Category: Protection of Conscience Project

Access – or ethical cleansing?

Sean Murphy*

Despite a warning from the Ontario Medical Association that the quality of health care will suffer if people who refuse compromise their moral or ethical beliefs are driven from medical practice,1 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario plans to introduce a policy this year that will have that effect.2 The College is concerned that too many Ontario doctors are refusing to do what they believe to be wrong.

Ontario physicians may have more to say about this, since no other profession imposes an obligation to do what one believes to be wrong as a condition of membership. Indeed, it is extremely improbable that such a requirement can be found in the constitution of any occupational or community organization in this country – or any country.

On a more practical note, if the Supreme Court of Canada decides to legalize euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, the policies on human rights and end of life care that the College plans to enact this year will require physicians to kill patients or help them commit suicide, or direct them to someone who will: in the words of the draft policy, to make “an effective referral . . . to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician or other health-care provider.”3

An undetermined number of physicians who don’t want to kill patients or assist with suicide themselves may, in fact, be willing to do this. But many physicians will not be willing to provide “an effective referral” because, in their view, to do that is morally equivalent to doing the killing themselves. In the words of the President of Quebec’s Collège des médecins, “[I]f you have a conscientious objection and it is you who must undertake to find someone who will do it, at this time, your conscientious objection is [nullified]. It is as if you did it anyway.”4

Physicians who think like this are the targets of the policy developed by Dr. Marc Gabel and his working group at the Ontario College of Physicians. Physicians who think like this, according to Dr. Gabel, should not be in family practice. He was not, of course, talking about euthanasia or assisted suicide. He was talking about abortion.

But the issue is exactly the same. Any number of physicians may agree to referral for abortion because they believe that referral relieves them of a moral burden or of a task they find disturbing or distasteful. However, for others, as Holly Fernandez-Lynch has observed, referral imposes “the serious moral burdens of complicity.”5 They refuse to refer for abortion because they do not wish to be morally complicit in killing a child, even if (to use the terminology of the criminal law) it is, legally speaking, “a child that has not become a human being.”6

Just as some physicians believe it is wrong to facilitate killing before birth by referring patients for abortion, they and other physicians believe it is wrong to facilitate killing after birth by referring patients for euthanasia or assisted suicide. Activists like Professors Jocelyn Downie and Daniel Weinstock disagree.

Both are members of the “Conscience Research Group.”7 The Group intends to entrench in medical practice a duty to refer for or otherwise facilitate contraception, abortion and other “reproductive health” services. Both were members of an “expert panel” that recommended that health care professionals who object to killing patients should be compelled to refer patients to someone who would,8 because (they claimed) it is agreed that they can be compelled to refer for “reproductive health services.”9

From the perspective of many objecting physicians, this amounts to imposing a duty to do what they believe to be wrong. But that is just what the Conscience Research Group asserts: that the state or a profession can impose upon physicians a duty to do what they believe to be wrong – even if it is killing someone – even if they believe it to be murder. And Dr. Gabel and his working group agree.

To make that claim is extraordinary, and extraordinarily dangerous. For if the state or a profession can require me to kill someone else – even if I am convinced that doing so is murder – what can it not require?

If the College’s real goal is to ensure access to services – not to punish objecting physicians – that goal is best served by connecting patients with physicians willing to help them. If the real goal is to ensure access – not ethical cleansing – there is no reason to demand that physicians do what they believe to be wrong.

[PDF Text]

Notes

1. Letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario from the Ontario Medical Association Section on General and Family Practice Re: Human Rights Code Policy, 6 August, 2014. (Accessed 2018-03-07)

2. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, “Professional Obligations and Human Rights (Draft)” (Accessed 2018-03-07)

3.  College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, “Professional Obligations and Human Rights (Draft),” lines 156-160. (Accessed 2018-03-07)

4. “Parce que, si on a une objection de conscience puis c’est nous qui doive faire la démarche pour trouver la personne qui va le faire, à ce moment-là , notre objection de conscience ne s’applique plus. C’est comme si on le faisait quand meme.” Consultations & hearings on Quebec Bill 52. Tuesday 17 September 2013 – Vol. 43 no. 34. Collège des médecins du Québec: Dr. Charles Bernard, Dr. Yves Robert, Dr. Michelle Marchand, T#154

5.  Fernandez-Lynch, Holly, Conflicts of Conscience in Health Care: An Institutional Compromise. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2008, p. 229.

