Lack of support vs. option to die

The London Free Press

Reproduced with permission

Leonie Herx, Ramona Coelho, Sohail Gandhi

Lack of support vs. option to die

As the COVID-19 pandemic dominates the political agenda and strains the country’s health-care systems, the federal Liberals are intent on passing Bill C-7, which proposes to expand medical assistance in dying (MAiD) to those who are not dying.

Proponents say the bill allows choice and dignity for those with chronic illness and disability. However, the bill fails to provide them with the dignity and humanity that comes with good care and access to supports.

We are doctors who witness the struggles that confront our patients and their loved ones every day. Those living on the margins and with disabilities face significant barriers to care though systemic discrimination (ableism) that can make it harder to live a healthy, fulfilling life in community.

As doctors we should be instilling hope, supporting resilience and using our expertise to find creative solutions to address health and well-being. Instead, we would be required to suggest assisted suicide as an option if this bill becomes law.

Spring Hawes, a woman who has had a spinal cord injury for 15 years, said: “As disabled people, we are conditioned to view ourselves as burdensome. We are taught to apologize for our existence, and to be grateful for the tolerance of those around us. We are often shown that our lives are worth less than non-disabled lives. Our lives and our survival depend on our agreeableness.”

A choice to die isn’t a free choice when life depends on good behaviours and compliance to societal norms. Sadly, the medical community can be complicit in this messaging.

Gabrielle Peters, a brilliant writer who has struggled with poverty since her disability, has shared that a health-care professional sat at her bedside and urged her to consider death. This was just after Peters’ partner announced he was leaving her because she was too much of a burden and she no longer fit into the life he wanted.

Doctors can pressure someone to die as in Peters’ situation but also more subtly can confirm a patient’s fears that her life is not worth living and MAiD would indeed be a good medical choice.

Day after day, we participate in a health-care system and a social support system that does not come close to meeting the basic needs of our most vulnerable patients. However, our role as physicians should always be to first advocate that our patients access all reasonable supports for meaningful life with no suffering.

But alas, Canada does not seem to prioritize health care and supports for all, and soon, that lack of support will be pitted against an option to access death in 90 days.

Patients entrust doctors to make ethical decisions every day regarding their care and to make recommendations that are always aimed at promoting health and healing. The core role of medicine is to be restorative, not destructive. Advocating for our patients’ health and well-being is solemn oath we took.

As physicians we help our patients do many things in the context of a trusting, shared decision-making process. Doctors encourage healthy habits. We refuse to prescribe antibiotics when patients have a viral infection, or opioids on demand. We pull a driver’s licence when we have concerns for patient safety and the public good. We refuse to write mask exemptions without good reason. We serve both patient and the common good.

All of this requires courage to not betray the trust society and the patient have bestowed on our profession. Society’s belief in the inherent virtue and ethics of the profession has been the necessary basis of the physician-patient trust. Would you trust your doctor if you thought they didn’t care about your safety and well-being?

While we recognize patients have the right to ask for MAiD, physicians must not be forced to suggest or forced to facilitate this, especially when reasonable options for living with dignity exist. We must continue to offer our patients what is good and practise medicine with integrity.

As Thomas Fung, physician lead for Siksika Nation, a southern Alberta First Nation, said: “Assisted death should be an option of last resort, and not the path of least resistance for the vulnerable and disadvantaged. Conscience protection is needed in this bill, as no one should be forced to participate in the intentional death of another person against their goodwill.”

One of the most important foundations of our Canadian identity is that we are a caring, compassionate country. We are proud of our universal health-care mandate, and we place a high premium on being inclusive and tolerant while working hard toward the accommodation and integration of marginalized and vulnerable members of our community. And yet, if Bill C-7 is allowed to stand without amendments, we will be in serious danger of losing this fundamental element of our Canadian identity.

Ramona Coelho is a family physician in London. Sohail Gandhi is immediate past-president of the Ontario Medical Association. Leonie Herx is division chair and associate professor of palliative medicine at Queen’s University and past-president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians. An earlier version of this article appeared in the London Free Press.

NJ Legislature Considering ‘Reproductive Freedom Act’

Strips Medical Workers of ‘Conscience Protection,’ Legalizes Infanticide of Born-Alive Children

News Release

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.,

MEDIA ADVISORY, Dec. 1, 2020 /Standard Newswire/ — “Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.” – Martin Luther King

A coalition of pro-life groups and concerned activists are holding a “Day of Outrage” protest at the offices of legislators sponsoring the “Reproductive Freedom Act.” This bill removes the “conscience clause,” meaning healthcare workers must assist in abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. It gives impunity to those who would kill a child born alive.

“The Reproductive Freedom Act is a human trafficker’s best friend,” said Rev. Greg Quinlan for Garden State Families. Quinlan stated, “The Reproductive Freedom Act will allow anyone, of any age, regardless of their residency, to receive an abortion at the expense of New Jersey taxpayers. New Jersey taxpayers will be paying for abortions for women victimized by Human Traffickers.”

