law” and that it interferes with its own laws guaranteeing abortion within certain limits. At the same time it argues that a midwife’s participation in abortion is required by the (older) ECHR provision that “the interests and rights of individuals seeking legal medical services are respected, protected and fulfilled.”

Legal battles have also been waged in Scotland, Poland, Croatia and Norway, but according to ADF, even last week’s Swedish court acknowledged that the majority of European states allow for rights of conscience for doctors and nurses.

And according to Swedish legal scholar Reinhold Fahlbeck, the stronger the European consensus, the less wriggle room there is for Sweden — or other holdout states.

That consensus just got stronger with a ruling from Poland’s highest court, the Constitutional Tribunal, last month recognising the rights of all medical staff to not perform abortions, based on their conscience. It further ruled that neither would they be required to refer women seeking abortions to physicians who would perform them.

ADF notes that the Polish ruling “significantly raises the stakes in Ellinor’s case, as a victory could define conscience rights for all European medical workers.”

It would also allow some fresh air to blow through the stifling conformity of Sweden’s sexual culture which depends so heavily – and thoughtlessly, it seems – on extinguishing human life. Even for women’s equality, this is too high a price.

Sweden has it all - except freedom of conscienceThis article is published by Carolyn Moynihan and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact Mercatornet for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.