6.  Criminal Code, Section 238(1). (Accessed 2018-03-07).

7.  Let their conscience be their guide? Conscientious refusals in reproductive health care. (Accessed 2018-03-07)

8.  Schuklenk U, van Delden J.J.M, Downie J, McLean S, Upshur R, Weinstock D. Report of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making (November, 2011) p. 101 (Accessed 2018-03-07)

9.  Schuklenk U, van Delden J.J.M, Downie J, McLean S, Upshur R, Weinstock D. Report of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making (November, 2011) p. 62 (Accessed 2018-03-07)

Ethical Cleansing in Ontario

 Sean Murphy*

An Ontario College of Physicians official, Dr. Marc Gabel, says that physicians unwilling to provide or facilitate abortion for reasons of conscience should not be family physicians.1 The working group Dr. Gabel chairs wants the College to approve this policy.2 If it does, ethical cleansing of Ontario’s medical profession will begin this year, ridding it of practitioners unwilling to do what they believe to be wrong. Dr. Gabel claims that this is required by professional practice and human rights legislation.

It is not clear that the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) will agree. After all, it requires some effort to maintain that physicians are ethically or morally obligated to do what they believe to be unethical or immoral. Moreover, last August, the OMA’s General and Family Practice Section warned Dr. Gabel’s working group that the quality of medical care would suffer if only students willing to sacrifice their personal integrity were accepted in medical school. Moreover, “What about remote areas of practice?” the Section asked. “Will more prescriptive policies drive physicians to feel that they will have no choice but to practice in more urban settings?”3

In other words, is it really better that a pregnant woman in Gravel Roads Only should have no local obstetrical care rather than the help of a rural physician unwilling to recommend or refer for abortion?

The concern expressed by the OMA is understandable, but actually beside the point. In truth, concern about access to services is not really what is behind the drive for ethical cleansing. That was made abundantly clear in Ottawa last year, after it was learned that an Ottawa physician was refusing to prescribe or refer for contraceptives. The story hit the front page of the Ottawa Citizen.

The Citizen did not report the mere facts: that a young woman had to drive around the block to get The Pill. That might have been dismissed as a first world problem. No: the Citizen had more ominous news. It had discovered, lurking in the nation’s capital, not just one, but three physicians who would not prescribe or refer for contraceptives or abortion.4 There was pandemonium. An activist group began preaching a crusade against the dissenters, a vitriolic feeding frenzy erupted on Facebook,5 vehement denunciations appeared elsewhere6 and the story became the subject of a province-wide CBC broadcast.7

One of the Facebookers helpfully suggested that the objecting physicians should move elsewhere, “maybe Dubai,” where they could be among their “own kind,”8 while others raged that they had “no business practicing family medicine”9 and “[did] not deserve to practice in Canada. PERIOD.”10

To find such comments on Facebook is not surprising. But it is surprising – and regrettable – that the comments offered by Dr. Gabel reflect the same attitude.

Now, there are about 4,000 physicians practising in the Ottawa area,11 and contraceptives and abortion referrals are so widely available in the city that the Medical Officer of Health says that it is cause for celebration.12 Thus, the wildly disproportionate reaction to news that 0.08% of Ottawa area physicians do not prescribe or refer for contraceptives cannot be explained as a rational response to a problem of supply and demand.

The crusade against the three physicians, now expanded by Dr. Gabel and his working group to a crusade for the ethical cleansing of the entire medical profession, is not driven by merely practical concerns about access to services. It is driven by an a markedly intolerant ideology masquerading as enlightened objectivity.

That is why the OMA’s concern that objecting physicians might be restricted to practising in urban centres is understandable, but misplaced. Ontario physicians must come to grips with the fact that, once ethical cleansing gets underway, dissenting physicians will have no refuge in big cities, even if it takes the crusaders longer to find them there.

