Category: Canada

Canadian Medical Association Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Consultation on CPSO Interim Guidance on Physician-Assisted Death

Project Introduction

The following submission sets out the position of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) on referral, within the context of the provision of euthanasia and assisted suicide.  The submission concerns a proposed policy by the state regulator of medicine in the province of Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO).  The College proposed that its policy of “effective referral” for morally contested services be applied to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Among the excellent points made by the Association:

It is in fact in a patient’s best interests and in the public interest for physicians to act as moral agents, and not as technicians or service providers devoid of moral judgement. . . . medical regulators ought to be articulating obligations that encourage moral agency, instead of imposing a duty that is essentially punitive to those for whom it is intended and renders an impoverished understanding of conscience.

Full text of the CMA submission

 

Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

 

Re: Interim Guidance on Physician Assisted Death

 Abstract

Virtually all of what is proposed in Interim Guidance on Physician-Assisted Death (IGPAD) is satisfactory, requiring only clarifications to avoid misunderstanding and appropriate warnings concerning the continuing effects of criminal law.

The College has no basis to proceed against physicians who refuse to do anything that would entail complicity in homicide or suicide, including “effective referral,” because they believe that a patient does not fit the criteria specified by Carter. College policies and expectations are of no force and effect to the extent that they are inconsistent with criminal prohibitions.

Proposals about respect for patients, access to services, and providing information are acceptable, subject to some clarifications and limitations with respect to offering the option of suicide. Simple and uncontroversial recommendations are offered to avoid problems associated with failed assisted suicide and euthanasia attempts, and in urgent situations.

However, the requirement for “effective referral “is completely unacceptable. It is ludicrous to assert that the reasoning that underpins the law on criminal complicity and culpability, civil liability and the College policy that prohibits referral for Female Genital Cutting can be dismissed as legally irrelevant to the exercise and protection of fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion.

The College cannot justify a demand for “effective referral” on the grounds that it cannot be understood to involve morally significant complicity in killing patients or helping them to commit suicide, nor can it be justified as a reasonable limitation on fundamental freedom.
The only apparent basis for the College’s demand for effective referral is that it has decided what the Supreme Court of Canada did not decide: that euthanasia and assisted suicide in circumstances defined by Carter are morally/ethically acceptable. College officials seem to consider the College justified in using force – the force of law – to compel dissenting physicians to conform to their moral/ethical views.

This is not a reasonable limitation of freedom but a reprehensible attack on them. It is a paradigmatic example of the authoritarian suppression of freedom of conscience and religion and a serious violation of human dignity. Examples of alternative acceptable policies demonstrate that access to assisted suicide and euthanasia can be ensured without suppressing freedom of conscience and religion.

Contents

I.    Outline of the submission

II.    Avoiding foreseeable conflicts

II.1    Failed assisted suicide and euthanasia II.2    Urgent situations
II.3    Project recommendations

III.    IGPAD and criminal law

IV.    IGPAD on respect, access, notification and providing information

IV.1    Treat patients respectfully; do not impede access
IV.2    Notification of objections
IV.3    Providing information

V.    Freedom of conscience

V.1    IGPAD and “effective referral”
V.2    “Effective referral” and criminal law
V.3    Legal vs. ethical/moral evaluation of euthanasia, assisted suicide
V.4    The College position: “error has no rights”

VI.    Project response

VI.1    Previous submissions
VI.2    Making freedom easy – or impossible
VII.    Alternative acceptable policies

VIII.    Conclusion

Appendix “A”    Supreme Court of Canada, Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5

A1.    Carter criteria for euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
A2.    Carter and the criminal law
A3.    Carter and freedom of conscience and religion

Appendix “B”    Carter in theTrial Court, Part VII: A Judicial Soliloquy on Ethics

B1.    A note of caution
B2.    The questions addressed in Part VII
B3.    Plaintiffs’ claim shapes and limits the analysis
B4.    Ethics: which one?
B5.    Medical ethics
B5.1    Ethics and the willingness of physicians
B5.2    Ethics and the positions of medical associations
B5.3    Ethics and the opinions of ethicists
B5.4    Ethics and current end-of-life practices
B6.    Ethics of society
B6.2    Ethics and public opinion
B6.3    Ethics and public committees
B6.4    Ethics and prosecution policies
B7.    Summary of the ethical debate
B8.    Conclusions about the ethical debate
B8.2    Would Canadian physicians provide the services?
B8.3    Current medical practice with respect to end-of-life care?
B8.4   Does the law attempt to uphold a conception of morality?
B9.    Carter Part VII: in brief
B9.1    Unanswered questions
B9.2    Meaningless findings
B9.3    Inconclusiveness
B9.4    Neglected evidence
B9.5    Deficient review of end-of-life decision-making
B10.    On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Appendix “C”    Physician Exercise of Freedom of Conscience and Religion

