Canadian MP introduces protection of conscience bill

Bill C-268 (2016)  Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act

Sean Murphy*

Conservative Member of Parliament Kelly Block has introduced a bill that would make it a crime to coerce medical or nurse practitioners or other health professionals to take part, directly or indirectly, in “medical assistance in dying.” The preamble of the bill makes clear that it is intended as a protection of conscience measure.

The text of the bill is much the same as a bill proposed by MP Mark Warawa in 2016.

“Medical assistance in dying” means euthanasia and assisted suicide provided by physicians or nurse practitioners. Since it is considered medical treatment in Canada, it falls within provincial jurisdiction over health care. Similarly, provinces have primary jurisdiction over human rights like freedom of conscience. Thus, the federal government has been easily able to refuse amendments like this on the grounds that they unconstitutionally trespass on provincial jursidiction.

The federal government has constitutional jursidiction in criminal law and could make it a crime to compel someone to be a party to homicide and suicide. Since “medical assistance in dying” is non-culpable homicide and non-cuplpable assisted suicide, such a law would provide protection for health care professionals unwilling to be parties to killing their patients or helping them commit suicide, without intruding upon provincial jurisdiction.

The Protection of Conscience Project has repeatedly made this suggestion to Canadian parliamentarians, but its submissions have been ignored.

It is remarkable that the Canadian government clearly believes it is acceptable to compel citizens to become parties to homicide — killing other people — and punish them if they refuse. It is, perhaps, even more remarkable that Canadians are unwilling to talk openly about this.

Health professionals conscience objection to abortion at risk, court told

Wellington Higher Courts Reporter

A health professionals’ group has gone to court over the right to having a conscientious objection to providing abortion services, without adversely affecting employment.

At the High Court in Wellington on Monday the New Zealand Health Professionals Alliance asked Justice Rebecca Ellis​ to make a declaration that the abortion law was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

Lawyer Ian Bassett​ said a change to the law on March 24, 2020, raised the concern that the new law contained a “coercive” element. . . [Full text]

Should religions freedom be diluted into a general freedom of conscience law?

Spain opens the debate

Evangelical Focus

The conversation about a law of freedom of conscience has gained importance in the last months in Spain.

The leading political party in government, PSOE (Social Democrats), is prioritising the start of the discussions in this year 2021, confirmed the Spanish Vice President, Carmen Calvo.

So far, the PSOE has not shared many details of a new law that could replace the Organic Law of Religious Freedom of 1980. But the party of President Pedro Sánchez has expressed the will to recover parts of the proposal outlined in 2010 by the former head of government José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Back then, the project was discarded in the midst of strong tensions between the government and the Spanish Roman Catholic Church, and the external factor of a visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the country. . .[Full text]

Health practitioners sue Crown over abortion legislation

Newshub

Rachel Thomas for RNZ

A group of health practitioners who conscientiously object to abortion are in the High Court today, suing the Crown over new legislation.

A new requirement in the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 requires a practitioner who objects to abortion to refer the patient to a doctor who can help them.

The Health Professionals’ Alliance is fighting for a declaration that the new law interferes with the Bill of Rights Act.

Before Justice Rebecca Ellis, plaintiff Ian Bassett argued part of the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 infringes on a health practitioners rights: “Namely the rights to freedom of conscience without interference”. . . [Full text]

Lack of evidence-based medicine in debate around new MAID law should concern Canadians

CBC News

Dr. Mark Sinyor

I recently had the privilege of testifying before the Senate of Canada in their deliberations about medical assistance in dying (MAID) legislation. The specific question before them was whether to allow the practice as a treatment for mental illness, which the Senate voted to recommend following an 18-month “sunset clause,” and the House of Commons says it would support with a two-year phase-in.

I have no personal objection to MAID in principle. But as a doctor and a psychiatrist who believes in evidence-based medicine, I found both the hearing and the result horrifying.

Bill C-7 would extend MAID to those experiencing intolerable suffering and who are not approaching the natural end of their lives, including those with mental illness. . . [Full text]