Nor, if assisted suicide and euthanasia are legalized, will there be refuge for physicians who don’t want to participate in killing patients. The College’s draft policy on end of life care “requires physicians to sensitively respond to a patients wishes or requests to hasten death”13 and insists that physicians who “limit their practice on the basis of moral and/or religious grounds” must comply with College policy on human rights.14 If the law is changed, and Dr. Gabel and his working group get their way, this policy will require physicians who refuse to kill patients to help them find someone who will.

Physicians will be expected to prescribe, abort or refer, to lethally inject or refer, or get out of medicine – or get out of the country.

[PDF text]

Notes

1. “Catholics doctors who reject abortion told to get out of family medicine.” The Catholic Register, 17 December, 2014 (Accessed 2018-03-07)

2. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, “Professional Obligations and Human Rights (Draft).” (Accessed 2018-03-07)

3. Letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario from the Ontario Medical Association Section on General and Family Practice Re: Human Rights Code Policy, 6 August, 2014. (Accessed 2018-03-07)

4. Payne E. “Some Ottawa doctors refuse to prescribe birth control pills.” Ottawa Citizen, 30 January, 2014 (Accessed 2018-03-07)

5. Murphy S. “NO MORE CHRISTIAN DOCTORS.” Protection of Conscience Project.

6. “Some Ottawa doctors refusing to prescribe birth control, cite ‘ethical concerns and religious values.’” Reddit Ottawa (Accessed 2018-03-07)

7. CBC Radio, “Should doctors have the right to say no to prescribing birth control?” Ontario Today, 25 February, 2014 (Accessed 2018-03-07)

8.  T___ M___, 29 January, 2014, 6:56 pm

9.  A___ M___ 29 January, 2014, 7:41 pm

10. R___ V___, 29 January, 2014, 7:52 pm

11. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, All Doctor Search (Accessed 2014-07-29;2018-03-07)

12.  Levy I. (Medical Officer of Health, Ottawa) and Abdullah A. (President, Academy of Medicine, Ottawa), Letter to the Ottawa Citizen, 1 February, 2014.

13.  College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Planning for and Providing Quality End of Life Care: Key Features of the Draft Policy (Accessed 2018-03-07)

14. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Planning for and Providing Quality End of Life Care (Draft), lines 363-365. (Accessed 2018-03-07)

CBC interviewer fails to ask tough questions

Sean Murphy*

A bill has been introduced in the Canadian Senate by Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth to legalize physician assisted suicide and euthanasia.  Bill S-225’s definition of of “assist”  is of particular interest.  It means  “to provide the person with the knowledge or means to commit suicide, or to perform an act with the intent to cause the person’s death.”   Consistent with this, an “assisting physician” is one “who provides assistance” to a patient seeking euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

This indicates that indirectly facilitating suicide even by providing information for that purpose is equivalent to more direct forms of assistance, like providing a lethal prescription.  Further, it implies that both providing information to facilitate suicide and actually killing someone are of comparable legal or moral significance.  Many physicians and health care workers who object to assisted suicide and euthanasia would agree, and, for that reason, would refuse to refer or otherwise help a patient find someone willing to kill him or assist him in committing suicide.

The point was overlooked during an interview of Senator Ruth by Evan Solomon on CBC Television’s Power and Politics (2 December, 2014).  After discussing the contents of the bill in general terms and asking Senator Ruth about her reasons for introducing it, Solomon raised the issue of conscientious objection:

Evan Solomon:  A doctor might be watching this, and say, you know, “Great piece of legislation. What do you do if, what will you do to me if I don’t want to do this?”

Senator Ruth:  Nothing.  No doctor is coerced to do this, no patient is coerced to do this.  This is about choice.  The choice of doctors who want to assist in it and their protection . . .

