Category: Countries

Doctors Condemn Massachusetts Suicide Bill

Bill would force every doctor to participate in prescribing lethal medication

The Washington Free Beacon

Bill McMorris

Doctors in Massachusetts are speaking out against a proposal to approve physician-assisted suicide, arguing that its End of Life Options Act could force all doctors to participate in doling out lethal medication and pressure patients into suicide.

On Tuesday, Dr. Tom Sullivan, former president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, led more than 20 physicians into the statehouse to urge lawmakers to oppose a bill that would grant immunity to doctors who help terminal patients kill themselves. . .  the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) overturned its long-standing condemnation of the practice and voted to remain neutral on the legislation.  Sullivan and several other former MMS presidents spoke out against the neutral stance during debate. While they were unsuccessful in swaying the vote, they were able to insert language into the society’s stance, including conscience protections for any doctor who objected to the practice. The current bill includes no such protections . . . [Full text]

Nova Scotia launches toll-free phone line for women considering an abortion

CTV News Atlantic

The Canadian Press

HALIFAX — Women considering an abortion in Nova Scotia will soon be able to call a toll-free number to access information, arrange testing and set up an appointment.

The phone line will eliminate the need for a doctor’s referral to obtain the time-sensitive procedure.

The Nova Scotia Health Authority says the phone line will be staffed by a clerk or nurse from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday to Friday. Outside of those hours, callers can leave a voicemail and receive a follow-up phone call. . . [Full text]

Doctors who morally object to treatments must refer patients elsewhere

CTV News

Paolo Lorrigio, The Canadian Press

Ontario doctors who have a moral or religious objection to treatments such as assisted dying, contraception or abortions must refer patients to another doctor who can provide the service, after a court found it is necessary to guarantee that vulnerable patients can access the care they need.

A group of five doctors and three professional organizations had launched a legal challenge against a policy issued by the province’s medical regulator, arguing it infringed on their right to freedom of religion and conscience under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The group — which includes the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies and Canadian Physicians for Life — said the requirement for a referral amounted to being forced to take part in the treatment. . . [Full Text]

Changes to abortion provision means NHS staff need more legal protection

The Herald

Dr. Mary Neal

FREEDOM of conscience is an important fundamental freedom recognised in international treaties but current protection for conscientious objection by health professionals in UK domestic law is inadequate.

Some professionals have statutory ‘protection’ that is so narrow. This was exposed by the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the Glasgow midwives’ case. The court held that ‘hands off’ involvement in terminations was not covered by the statutory conscience right in the Abortion Act 1967, so that individuals had no right to refuse to enable and support the process in indirect ways. . . [Full Text]

Ontario court rules doctors who oppose assisted death must refer patients

The Globe and Mail

Sean Fine

In the first Canadian test of conscience rights for doctors who oppose assisted death, an Ontario court has upheld regulations requiring the objectors to refer their patients to physicians willing to perform the procedure.

Groups representing 4,700 Christian doctors had challenged Ontario’s regulations requiring the referrals, saying that making such a referral was morally equivalent to participating in an assisted death.

But Ontario’s Divisional Court said the referral rule was a reasonable limit on doctors’ freedom of religion because it protects vulnerable patients from harm. And those patients, it said, have a constitutional right to equitable access to publicly funded health care.

Without the policy of “effective referral,” equitable access would be “compromised or sacrificed, in a variety of circumstances, more often than not involving vulnerable members of our society at the time of requesting services,” Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel wrote in the 3-0 ruling on Wednesday. . . [Full text]