C1.    Introduction
C2.    Providing information to patients
C3.    Exercising freedom of conscience or religion
C4.    Reminder: treatments in emergencies

Jewish physicians’ freedom of conscience and religion and the Carter Case

Wagner-Sidlofsky LLP
Reproduced with permission

Charles Wagner* and Adam Hummel*

How does the decision in the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)1 (“Carter”) impact on the religious Jewish doctor? Will this landmark decision bring into conflict these doctors’ freedom of conscience and religion with their professional obligations? The Carter case sets aside federal criminal laws as they relate to physician assisted suicide. It stands for the proposition that individuals who are suffering unbearably have a constitutional right to a physician-assisted suicide. Canada now joins only eight other countries in the world that have decriminalized physician-assisted suicide in recent years. This is a fundamental change in the law.

Previously, in the 1993 decision of Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney-General)2, the SCC confirmed the criminal sanctions as they related to physician-assisted suicide, while justifying their ruling by citing the protection of the sanctity of life. Given the importance of Carter, the authors will consider some of the main concepts discussed in the decision, and consider how the SCC’s position has changed over the last 22 years. . . [Full text]

 

Podcast: Amir Attaran and the elves: A law professor makes much ado

Podcast: Amir Attaran and the elves: A law professor makes much adoA response to   “Doctors can’t refuse to help a patient die – no matter what they say”, a column by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran.  He refers to  the alleged “corrosive hostility” of the Canadian Medical Association to “physician-assisted dying” and its “cowardly and stupid” position on the procedure, including support for physician freedom of conscience. [Full text – Amir Attaran and the elves]

Podcast Contents

Introduction (00 – 01:40)

Attaran: CMA siding with “bigots”  (02:11 –  4:50  )

Attaran: “they cannot refuse”  (05:23 – 06:33)

What Professor Attaran left out  (06:34 – 08:15 )

Professor  Attaran then and now  (08:50 – 09:56)

Law on abortion vs. law on homicide  (09:57 – 11:32)

A difference in perspective  (11:33  – 13:12)

What else Professor Attaran left out  (13:13 – 18:38)

Getting the facts backwards  (19:11 – 20:50 )

Amir Attaran and the elves

 

A law professor makes much ado

Sean Murphy*

In a column in the on-line magazine iPolitics,1 University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran asserts that the “corrosive hostility” of the Canadian Medical Association to “physician-assisted dying” is evident in its “cowardly and stupid” position on the procedure. He claims that the Association “all but threatened” the Supreme Court of Canada that “doctors would rise up” to block it.

In his telling, ever since the Court ignored the threat and struck down the law, the CMA has been acting like a “sore loser,” trying to persuade physicians not to participate. As evidence, he quotes a CMA policy recommendation: “Physicians are not obligated to fulfil requests for assisted dying.” And he complains that the CMA won’t force physicians unwilling to kill patients or help them commit suicide to find someone who will.

Now, the CMA also states that all eligible people should have access to the services without undue delay, and physicians will work with others to ensure access to them,2 but Professor Attaran ignores this. His analysis of CMA policy is simple and scathing. Some physicians, he says, are “bigots,” and the CMA is siding with “those bigots” rather than with patients.

Professor Attaran identifies the bigots: physicians who believe that killing patients or helping them commit suicide is gravely wrong, or at least a bad idea, even in the circumstances defined by the Supreme Court. Those whom Professor Attaran denounces as bigots include physicians who believe they are ethically obliged to compassionately accompany and support dying patients, but not to kill them.

On the contrary, says Professor Attaran, they are “duty-bound” to kill patients or help them commit suicide precisely because the Supreme Court “pointedly” approved “physician-assisted suicide.”*  If physicians won’t help patients commit suicide, he rages, “then who does the CMA think should be obliged to help – elves, maybe?”

To which any number of physicians have already replied, “Not elves, but lawyers.”

[Full text]

[iPolitics version- Doctors aren’t obliged — legally or otherwise — to help people die]