Solomon failed to ask the tough questions.  Among them:

  1. If physicians will not be forced to kill patients, will they, nonetheless, be forced to help patients find someone who will?
  2. Why is it that the bill is about the choice and the protection of doctors who want to help to kill patients, and not about the choice and protection of those who refuse?
  3. When abortion was legalized, politicians and activists promised that no physician would be forced to provide abortions, but refused to include a protection of conscience provision in the law.1  Now the College of Physicians of Ontario is proposing a policy that would compel physicians to provide abortions or help  patients obtain them.2  Dr. Marc Gabel, chair of the working group that produced the draft policy, warns that physicians who refuse to do this should get out of family practice.3  As written, the policy could be applied equally to euthanasia and assisted suicide.  Why does Senator Ruth think that objecting physicians will not be coerced – if not sooner, then later?

Notes:

1. Murphy, S.  “Promises, promises.  Canadian law reformers promise tolerance, freedom of conscience:What happens after the law is changed is another story.” Protection of Conscience Project

2. “Ontario physicians to be forced to do what they believe to be wrong:  Draft policy demands that objectors provide or refer.  Policy would apply to euthanasia, if legalized.”  Protection of Conscience Project news release, 10 December, 2014

3.  Swan, M.   “Catholics doctors who reject abortion told to get out of family medicine.” The Catholic Register, 17 December, 2014.  (Accessed 2014-12-19)

 

 

Project letter to the New Brunswick Minister of Health

Re: compulsory referral for abortion

3 December, 2014

The Honourable Victor Boudreau,
Minister of Health,
HSBC Place,
P. O. Box 5100
Fredericton, NB
Canada E3B 5G8

Dear Mr. Boudreau:

The Protection of Conscience Project is a non-profit, non-denominational initiative that advocates for freedom of conscience in health care. The Project does not take a position on the acceptability of morally contested procedures.

I am writing about a statement attributed to you in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner:

Health Minister Victor Boudreau: “No physician can be forced to [perform abortions], but at the same time there is a duty to refer to someone who will.”1

It is instructive to compare this to a demand made by a panel of experts of the Royal Society of Canada:

Royal Society Panel: “. . . health care professionals are not duty bound to accede to [requests for euthanasia and assisted suicide] . . . but . . . they are duty bound to refer their patients to a health care professional who will.”2Since you are new to the position of Minister of Health, you are likely unaware of the fact that arguments used by those who demand that physicians be forced to refer for abortion are also used to demand that they be forced to refer for euthanasia or assisted suicide. It was for this reason that the Protection of Conscience Project joined an intervention in the case of Carter v. Canada in the Supreme Court of Canada.3

Counsel for the Project told the Supreme Court justices that what is demanded by the Royal Society experts (and, perhaps, the New Brunswick government?) is “precisely the sort of thinking that, in our submission, ought to be protected against.”4

Any number of physicians may agree to referral for abortion or other controversial procedures because they find that it relieves them of a moral burden or of tasks they find disturbing or distasteful. However, for others, as Holly Fernandez-Lynch has observed, referral imposes “the serious moral burdens of complicity.”5 They refuse to refer for abortion because they do not wish to be morally complicit in killing a child, even if (to use the terminology of the criminal law) it is, legally speaking, “a child that has not become a human being.”6

Just as these physicians refuse to facilitate killing before birth by referring patients for abortion, they and other physicians would refuse to facilitate killing patients after birth by referring them for euthanasia or assisted suicide. Influential academics and abortion and euthanasia activists want to force objecting physicians to do both.

Professor Jocelyn Downie of Dalhousie University was one of the architects of the Carter case,7 a member of the Royal Society panel, and a long-time advocate of compulsory referral for abortion.8 She was live- tweeting the hearing from the courtroom. Udo Schuklenk, one of her fellow Royal Society experts, was following the proceedings via a live audio-video link. He described most of the interveners as “Christian activist groups, some more fundamentalist than others.” After questioning the integrity of “the God folks,” he commented on the joint intervention involving the Project:

Then there was a lawyer representing groups called the Faith and Freedom Alliance and the Protection of Conscience Project. He . . . asked that the Court direct parliament to ensure that health care professionals would not be forced to assist in dying if they had conscientious objections. That, of course, is the case already today in matters such as abortion. However, this lawyer wanted to extend conscience based protections. Today health care professionals are legally required to pass the help-seeking patient on to a health care professional willing to provide the requested service. The lawyer wanted to strike out such an obligation. I am not a fan of conscientious objection rights anyway, so I hope the Court will ignore this.9 (Emphasis added)You can see clearly from this that Professors Downie, Schuklenk and their supporters hold that because physicians can be forced to refer for abortion, they can and ought to be forced to refer for euthanasia and assisted suicide. The weakness in this claim is the false premise that objecting physicians can or ought to be compelled to refer for abortion. Notwithstanding your assertions and the views of Dr. Haddad and Professors Downie and Schuklenk, this claim is sharply disputed, and for good reason.

