Category: Commentary

What’s behind the demolition of conscience rights in Canada?

Mercatornet

Margaret Somerville*

I’ve been puzzling about why Canadian “progressive” values advocates, particularly those passionately in favour of the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (“physician-assisted death” (PAD)), are so adamant in trying to force healthcare professionals and institutions who have conscience or religious objections to these procedures to become complicit in them.

Complicity would occur if objecting individual physicians were forced to provide “effective referrals” or objecting institutions were forced to allow PAD in their facilities. An “effective referral” is defined by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons as “a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician or other health-care provider.”

In general, progressive values advocates claim to give priority to rights to individual autonomy, choice, control over what happens to oneself, and tolerance for those who believe differently. Yet in relation to respect for the freedom of conscience and, where relevant, religious belief, of physicians or institutions who oppose PAD, none of these principles seem to be applied. Why? [Full text]

The intersection of freedom of conscience and assisted dying

One MP’s views on balancing the needs of patients and doctors who have personal issues providing assisted dying

Macleans

Garnett Genuis

Garnett Genuis, the Conservative MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta, has served on the Physician-Assisted Dying Committee.

Parliament will imminently be dealing again with the issue of physician-assisted suicide / euthanasia. If government legislation follows the direction given in the report of the Liberal-dominated joint committee, we are in for (among other things) a significant change in the way Canadian law treats freedom of conscience.

The court was clear in Carter that nothing in their decision would require anyone to be involved in euthanasia or assisted suicide if they did not wish to be. In this respect, I think the court got it right. Freedom of conscience is protected by the Charter itself. Euthanasia and assisted suicide were considered murder until just this year; it’s understandable that many healthcare providers remain uncomfortable with it. . . [Full text]

 

The legality of assisted suicide does not mean the issue is ‘closed’

National Post

John Robson

A leading bishop raised the possibility this week that Roman Catholics who consider doctor-assisted suicide may be denied last rites, as the Church considers it assisted suicide a “morally great evil” despite the fact it will soon be protected by legislation. In doing so, Archbishop Terrence Prendergast reminded us that Canada is a free country. At least, it should do so. And it should be.

Insofar as possible in Canada, where we have traditionally enjoyed liberty under law, we leave people to work things out for themselves. When we do have to deal with something through the power of the state, we discuss it freely both before and after a political decision is made, and coerce citizens only to the minimum compatible with the rule of law. Especially on as contentious a subject as euthanasia. . . [Full Text]

 

Don’t trample other folks’ rights with euthanasia

The Province

Gordon Clark

It’s not often that an issue comes along where I struggle to figure out where I stand, especially after considering various points of view. But like many people I’ve spoken with recently, I sure find myself conflicted about euthanasia which, thanks to last year’s Supreme Court of Canada ruling, is rapidly becoming transmogrified from murder into a publicly funded health-care service not much different than an emergency appendectomy.

The court has given the federal government until June 6 to draft the rules by which doctors will be permitted to end the lives of suffering people who consent to be killed. . . [Full Text]

Assisted death: Recognize this new right, but carefully limit it

The Globe and Mail

Editorial

Suicide is not the answer, generally speaking. But we are not speaking generally when we talk about drafting a law legalizing and regulating physician-assisted suicide – a law the Supreme Court of Canada has told Parliament to enact by June 6.

The new law will ease and enable suicide, normalizing what in most circumstances is a harmful, undesirable act by fitting it into a compassionate health-care system through the exculpatory power of legislation. As such – as a necessary exception to all the rules and norms that constitute our traditional sense of collective good, which focuses on extending life rather than ending it – the coming law on physician-assisted dying needs to be extremely specific and tightly defined. . . [Full text]