“This outrageous bill strips babies of their right to live, strips women of their right to safe healthcare, strips NJ healthcare workers and taxpayers of their rights of conscience not to participate in abortion, and even disenfranchises citizens from being able to rescind it in the future. This anti-freedom bill must be stopped in its tracks,” said Christine Flaherty, Executive Director, LIFENET.

The Working Together coalition has been designed to educate the public on the details of the bill and how this bill will detrimentally affect women. New Jersey will be joining California and New York in not requiring an abortionist to be a licensed medical doctor.

Shawn Hyland, director of advocacy for the Family Policy Alliance of New Jersey, said, “This unsafe bill threatens women’s health, jeopardizes children’s safety and criminalizes medical health professionals.”

Gwen Schwarzwalder, an activist with South Jersey Pro-Life Coalition, quoted from Albert Einstein,  “Never surrender conscience even if the state demands it.”

“The Reproductive Freedom Act shamefully disregards advances in prenatal medicine. Instead, it seeks to dehumanize and deprive babies in the womb of their life and dignity. It consigns them to inhumane procedures that would not be tolerated if done to a cat or a dog” said Marie Tasy, executive director, New Jersey Right To Life.

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr., founder of BlackGenocide.org, stated, “This change will further endanger women’s health and put their lives at risk. This lowering of care for disproportionately African American women is typical of the callous abortion industry. Abortion is the most performed surgery on women. No doctors?”

The coalition will have another “Day of Outrage” that will span over three counties, Wednesday, December 2, starting at these NJ legislative offices

10 a.m. – Assemblywoman Mila Jasey, 511 Valley St., Maplewood (Essex County

1 p.m. – Assemblyman Vincent Mazzeo, 2312 New Rd., Northfield (Atlantic County

2 p.m. – Senator Vin Gopal, 35 West Main St., Freehold (Monmouth County

The Pro-life coalition is a promoter of Prayerful and Peaceful protest. The civil rights of all our citizens is a chief priority of the coalition.

S-3030/A-4848

SOURCE Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.

CONTACT: Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr., 201-704-9325; 

John Tomicki, League of American Families, 201-725-2154

Physician  freedom of conscience in Saskatchewan

Sean Murphy*

Abstract

Physician Assisted Dying adequately accommodates both physician freedom of conscience and patients’ access to services. It demonstrates that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan could have taken the same approach to freedom of conscience in relation to other procedures and produced a satisfactory policy on conscientious objection.

Conscientious Objection is ambiguous with respect to effective referral and polemical in its treatment of a physician’s traditional obligation to render assistance in an emergency. It demonstrates the authors’ intention to suppress physician freedom of conscience by compelling them to provide or facilitate morally contested procedures, as well as the intricate wordplay necessary to achieve that end. . . [Full text]

Quebec law and freedom of conscience for health care professionals

Sean Murphy*

Unlike other Canadian provinces, Quebec codes of ethics for health care professionals are enacted by provincial statute. Quebec is also unique in having a provincial euthanasia law, which includes a protection of conscience provision for health care professionals specific to that service.

Freedom of conscience for services other than euthanasia
Physicians

The Code of Ethics for Physicians1 and the gloss on the Code by ALDO Quebec,2 an authoritative document, require objecting physicians to advise patients of the consequences of not receiving the contested service, and “offer to help the patient find another physician.” They are not obliged to help the patient find someone willing to provide the contested service. Objecting physicians are normally quite willing to explain how patients can find other physicians or health care professionals. . . [Full text]

Quebec’s Act Respecting End of Life Care

Reportable and non-reportable euthanasia

Sean Murphy*

Introduction

Quebec’s euthanasia law, the Act Regarding End of Life Care (ARELC), permits two kinds of euthanasia, distinguished here as reportable and non-reportable euthanasia.

Reportable euthanasia is identified as “medical aid in dying” in ARELC.1 Only physicians may administer a lethal substance, and only to a legally competent person who is at least 18 years old, meets other criteria and personally gives informed consent. Physicians must conform to procedural guidelines and reporting requirements. Most people probably believe that this is the only type of euthanasia authorized by the law.

Non-reportable euthanasia is not explicitly identified in the law, but is permitted for legally incompetent patients (including those under 14 years old) who are not dying. Substitute decision makers acting under the authority of Quebec’s Civil Code2 can order them to be starved and dehydrated to death. There are no procedural guidelines, no reporting requirements, and it appears that the order can be carried out by anyone responsible for patient care.3 All of this was incorporated into ARELC by a revision of the original text.

Note that section 50, the protection of conscience provision in ARELC for health care professionals, pertains ONLY to reportable euthanasia. The Act does not recognize the possibility of conscientious objection by health care professionals unwilling to participate in euthanasia by starvation and dehydration. . . [Full text]