Ontario physicians unwilling to kill patients must help find someone who will

 College of Physicians and Surgeons demands “effective referral” for euthanasia, assisted suicide

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has quietly issued a directive that physicians who, for reasons of conscience or religion, are unwilling to kill patients or help them commit suicide, must help them find someone willing to do so.

The requirement appears in the policy Planning for and Providing Quality End-of-Life Care, approved in September by College Council:

8.3 Conscientious Objection

Physicians who limit their practice on the basis of moral and/or religious grounds must comply with the College’s Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy.

A note explains that limiting practice includes refusals to “provide care” (i.e., kill patients or assist with suicide.)

The College’s policy, Professional Obligations and Human Rights , demands that physicians who are unwilling to provide procedures for reasons of conscience or religion must make “an effective referral to another health-care provider,” which is defined as “a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician, other health-care professional, or agency.”

As a result of the demand for “effective referral,” Professional Obligations and Human Rights is the subject of a legal challenge filed by the Christian Medical and Dental Society and the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies.  Among other things, the suit alleges actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the working group that developed the policy.

Professional Obligations and Human Rights was approved by College Council in March, 2015, despite overwhelming opposition to the demand for “effective referral” that was evident in the returns during the public consultation.  The College issued a statement with the policy to the effect that it did not apply to euthanasia or assisted suicide.  It promised to revisit the issue after Parliament or the provincial legislature enacted laws in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. Canada.

“It was obvious at the time that this was an ingenuous tactic that they hoped would defuse opposition to the policy, at least among Council members” said  Protection of Conscience Project Administrator, Sean Murphy.  “This development simply confirms the obvious.”

Medical leaders grapple with new euthanasia dilemma: What to write on the death certificate

National Post

Sharon Kirkey

As Canada inches closer to granting doctors the power to end the lives of consenting patients, medical leaders are grappling with a new dilemma: should deaths by lethal injection be classified “death by natural causes” on death certificates?

Quebec’s College of Physicians is considering recommending doctors list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death in cases of “medical aid in dying” on public death records – and not euthanasia.

The college says it wants to ensure life insurance is paid to families in cases of euthanasia and says the province’s assisted-death law will require any doctor who administers euthanasia to report the death to a special oversight body. That information will be kept confidential or shared with the college and/or the doctor’s hospital.

Euthanasia opponents are denouncing the proposal as an attempt to conceal the truth. It is also creating unease among some doctors who worry misstating death certificates could make it difficult to track how often assisted death is occurring once the practice becomes legal in Canada in February, and whether it is being performed legally. . . [Full Text]

National Post View: On physician-assisted suicide, respect the conscience rights of all

National Post

The Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Now the physicians are speaking.

According to a poll of 1,047 doctors by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), released as part of the organization’s annual general meeting in Halifax, 63 per cent would refuse to provide so-called “medical aid in dying.” Twenty-nine per cent said they would consider killing a patient upon request, with 19 per cent saying that they “would be willing to help end the life of a patient whose suffering was psychological, not physical.”

The results suggest there remains strong opposition to assisted suicide among the membership of the CMA, which until recently was officially opposed to a loosening of anti-euthanasia laws in any form. At the same time, it suggests there are enough doctors willing to aid a patient to commit suicide to serve the demand. Unfortunately, that is not enough to settle the matter of just when and how physicians will be involved. . . (Full text)

Podcast: Canadian Medical Association draft framework on euthanasia and assisted suicide

Podcast: Canadian Medical Association draft framework on euthanasia and assisted suicideOn August 25, 2015, delegates at the 148th Annual General Council of the Canadian Medical Association will be voting on a draft policy framework for euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The draft document warrants close attention because of its potential impact on freedom of conscience among health care workers who do not want to be involved with these procedures.

This podcast supplements the Project’s commentary on the draft framework, which includes an on-line annotated version.

Podcast Contents

Introduction (00:00-06:35)

  • The problem of referral
  • “Providing” or “participating”?

Principles Based Approach to Assisted Dying in Canada (07:09-11:27)

  • Carter v. Canada
  • Strategic Questions

Schedule A: Foundational Principles (11:27-19:05)

  • Equity
  • Respect for physician values
  • Solidarity

Schedule A: Recommendations (19:38-27:33)

  • Patient qualifications
    • Informed decision
    • Capacity
  • Process map for medical decision making
    • Stage 1 & 2: Requesting; Before undertaking
    • Stage 3: After undertaking

Schedule A: Recommendations (28:07-31:02)

  • Conscientious objection by a physician

Schedule B: Legislative criteria across jurisdictions (31:35-35:00)

  • Q3: Reconcile refusal and equitable access?

Summing up (35:32-39:12)

Many doctors won’t provide assisted dying

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Lauren Vogel

Canadian doctors remain deeply divided over whether and how to provide medical aid in dying, and what is required of those who refuse to assist in ending a patient’s life.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that patients who face intolerable suffering from a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” have a constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. The decision overturned a previous ban; now federal legislators must regulate the practice by Feb. 6, 2016.

Exactly how physicians should respond to this new legal reality dominated discussion at the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) General Council in Halifax on Aug. 25. . . (Full text)