We want doctors to be able to serve their patients instead of being pushed out of the practice of medicine.
But we need your help. Governments and medical associations will only agree if there is public support.
Category: Assisted suicide
Euthanasia, assisted suicide: Canadian Catholic bishops defend freedom of conscience
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has provided the federal External Panel on Options for a Legislative Response to Carter v. Canada with a five point submission stating the opposition of the Catholic Church to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, describing the latter practice as “murder.”
The fifth point in the submission was directed to freedom of conscience for health care workers:
On safeguarding freedom of conscience and religion, the Catholic Church believes and teaches:
“Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order. ” – Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1738
It is the conviction of all the Bishops of Canada, together with the other clergy and members of the consecrated life, united with our Catholic faithful, that our country must at all cost uphold and protect the conscience rights of the men and women who work as caregivers. Requiring a physician to kill a patient is always unacceptable. It is an affront to the conscience and vocation of the health-care provider to require him or her to collaborate in the intentional putting to death of a patient, even by referring the person to a colleague. The respect we owe our physicians in this regard must be extended to all who are engaged in health care and work in our society’s institutions, as well as to the individual institutions themselves. . .
Project Submission to the Canadian Provincial/Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying
Re: Implementation of Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Carter v. Canada
I. Introduction
I.1 The Protection of Conscience Project is a non-profit, non-denominational initiative that advocates for freedom of conscience among health care workers. It does not take a position on the acceptability of morally contested procedures. For this reason, almost half of the questions in the Written Stakeholder Submission Form are outside the scope of the Project’s interests.
I.2 The completed Written Stakeholder Submission Form is in Appendix “A” of this submission. The responses are numbered for reference purposes.
II. Scope of this submission
II.1 The responses in the Written Stakeholder Submission Form (Appendix “A”) are supplemented, in some cases, by additional comments in Part III. A protection of conscience policy is suggested in Appendix “B.”
III. Additional comments on numbered responses
III.1 Role of Physicians (Response 11)
III.1.1 While the Quebec euthanasia kits are to include two courses of medication in case the first does not work,1 insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that euthanasia and assisted suicide drugs do not always cause death as expected.2
III.1.2 Physicians willing to perform euthanasia as well as to assist in suicide should disclose and discuss options available in the event that a lethal injection or prescribed drug does not kill the patient.
III.1.3 Physicians willing to prescribe lethal drugs but unwilling to provide euthanasia by lethal injection should consider what they may be expected to do if a prescribed drug incapacitates but does not kill a patient.
III.1.4 The possibility of this complication provides another reason for insisting that the physician who approves assisted suicide or euthanasia should be the one to administer the lethal medication or to be present when it is ingested. Expecting other health care workers to deal with this complication is likely to increase the likelihood of conflict in what will be an already emotionally charged situation. . . . [Full Text]
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
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
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]