Category: Protection of Conscience Project

Rights Commission threat “blasphemy against the human spirit”

College of Physicians secrecy said unacceptable

News Release

For Immediate Release

Protection of Conscience Project

“Blasphemy against the human spirit.” That is how the Protection of Conscience Project describes a threat by Ontario’s Human Rights Commission to punish doctors who refuse to do what they believe to be wrong. The rebuke is found in a submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Citing writers and philosophers in the democratic tradition, as well as the landmark Morgentaler decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Project argues that to force doctors to act against their conscientious convictions is “to deprive them of their essential humanity.” It calls the proposed policy “profoundly offensive and demeaning.”

“To abandon one’s moral or ethical convictions in order to serve others is prostitution,” states the submission, “not professionalism.”

The brief denies that doctors who refuse to do what they believe is wrong are violating the Human Rights Code. It explains that they are concerned about “complicity in wrongdoing,” not race, sex or other patient characteristics.

The Project submission addresses the College draft policy, Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code. Deadline for comment on the policy was extended to 12 September following protests when news of it became public.

The President of the College told the National Post that the draft has been revised, but refuses to make it public. Project Administrator Sean Murphy finds College secrecy unacceptable.

“At least two substantial briefs reached the College only on Friday,” he said. “The National Post story appeared Saturday. It seems very unlikely that College officials could have considered either submission before revising the draft. This brings into question the validity of the consultation process.”

“But the more important issue,” he said, “is that decision-making that impacts fundamental freedoms should be conducted transparently, not secretly. Why keep the revised draft secret? Is there something to hide?”

-30-

Related Links:

Project Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Re: Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code

(11 September, 2008)

Freedom of conscience and religion not a defence

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

Protection of Conscience Project

Ontario physicians are being advised that they are expected to give up freedom of conscience if they wish to practise medicine in the province. The expectation is set out in “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code,” a draft policy document from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The document responds to legislative changes, which, according to the Chair of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, will see a twenty-fold increase in hearings before the Tribunal – from 150 to 3,000 cases per year.

According to the College, the Tribunal may take action against a physician who refuses to provide or refer for procedures that he finds morally objectionable. The College strongly suggests that the physician’s freedom of conscience and religion will be ignored because “there is no defence for refusing to provide a service” in such circumstances.

In addition to the possibility of prosecution by the Human Rights Tribunal, the College states that it will consider the Human Rights Code in adjudicating complaints of professional misconduct, even though the College admits that it lacks the expertise and authority in human rights.

The College also plans to force objecting physicians to actively assist patients to obtain morally controversial services. A similar demand – that objectors be forced to refer patients for abortion – generated fierce opposition when it appeared in a 2006 guest editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The College posted the draft policy for consultation near the end of June, with a response deadline of 15 August. The Project, noting that there was no news release about the draft and that “the mid-summer timing of the consultation is less than satisfactory,” has asked the College to extend the deadline by 90 days.

“Commentators like Rex Murphy, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have condemned Canadian human rights commissions for suppressing freedom of expression,” noted Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. “Perhaps we should not be surprised to see them now being used to suppress freedom of conscience and religion among medical professionals.”

Related Links:

Project Letter to the Western Standard

14 May, 2004

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Should doctors be forced to abandon their faith?  by Terry O’Neill  draws attention to the problem of freedom of conscience in health care.

A bit of history is instructive. The first protection of conscience clause debated in the House of Commons was introduced by M.P. Robert McCleave as an amendment to the Omnibus Bill that legalized abortion in Canada in 1969. Mr. McCleave believed that abortion should be  legalized, but also believed that ‘freedom of choice’ should be extended to health care workers.

Compare Mr. McCleave’s notion of ‘choice’ with that espoused by Joyce  Arthur. Speaking for the “Pro-choice Action Network,” she refuses to  respect the choices of health care professionals who do not wish to participate morally controversial procedures. She seems to believe that freedom of conscience is a problem to be solved by abolishing it, at least  in the case of those who don’t agree with her. Arthur’s position is doubly ironic, since Henry Morgantaler justified his defiance of Canadian abortion law in a 1970 article titled, A Physician and His Moral Conscience.1

Referral is not a satisfactory solution for many physicians who have grave moral objections to a procedure. Objecting physicians hold  themselves morally culpable if they facilitate an abortion by referring a  patient for that purpose. Nor is this an unusual view. Consider the controversy in Canada over the deportation and torture of Maher Arar. This suggests that few believe that one can avoid moral responsibility for a wrongful act by arranging for it to be done by someone else.

Certainly, Joyce Arthur does not consider abortion to be a wrongful act. However, she has not explained why others should be forced to abide by her moral views.

Unfortunately, between the writer’s desk and publication, a couple of factual errors were introduced into the story.

In the first place, the Project followed the case from the outset, and the student was provided with the same kind of service extended to others in similar situations. His relationship with the Project has been cordial,  but it is incorrect to describe me as “a friend of the would-be doctor.” We have never met.

More important, the final paragraph attributes to me statements that I did not make. While I am, nonetheless, in agreement with a number of the points made, I did not suggest that a devout Muslim doctor might refuse to  treat women, nor make any statement to a similar effect.

It would be most unfortunate if this falsely attributed statement were  to contribute to the already adverse social pressures experienced by Muslims in North America. Muslim health care workers and students are welcome to contact the Protection of Conscience Project. One of the  Project advisors is Dr. Shahid Athar, a regent and former vice-president of the Islamic Medical Association of North America and the Chair of its       Medical Ethics Committee

Notes

1. The article appeared anonymously in The Humanist. Quoted in Pelrine, Eleanor wright, Morgantaler: The Doctor Who Couldn’t Turn Away. Canada: Gage Publishing, 1975, P. 79

Project Letter to The Daily News

Nova Scotia, Canada
27 December, 2002

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

This response to your article Bacon, eggs and peace of mind: Pharmacists, Planned Parenthood push for prescription-free morning-after pill (17 November, 2002) has been delayed by the need to consult the Nova Scotia College of Pharmacists.

With respect to the ‘morning-after-pill’, your article attributed the following quote to Kelly Grover of Planned Parenthood: “Nobody is forcing pharmacists to prescribe this. There is a code of ethics that requires them to refer patients.”

In fact, the College’s Code of Ethics does not require referral. A pharmacist who objects to providing a drug for reasons of conscience is to advise an employer of that fact when being hired. It then becomes the obligation of the employer, not the pharmacist, to find an alternative means to deliver the drug.

The disclosure requirement in the Code of Ethics is intended to ensure that the freedom of conscience of pharmacists is fully respected, without preventing patients from getting drugs or services that they want.  Unscrupulous employers could misuse the disclosure requirement by using it to identify conscientious objectors and deny them employment. One hopes that the College will defend pharmacists against this form of discrimination, as it would be a pity to see Nova Scotians forced to leave home to seek employment in more tolerant environments.