Category: Ethics

Templeton Prize Acceptance Address

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

Beloved friends. The news that I had won this prize almost rendered me speechless, an event that would have been unprecedented in the history of the rabbinate. But it has left me moved, humbled, thankful, and deeply motivated, because to me the award is not just about what has been done but also about how much there is still to do.
Templeton Prize Acceptance Address

I want to express my deep sense of gratitude to and kinship with the Templeton family . . .

. . .I know full well that the credit is not mine, but that of the Jewish tradition to which I have tried to give voice, and to its twin imperatives: to be true to our faith and a blessing to others regardless of their faith. People sometimes ask me how I became a speaker, and I answer: Simple. I married the best listener in the world. So my thanks to Elaine, and to our children – Josh, Dina and Gila – and their wonderful families who gave me so much support, and to Joanna, Dan and Debby, my wonderful team. And thanks ultimately to God, who believes in us so much more than we believe in Him.

I said that to me the prize is less about recognition of the past than about responsibility for the future, and it is to that future I turn tonight. This is a fateful moment in history. Wherever we look, politically, religiously, economically, environmentally, there is insecurity and instability. It is not too much to say that the future of the West and the unique form of freedom it has pioneered for the past four centuries is altogether at risk. . . . continue reading

New RCM abortion statement is a further assault on freedom of conscience

Christian Medical Fellowship Blogs

Steve Fouch

Fallout from the Glasgow Midwives case continues to roll out. This month the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) released (rather quietly) their new position statement on abortion. The case of Doogan & Wood highlighted an issue with the conscientious objection clause in the 1967 Abortion Act. Specifically this was around what constituted actually being involved in an abortion procedure.

The two senior midwives at a Glaswegian maternity unit made it clear that they did not wish to be responsible for supervising junior staff involved in termination of pregnancy procedures on the basis of a conscientious objection to abortion.

Although the Scottish Court of Appeal upheld their claim, The Supreme Court eventually ruled that they had no right to opt out of supervision, delegation or support of junior staff, as the right to conscientious objection only applied to those involved in direct, clinical procedures. Supervisory roles or other areas of care could not be subject to the right to conscientious objection in the Abortion Act. . . [Full Text]

Ontario physician first to announce plans to quit medicine due to demand for referral for euthanasia

Sean Murphy*

Moral imperialism by state authorities in Canada is beginning to take its toll.  A physician in Strathroy, Ontario, has publicly announced that she will not be renewing her licence to practise medicine because the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario demands that she must either kill patients or help them commit suicide, or arrange for someone else to do so.

The College policy is a response to the 2015 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General).

Writing in the professional journal Canadian Family Physician in response to an article by Dr. Stephen Genuis (Emerging assault on freedom of conscience), Dr. Nancy Naylor thanked him for eloquently expressing her thoughts.  She states that mandatory referral for euthanasia or assisted suicide is “an assault on my integrity and ethics as a physician.”

Dr. Naylor has been a family physician for 37 years and has been exclusively providing palliative care for the past three years.

“I have no wish to stop,” she writes.  “But I will not be told that I must go against my moral conscience to provide standard of care.”

 

 

Six questions about physician-assisted death, from a conscientious objector

National Post

Ewan C. Goligher

Canadian policy makers have recently proposed to require all doctors to provide an effective referral for physician-assisted death (PAD) upon the patient’s request. Forcing doctors to knowingly send their patient to another doctor willing to cause the patient’s death will seriously compromise the moral integrity of conscientiously objecting doctors and risks undermining the quality of patient care. To understand the position of conscientiously objecting doctors, consider the following questions.

1. Should doctors provide physician-assisted death merely because it is legal?

2. Must all doctors accept the assumptions underpinning the claim that physician-assisted death is good medical care?

3. If physician-assisted death remained illegal, would doctors be legally liable for making an effective referral?

4. Does the Charter right of Freedom of Conscience apply to doctors?

5. How does respect for conscientious objection affect patient care?

6. Will respect for conscientious objection obstruct access to physician-assisted death?

(For the author’s answers, see the full text)