Physicians are required to disclose personal moral convictions that might prevent them from recommending abortion, but not to refer the patient or otherwise facilitate the procedure. The arrangement preserves the integrity of physicians, and it safeguards the legitimate autonomy of the patient, who is free to seek an abortion elsewhere.10 But it also protects the community against the temptation to give credence to a dangerous idea: that a learned or privileged class, a profession or state institutions can legitimately compel people to do what they believe to be wrong.

Just how far this can go is now coming into focus, thanks to the Royal Society’s panel of experts and their supporters. They argue that it is not sufficient to simply encourage and allow willing health care professionals to kill patients. They demand that health care professionals be compelled to participate in and facilitate the killing of patients – even if they believe it to be wrong, even if they believe it to be murder – and that they should be punished if they refuse to do so.

Killing is not surprising; even murder is not surprising. But to hold that the state or a profession can, in justice, compel an unwilling soul to commit or even to facilitate what he sees as murder, and justly punish or penalize him for refusing to do so – to make that claim ought to be beyond the pale. It is profoundly dangerous, for if the state or civil society or professional organizations can legitimately require people to commit or aid in the commission of murder, what can they not require?

Particularly in view of the possibility that the Supreme Court of Canada might legalize physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, it is of grave concern that your comments can be taken to be supportive of the movement to develop and entrench a ‘duty to do what is wrong’ in medical practice. I know of no other profession that has accepted such a duty as a requirement of membership, and I am certain that the Liberal Party of New Brunswick does not and would not impose such a duty upon its members.

I have enclosed an abstract (in English and French) of the Project’s recent submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario about its policy, Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code, which is relevant in this case. The full submission, which is on line, is available in English only.

I note that a CBC news reported in July that the President of the New Brunswick Medical Association, Dr. Camille Haddad, included refusal to refer for abortion among alleged “barriers to access” to the procedure. The CBC report added, “The society says it wants the New Brunswick government to come up with a plan to address those barriers.”11

If Dr. Haddad or others have urged you to adopt policies to promote access to abortion, that is outside the scope of Project concerns. However, I respectfully suggest that a plan to address alleged “barriers” must not include the suppression of freedom of conscience among physicians by compelling them to refer for abortion. The state has other means at its disposal to deliver the service.

Sincerely,

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Notes
1. Huras A. “Abortions won’t be available in all hospitals.” Fredericton Daily Gleaner, 28 November, 2014

2. Schuklenk U, van Delden J.J.M, Downie J, McLean S, Upshur R, Weinstock D. Report of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making (November, 2011) p. 70 (Accessed 2014-12-02)

3.  Murphy S. “Re: Joint intervention in Carter v. Canada– Project Backgrounder.” Supreme Court of Canada, 15 October, 2014. Protection of Conscience Project

4.  Murphy S. “Re: Joint intervention in Carter v. Canada- Selections from oral submissions.” Supreme Court of Canada, 15 October, 2014. Protection of Conscience Project

5.  Fernandez-Lynch, Holly, Conflicts of Conscience in Health Care: An Institutional Compromise. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2008, p. 229.

