Category: Proposed Laws

Freedom to refuse euthanasia relevant to protection of practitioners, institutions – and patients

Alberta’s Bill 18 in light of assurances to Supreme Court of Canada

News Release

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

Introduced on 18 March in the provincial legislature, the Alberta Government’s Bill 18, the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act, will provide the framework for Alberta’s provision of euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS: known in Canada as “Medical Assistance in Dying”/MAiD).

The bill makes no reference to conscience. Nonetheless, it appears to offer substantial protection for health care practitioners and health care facilities by formally recognizing their freedom to refuse to collaborate in killing patients or helping patients kill themselves.

“In this respect, Bill 18 seems to deliver on assurances given to the Supreme Court of Canada by the late Joseph Arvay,” said Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project.

Joseph Arvay led the constitutional challenge that ended the absolute prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

“The title of Bill 18 reflects what Mr. Arvay told the Supreme Court of Canada,” explained Murphy. “He believed that physicians were ideal euthanasia practitioners because, in his words, ‘[I]t is an irrefutable truth that all doctors believe it is their professional and ethical duty to do no harm.’”

Which means, in almost every case, that they will want to help their patients live, not die. It is for the very reason that we advocate only physician assisted dying and not any kind of assisted dying because we know physicians will be reluctant gatekeepers, and only agree to it as a last resort.1

“Mr. Arvay assured the Supreme Court of Canada that physicians would only agree to euthanasia as a ‘last resort,’” said Murphy. “So far, Alberta’s government seems to be the only one in Canada willing to make that a reality.”

“That is important not only for practitioners who object to euthanasia and assisted suicide in principle, but for EAS practitioners who may be unwilling to collaborate in the procedures in particular cases,” he added. “And, if we accept Mr. Arvay’s reasoning, it is equally important for the protection of patients.”

The Protection of Conscience Project does not take a position on the acceptability of morally/ethically contested services like EAS. It is reviewing the text of Bill 18 with a view to making a submission to the Alberta government.

Contact:
Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
protection@consciencelaws.org

Notes:

  1. Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 SCR 331 (Oral argument, Appellant), Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), “Webcast of the Hearing on 2014-10-15” (22 January, 2018) at 00:20:03 to 00:20:40. ↩︎

Arkansas House passes medical providers’ conscience bill

Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Rachel Herzog

A bill to allow healthcare workers, hospitals and insurance providers to decline to provide services that violate their conscience has passed in both chambers of the Arkansas Legislature.

Senate Bill 289 by Rep. Brandt Smith, R-Jonesboro, called the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act,” allows providers to opt out of procedures they don’t agree with based on their religious or moral beliefs. . . continue reading

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.

House committee defeats bill to allow ‘conscience’ refusal to provide or pay for medical services

Arkansas Times

Max Brantely

The House Public Health Committee today declined to endorse SB 289 which allows a medical practitioner, healthcare institution, or health insurance payer not to participate in a healthcare service that violates their conscience.

The vote was 8 for to 10 against, with Rep. Jim Dotson not voting and Chair Jack Ladyman abstaining.

An extensive presentation for the bill was followed by abbreviated public testimony, but it included heavyweight opposition from a former Supreme Court justice, UAMS and the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce.

Testimony included support from Surgeon General Gregory Bledsoe, speaking individually, who opposed the legislation in 2017. Since then, he said, circumstances have changed. Bledsoe, a candidate for lieutenant governor, said he saw no problem needing a solution then. Now, he said, said he feared federal intervention to force providers to do procedures they oppose. . . continue reading

Medical providers’ conscience bill passes

Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Michael R. Wickline

Legislation aimed at protecting medical providers’ “right of conscience” won the approval of the Arkansas Senate on Wednesday over a warning from an opponent that it would clear the way for any medical provider to withhold treatment for most reasons.

The Senate voted 27-6 to send Senate Bill 289 by Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, to the House for further consideration. The bill is called the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act.”

Hammer said the bill is modeled on laws in Illinois and Mississippi.

“What this bill does is it provides a remedy that those medical providers who have a conscientious objection to be put in a situation that they prefer not to, that it provides them a means to defend themselves,” he said. . . [Full text]