Protection of Conscience Project weighs in on Alberta Bill 18

Recommends extension of protection, clarification of provisions re: health care facilities

News Release

For Immediate Release

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project has made a submission concerning Alberta Bill 18 (Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act). The bill is to provide the framework for the provision of euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS: known in Canada as Medical Assistance in Dying/MAiD).

The bill does not mention freedom of conscience or religion, but some provisions will have an impact on these fundamental freedoms for nurse and medical practitioners and health care facilities. The Project submission is limited to those provisions.

The submission recommends that the bill be amended to include affirmation of practitioner freedom to refuse to actively assist in or facilitate the provision of EAS/MAiD, and to prohibit bullying or harassment of and discrimination against those who refuse to collaborate in the services. Further: these provisions should be applied to all regulated health professionals, since medical and nurse practitioners are not the only regulated health professionals likely to be called upon to collaborate in EAS/MAiD.

Affirmation of the freedom of health facility operators to refuse to permit EAS/MAiD on their premises is laudable and necessary. However, the provision that affirms their freedom to refuse to permit the provision of opinions related to EAS/MAiD on their premises invites confusion and conflict. The Project recommends that this be clarified.

See the Project submission online.

Contact:

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

Covid vaccination and the common good

Eternity

Patrick Parkinson

Covid vaccination and the common good

A couple of decades ago, there were hardly any anti-vaxxers in Australia. Those who held the belief that it was wrong to prevent illness by receiving a vaccine typically rejected other aspects of modern life and government regulation as well.

The anti-vaxxer movement gathered pace with the publication of an article in a medical journal, since retracted and thoroughly discredited, that purported to make a link between vaccination and autism.

Since then the movement has become widespread. Now, vaccination against Covid has emerged as a religious issue – at least in some theologically conservative circles. . . continue reading

A Source of Hope Yet a Test of Faith; Can Health Practitioners Conscientiously Object to the COVID-19 Vaccines?

Lexology

Barry Wilson, William Harris

The rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations is presenting many difficulties and issues including for health practitioners who have a conscientious objection to the vaccination or administering it on the basis of personal beliefs.

Religious views

One issue that is not unique to COVID-19 vaccinations is their usage of cell lines from aborted foetuses. Australia is deploying the Pfizer and AstraZenca vaccines with the latter developed with the assistance of foetal cell lines. Notably, these cell lines are not the ‘original’ cell lines from the aborted foetuses but are genetically modified cells and the foetal cells used in developing the vaccine are reportedly not present in the final product. . . continue reading

Lack of evidence-based medicine in debate around new MAID law should concern Canadians

CBC News

Dr. Mark Sinyor

I recently had the privilege of testifying before the Senate of Canada in their deliberations about medical assistance in dying (MAID) legislation. The specific question before them was whether to allow the practice as a treatment for mental illness, which the Senate voted to recommend following an 18-month “sunset clause,” and the House of Commons says it would support with a two-year phase-in.

I have no personal objection to MAID in principle. But as a doctor and a psychiatrist who believes in evidence-based medicine, I found both the hearing and the result horrifying.

Bill C-7 would extend MAID to those experiencing intolerable suffering and who are not approaching the natural end of their lives, including those with mental illness. . . [Full text]

Portuguese assisted suicide/euthanasia law and freedom of conscience

Sean Murphy*

The Portuguese parliament passed Decree No. 109/XIV on 29 January, 2021, legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. It has been referred by the President of Portugal for a review by Portugal’s Constitutional Court.

The law permits physicians and nurses to assist in suicide or provide euthanasia for eligible patients.  Eligible patients are adult nationals or legal residents of Portugal who experience intolerable suffering as a result of an extremely severe and permanent injury or incurable terminal illness.  Eligible patients must also demonstrate a serious, voluntary, informed, continuing and reiterated decision to seek euthanasia/assisted suicide.  Physicians who are satisfied that a patient is eligible must obtain the approval of  the Committee for the Verification and Evaluation of Clinical Procedures for Advancing Death (CVA) before providing the procedure.

The law includes a protection of conscience provision.  Any health professional may decline to “practise or assist in the act of antecipação da morte de um doente“, which, literally translated, means the act of “anticipating the death of a patient.”  However, from the context it appears that this is more correctly translated as “advancing the death of a patient.”  To assist in “advancing the death of a patient” is broad enough to encompass diagnosis, evaluation and facilitation by referral or other means.

An objection can be based upon clinical, ethical or other grounds.  An objecting professional must advise a patient of the objection and reasons for it within 24 hours, presumably within 24 hours of a request from the patient.  Objectors must also give written notice to the person in charge of the health establishment where they work and to their professional orders.  Such an objection is permanently and universally valid and “does not need to be justified” (e não carece de fundamentação).  This appears to mean that objectors are not required to demonstrate that their clinical, ethical or other reasons for refusing to participate are correct.

The law is not clear about the freedom of health care facilities to refuse to be involved with euthanasia and assisted suicide or to prohibit the procedures on their premises. Article 12.1 states that it is up to the patient to determine the location for the procedure (“A escolha do local para a prática da morte medicamente assistida cabe ao doente.”). However, nothing in the law requires a facility to comply with a patient’s choice. The rest of Article 12 simply describes places where the services can be provided.

Lack of clarity on this point is likely to cause problems, especially if Portuguese euthanasia/assisted suicide advocates are as aggressive as those in Canada. See, for example: