Protection of Conscience Project supports Ontario Medical Association appeal

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project has written to the Canadian Senate’s Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in support the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), a professional association representing over 31,000 practising Ontario physicians. The OMA has asked the committee to add a protection of conscience amendment to Bill C-7, a euthanasia/assisted suicide bill now before the Canadian Senate.

The current and previous Liberal governments have repeatedly rejected efforts to include such protection for health care practitioners in relation to what the law calls medical assistance in dying (MAiD). A favoured (and correct) response from the government and its supporters is that protection of conscience legislation falls within provincial jurisdiction, so it is not possible to include it in the Criminal Code.

However, that is not the end of the matter.

“Bill C-7 is an exercise of the federal government’s absolute constitutional jurisdiction in criminal law because medical assistance in dying is (non-culpable) homicide and assisted suicide,” wrote the Project Administrator.

“Within that context, Bill C-7 can be amended to protect freedom of conscience without intruding upon provincial jurisdiction. Just as female genital mutilation has been made a crime, Bill C-7 can be amended to make it a criminal offence to force people to become parties to homicide and suicide.”

With the letter was the Project’s submission on this point to a House of Commons standing committee in the fall of 2020.

Contact: Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
email: protection@consciencelaws.org

Ontario Medical Association asks for protection of conscience amendment to euthanasia/assisted suicide bill

Sean Murphy*

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA), representing over 31,000 Ontario physicians, has asked that protection of conscience provisions be included in a euthanasia/assisted suicide bill now before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in Canada. The request is contained in a letter to the Chair of the committee.

Bill C-7 is the government’s proposed amendment to the current Criminal Code provisions concerning “medical assistance in dying” (euthanasia and assisted suicide provided by physicians and nurse practitioners. The current law was enacted as a result of a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that an absolute ban on euthanasia and assisted suicide was unconstitutional. Bill C-7 is the government’s response to a ruling by the Quebec Court of Appeal that it is unconstitutional to restrict euthanasia and assisted suicide to those at the end of life or whose death is “reasonably foreseeable.”

Bill C-7 formally repeals the requirement that natural death be “reasonably foreseeable,” vastly increasing the pool of potential euthanasia/assisted suicide candidates, particularly among disabled persons. It abolishes a ten day reflection period for those whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable and reduces the number of independent witnesses to a patient request from two to one. It will also permit the lethal injection of an approved candidate who has lost capacity if the candidate provides advance written authorization before losing capacity. While the bill explicitly excludes mental illness as grounds for the service and establishes different criteria for patients whose natural deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, the proposed amendments have reinforced concerns among practitioners who have objected to euthanasia and assisted suicide from the beginning. It seems reasonable to think that the proposals may also be causing uneasiness among practitioners who are not opposed to the services in principle.

Ontario Medical Association asks for protection of conscience amendment to euthanasia/assisted suicide bill
Download copy.

Why Covid dissidents need to be understood, not demonised

Unthinkable: Lack of access to democratic processes can fuel distrust, says Dr Katherine Furman

The Irish Times

Joe Humphreys

Coronavirus conspiracy theories may have started out as a joke, but they now threaten to derail the global fight against the pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy is identified by the World Health Organisation as one of the top 10 threats to public health, and resistance to the new Covid-19 jabs risks undermining the efficacy of Europe’s vaccination rollout plan.

UK scientific advisers last month voiced concern at data showing 72 per cent of black people saying they were unlikely to have the jab. Historical issues of unethical healthcare research and institutional racism were cited as key reasons for lower levels of trust, an expert report found. Other research shows conspiracy theories tend to flourish in communities that have traditionally felt the brunt of economic hardship and political neglect.

For this reason, argues Dr Katherine Furman, we need to understand Covid policy dissidents and vaccine refuseniks rather than demonise them. Furman, a philosopher and public policy researcher based at the University of Liverpool, is one of the speakers at a conference in Dublin next week on how a democracy should deal with conscientious objectors. In advance, she sets out her stall for the Irish Times Unthinkable philosophy column.

[Questions addressed in the column]

  • How does one distinguish between a conscientious objector and a mere law-breaker?
  • To what extent can a liberal democracy allow for conscientious objectors to public health measures?
  • What is an appropriate punishment for people who – in the form of political protest – break Covid rules on mask-wearing or breach lockdown restrictions?
  • The conscientious objectors we tend to respect from history are those devoid of self-pity – those, like the pacifist philosopher Bertrand Russell, who preferred to go to prison rather than cross a moral red line. Is punishment something conscientious objectors should stoically accept as the price for living in a state that decides its laws democratically?

[Full Text]

Australia to vote on ‘three-person baby’ IVF

Australia is set to have the first conscience vote since the same sex marriage debate to decide whether to allow “three-person baby” IVF.

news.com.au

Samantha Maiden

Australia is set to have the the first conscience vote since the same sex marriage debate on allowing “three-person baby” IVF to enable healthy babies to be born to women carrying deadly mitochondrial disease.

The reforms, which have already been approved in the UK, follow what was described as the world’s most comprehensive global scientific and ethical review of the treatment over a 10-year period.

At least 60 Australian babies born each year suffer with severe and life-threatening forms of mitochondrial disease that could be prevented by using the mother’s and father’s nuclear DNA and replacing the mother’s defective mitochondrial DNA with healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg. . . [Full Text]

Portuguese Parliament approves euthanasia

The Siasat Daily

IANS

Lisbon, Jan 30 : The Portuguese Parliament has approved the legalisation of euthanasia “practiced or helped by health professionals” in the country with 136 votes of deputies in favour and 78 against, in addition to four abstentions.

According to the bill approved on Friday, a person aged over 18 can be medically assisted in death “whose will is current and reiterated, serious, free and enlightened, in a situation of intolerable suffering, with a definite injury of extreme severity in accordance with scientific consensus or incurable and fatal disease”, reports Xinhua news agency. . . [Full text]