Category: Countries

Silencing the Voices of the Faithful in Health Care

 Without People of Faith in Medicine, Who Will Defend the Vulnerable?

Denise Hunnell, MD

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 23, 2015 (Zenit.org) – Religious liberty provides for the free exercise of one’s faith in every aspect of life. This freedom is far more extensive than merely having the freedom to attend the worship service of choice.  Truly living one’s faith means that family life, professional life, leisure activities, as well as spiritual practices are guided by the tenets of faith. . . .

Every profession is vulnerable to this religious discrimination, but perhaps none more so than the medical profession. Health care workers are intimately involved with matters of life and death on a daily basis. Catholic teaching, in accord with natural law, professes that all human life has intrinsic dignity from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death and faithful Catholics seek to uphold this dignity in every aspect of their lives, including their professional activities. Catholic health care workers are increasingly challenged by a secular health care system that offers little or no protection for the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly, and has little regard for religious principles.[Full text]

 

Why I support some religious exemptions (though I myself am not religious)

Washington Post

Eugene Volokh

Should the law sometimes exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws? And, if so, should it be done (1) only on a statute-by-statute basis — where the legislature decides, when it passes or revises a statute, whether there ought to be an exemption from that statute — (2) through a broad exemption law, which calls on courts to decide when to carve out religious exemptions from a statute and when not to, or (3) as a matter of constitutional command, interpreting the Free Exercise Clause as presumptively (but not categorically) mandating religious exemptions?

I’m inclined to conclude that the best solution is a mix of (1) and (2) — legislatures create exemptions when they think of them, but also authorize courts to do the same — but generally without the constitutional model (3). I discuss this in much more detail in my “A Common Law Model for Religious Exemptions” article, but here I just want to focus on part of that: why I think religious exemptions are often a good idea, even though I myself am not religious. . . .[Full text]

 

Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Re: Professional Obligations and Human Rights

Christian Medical and Dental Society

I am generally able to agree with the draft policy Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code. Physicians should not discriminate against their patients nor should physicians impose their religious beliefs on a patient. Patients should be adequately informed of their options for care. The majority of the policy outlines this nicely.

Despite the first part of the policy reading well, I do not believe this is a policy that should be adopted. Lines 156-168 are very concerning. All Canadians, under The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, have the right to live according to their religious and moral beliefs. Stating that a physician must refer a patient for a service that goes against his or her conscience disqualifies that right. It reduces his/her personal sense of integrity and creates internal conflict that may force very compassionate and effective physicians out of practice. It would not affect the right of the patient to receive care since a procedure such as abortion can be self-referred and, if a patient disagrees with a physician’s perspective, they are able to obtain a second opinion.

Presently, the Supreme Court of Canada is considering a case that may lead to the legalization of euthanasia in Canada. Should this happen, the draft policy could obligate physicians, who strongly feel that killing is wrong, to participate in an act of killing, i.e. euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. This is very concerning.

This past spring and summer the College conducted an online survey with the question “Do you think a physician should be allowed to refuse to provide a patient with a treatment or procedure because it conflicts with the physician’s religious or moral beliefs?”. Yes votes amounted to 25,230 or 77% of the total count. This is a large majority in favour of physicians being able to practice according to their consciences. This is a very large sample of the population (32,912) that voted. I am amazed, then, that the College should disregard this viewpoint as lines 156-168 of the draft policy indicate.

I sincerely hope that you will reconsider adoption of this policy. Revision of lines 156-168 to omit the obligation to refer for or, in certain cases, perform procedures that go against their moral or religious beliefs should be made. Anything less than that would go against The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, against the popular vote in Ontario and certainly against the well-being of many Ontario doctors.

Euthanasia clinic criticised for helping woman with severe tinnitus to die

DutchNews.nl

A special clinic in The Hague, set up to help people whose doctors do not support euthanasia, has been reprimanded for helping a 47-year-old woman with chronic tinnitus to die, broadcaster Nos says on Monday.

The independent commission charged with monitoring how Dutch euthanasia rules are applied recognises that extreme tinnitus could be a reason for mercy killing but said Gaby Olthuis should have undergone further psychiatric research. . . [Full Text]

 

Inside Canada’s secret world of medical error: ‘There is a lot of lying, there’s a lot of cover-up

National Post

Tom Blackwell

As Helen Church woke up one morning just before Christmas 2012, the pain that had been building for weeks behind her right eye reached an excruciating climax.

Screaming in agony, she ran around her east-end Toronto apartment before finally managing to call 911 and passing out.

For the second time in short succession, she had fallen victim to health care gone badly awry.

Just two years earlier, Ms. Church went to a nearby hospital to have an ovary removed as treatment for a painful cyst. She left hours later with the ovary still in place – and a piece of mesh embedded in her abdomen to repair a non-existent hernia.

Then, months later, a specialist replaced an artificial, cataract-correcting lens that he said had started to wear. The result: That eye was now blind and growing increasingly painful.

The ophthalmologist, another specialist told her later, had implanted the lens in the wrong position, obscuring her sight and puncturing a duct, causing a slow bleed and massive pressure.

“There was so much blood in there, it blew the eyeball out of my head. It was hanging on my cheek,” said Ms. Church, a razor-sharp 83-year-old. “The blood was just dripping everywhere … I was hysterical, the pain was so bad.” . . . [Full Text]