6.  Criminal Code, Section 238(1). (Accessed 2014-12-02)

7.  In a 2007 symposium at Carleton University in Ottawa, Professor Downie asserted that the Supreme Court of Canada might be willing to reverse its 1993 ruling in Rodriguez. She outlined the strategy for a legal challenge under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and said that she was looking for an ideal test case to use to strike down the law. She published a paper and essay in 2008 that appear to have drawn from her Carleton presentation. The 2007 presentation and subsequent publication set out the strategy for the plaintiffs’ successful argument in Carter. Professor Downie assisted the plaintiffs in the Carter case in preparing their expert witnesses. “Rodriguez Revisited: Canadian Assisted Suicide Law and Policy in 2007.” Dalhousie University, ListServ Home Page, FABLIST Archives, Message from Rebecca Kukla, 6 February, 2007. “Symposium on physician assisted suicide.” (Accessed 2012-06-27); Schadenberg, Alex, “Dalhousie law professor seeks to re-visit Rodriguez court decision.” Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Downie J, Bern S. “Rodriguez Redux.” Health Law Journal 2008 16:27-64. (Accessed 2012-06-27.) Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2012 BCSC 886, Supreme Court of British Columbia, 15 June, 2012. para. 124. (Accessed 2014-12-02)

8.  Rodgers S. Downie J. “Abortion: Ensuring Access.” CMAJ July 4, 2006 vol. 175 no. 1 doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060548 (Accessed 2014-12-02). McLeod C, Downie J. “Let Conscience Be Their Guide? Conscientious Refusals in Health Care.” Bioethics ISSN 0269-9702 (print); 1467-8519 (online) doi:10.1111/bioe.12075 Volume 28 Number 1 2014 pp ii–iv

9.  Schuklenk, U. “Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in Charter challenge to assisted dying criminalisation.” Udo Schuklenk’s Ethx Blog Thursday, October 16, 2014 (Accessed 2014-12-02)

10.  Murphy S. “‘NO MORE CHRISTIAN DOCTORS.’ Appendix ‘F’- The Difficult Compromise: Canadian Medical Association, Abortion and Freedom of Conscience.” Protection of Conscience Project

11.  “New Brunswick Medical Society calls for abortion access plan: Doctors’ group says 2 doctor rule no different than any other procedure.” CBC News, 26 July, 2014 (Accessed 2014-12-02)

Ontario physicians to be forced to do what they believe to be wrong

Draft policy demands that objectors provide or refer.

Policy would apply to euthanasia, if legalized.

Protection of Conscience Project News Release

A draft policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario demands that physicians must provide services to prevent imminent “harm, suffering and/or deterioration,” even if doing so is contrary to their moral beliefs.

Should the Supreme Court of Canada legalize euthanasia, the policy will require objecting physicians to lethally inject patients themselves if a delay would result in “harm” or “suffering.” In less urgent circumstances, the policy will require physicians unwilling to kill patients to promptly refer them to “a non-objecting, available physician or other health-care provider.”

However, many physicians who object to killing patients for reasons of conscience would also object to referral. Dr. Charles Bernard, President of Quebec’s Collège des médecins, has explained that mandatory referral effectively nullifies freedom of conscience: “It is as if you did it anyway.”1

Dr. Bernard was talking about Quebec’s euthanasia law, but the same principle holds with respect to abortion – another procedure that involves killing.

Prominent academics and activists want to force objecting physicians to provide or refer for abortion and contraception. They and others have led increasingly strident campaigns to suppress freedom of conscience among physicians to achieve that goal. The College’s draft policy clearly reflects their influence.

However, crusades against physicians who refuse to provide or refer for abortion are dress rehearsals for eventual campaigns against physicians who refuse to kill patients. It is not a coincidence that activists who would force objecting physicians to facilitate abortion and contraception also intend to force objectors to refer for euthanasia – and for the same reasons.2

The Project insists that it is incoherent and contrary to sound public policy to include a requirement to do what one believes to be wrong in a professional code of ethics. It is also an affront to the best traditions of liberal democracy, and, ultimately, dangerous.

The College Council has tentatively approved the policy, but will accept further public input until 20 February, 2015 before imposing it on Ontario physicians.

Notes:

1.  Consultations, Tuesday 17 September 2013 – Vol. 43 no. 34: Collège des médecins du Québec, (Dr. Charles Bernard, Dr. Yves Robert, Dr. Michelle Marchand) T#154

2. For example: Schuklenk U, van Delden J.J.M, Downie J, McLean S, Upshur R, Weinstock D. Report of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making (November, 2011) p. 62, 69, 101 (Accessed 2014-02-23)