Category: Assisted suicide

In the assisted-dying debate, where’s the compassion for doctors?

Edmonton Journal (Editorial)

What happens when those we trust most with human life are suddenly in charge of death?

Earlier this month, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, ruling against a family who wanted their mother’s care home to stop spoon-feeding her.

It’s difficult to fault either party.

Margaret Bentley, 83, neither speaks nor recognizes her relatives, and her family is certain the former dementia-ward nurse, now in the late stages of Alzheimer’s disease herself, would not want her life to continue in her current state.

A living will written by Bentley in 1991 outlined as much in no uncertain terms: “If at such a time the situation should arise that there is no reasonable expectation of my recovery from extreme physical or mental disability, I direct that I be allowed to die and not be kept alive by artificial means or ‘heroic measures.’ ”

But Bentley’s health-care workers refused to deliberately withhold food. They argued that by opening her lips to receive food when touched with a spoon, Bentley was consenting to being fed, and thus to being kept alive. The courts agreed. . . [Full text]

Uniform coercive policy urged for all Canadian physicians

Project submission to the Saskatchewan College of Physicians discloses details

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project has charged that a controversial policy proposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan is unjustified.

The policy, Conscientious Refusal, will require all Saskatchewan physicians who object to a procedure for reasons of conscience to facilitate the procedure by referring patients to a colleague who will provide it, even if it is homicide or suicide.

The Project noted that the burden of proof was on the policy’s supporters to prove that the policy is justified and that no less oppressive alternatives are available.  “They failed to do so,” states the submission. “The policy should be withdrawn.”

“Conscientious Refusal fails to recognize that the practice of medicine is a moral enterprise, that morality is a human enterprise, and that physicians, no less than patients, are moral agents” said the Project, describing the policy as “profoundly disrespectful of the moral agency of physicians.”

Using documents provided by the College, the Project’s submission traces the origin of the policy to a meeting in 2013. The meeting was apparently convened by the Conscience Research Group (CRG), activist academics whose goal is to compel physicians unwilling to provide morally contested procedures like abortion or euthanasia to refer patients to someone willing to do so. They presented a coercive model policy that had been drafted to achieve that goal.

According to a CPSS memo, College attendees included Saskatchewan Associate Registrar Bryan Salte, Dr. Gus Grant, Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, Andréa Foti of the Policy Department of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and a representative of the Collège des Médecins du Québec. They agreed upon a text virtually identical to the CRG model.

In May, 2014, Bryan Salte proposed the policy to Registrars of the Colleges of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, who, he reported, agreed to review it and consider implementing it. He later urged all of the Registrars of Colleges of Physicians in Canada to adopt the coercive policy or one very like it, noting that “physician assisted suicide, in particular” would be present a challenge for administrators.

“Any College that is an outlier, either because it has adopted a different position than other Colleges, or because it has not developed a policy, will potentially be placed in a difficult position,” he warned.

The CPSS memo discloses that, unbeknownst to physicians, officials in several provinces have been making plans behind closed doors to suppress freedom of conscience in the medical profession.

“One of the disturbing aspects of the story,” notes the submission, “is what appears to be a pattern of concealment, selective disclosure, and false or misleading statements that all serve the purpose of supporting the policy.”

The Project’s most recent submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario identifies a similarly troubling pattern, describing briefing materials supplied to College Council in support of its controversial policy as “not only seriously deficient, but erroneous and seriously misleading.”

Project Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (2015)

Project Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (2015)

Unacceptable to force doctors to participate in assisted dying against their conscience: CMA head

National Post

Sharon Kirkey

No physician in the country should be forced to play a role in any aspect of assisted dying against their moral or religious beliefs — including referring patients to another doctor willing to help them die, the Canadian Medical Association says.

Legalized physician-assisted death will usher in such a fundamental change in practice “we simply cannot accept a system that compels physicians to go against their conscience as individuals on something so profound as this,” CMA president Chris Simpson said in an exclusive interview.

The unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling legalizing assisted dying would not compel doctors to help patients end their lives when the historic decision takes effect next year.

But the justices were more guarded on the issue of mandatory referral, saying the Charter rights of both patients and doctors will need to be reconciled.

Dr. Simpson said that many doctors who conscientiously object to assisted dying feel the very act of referral “is contrary to their personal ethics or moral or religious beliefs.” . . . [Full text]

Giving doctors a choice on assisted suicide

National Post

The following is an open letter written by medical professionals to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Should Ontario’s doctors be forced to violate their consciences? On Feb. 6, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Criminal Code provisions against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Concurrently, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is proposing to oblige physicians, at the risk of professional discipline, to refer patients for procedures that a physician has refused for reasons of conscience, to a willing physician or agency established for such referrals.

This is a major shift in policy for the CPSO. Aside from Quebec, this position is not held by any other medical regulatory college in Canada and is inconsistent with the position of the Canadian Medical Association, the American Medical Association and similar bodies in Commonwealth countries. . . [Full Text]

How far should a doctor go? MDs say they ‘need clarity’ on Supreme Court’s assisted suicide ruling

National Post

Sharon Kirkey

Canada’s doctors are seeking clarity from the federal government on what the Supreme Court of Canada intended in its landmark ruling on assisted dying, including the question of how far a doctor is permitted to go in contributing to a patient’s death.

“We’ve got a few key questions that we think need clarity and this is one of them: Is it euthanasia or is it assisted dying?” said the Canadian Medical Association’s director of ethics and professional affairs, Dr. Jeff Blackmer.

The powerful doctors’ lobby said it is not clear whether the high court has opened the door not just to assisted suicide  –  where a doctor writes a prescription for a lethal overdose of drugs the patient takes herself  –  but also to something many physicians find profoundly more uneasy: pushing the syringe themselves. . . [Full text]