Category: Legal Commentary

Redefining the practice of medicine – Part 3

Winks and nods and euthanasia in Quebec

Re:  Bill 52: An Act respecting end-of-life care (June, 2013)

Sean Murphy*

Part 3: Working in the MAD matrix

Abstract

“Medical aid in dying” in Bill 52 (An Act respecting end-of-life care) will be transformed into euthanasia using the structures and powers established by other Quebec statutes governing the delivery of health care. These laws have established a multi-layered and overlapping bureaucracy. If Bill 52 passes, health care providers and others who want no part of euthanasia will find their working environments increasingly controlled by a MAD matrix functioning within this system.

The Minister for Social Services and Youth Protection may issue “policy directions” about euthanasia. Health care in every region in Quebec is delivered under the direction of a regional health and social service agency. In addition, local health and social services networks have been established. These will be expected to provide or facilitate euthanasia.

Almost all local community service centres, hospital centres or residential and long-term care centres will be required to offer euthanasia, as will rehabilitation centres, which serve developmentally disabled patients. Palliative care hospices and hospitals are not required to do so. Physicians associated with private health care facilities must not provide euthanasia unless authorized by a local health authority.

Policies, standards, codes of ethics, protocols, guidelines, directives, etc. can be used to normalize euthanasia, and disciplinary and complaints procedures can be used to force participation in it. Local complaints commissioners, the Health and Social Services Ombudsman and syndics (investigators) for professional orders could create considerable difficulty for objecting physicians.

Under Quebec’s Professional Code, the Physicians’ Alliance for Total Refusal of Euthanasia, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and other groups that oppose euthanasia might face substantial fines if they persist in encouraging or advising physicians not to participate in the procedure.

Physicians may refuse to provide euthanasia if the patient is legally ineligible, and for other reasons, including conscientious objection. Section 30 of the bill should be amended to avoid unnecessary conflict with objecting physicians. Section 44, the provision specific to conscientious objection, is inadequate. Further, patients may lodge complaints against physicians who refuse to provide or facilitate euthanasia with institutions and the regulatory authority, regardless of the reasons for refusal.

Despite the promise of immunity, some Quebec physicians may be unwilling to provide euthanasia while the criminal law stands, even if they do not object to the procedure. Similar reluctance might arise in regional health agencies, councils of physicians or other entities responsible for issuing MAD guidelines. Some might deliberately and obstinately interpret “medical aid in dying” to exclude killing patients, on the ground that the Act does not explicitly require or permit euthanasia, and the criminal law precludes such an interpretation.

Finally, objecting physicians might be able to appeal to the Public Protector, who is empowered to intervene “whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that a person or group of persons has suffered or may very likely suffer prejudice as the result of an act or omission of a public body.” [Full commentary]

Redefining the practice of medicine – Part 2

Winks and nods and euthanasia in Quebec

Re:  Bill 52: An Act respecting end-of-life care (June, 2013)

Sean Murphy*

Part 1: Bill 52 in detail

Abstract

An Act respecting end-of-life care (Bill 52) purports to establish a right to euthanasia for a certain class of patients by including it under the umbrella of “end-of-life care.” Those seeking euthanasia may not be near the end of their lives and may not be terminally ill, but they are apparently classed as “end-of-life patients” because they have chosen to end their lives.

Section 25 introduces a term not used by the medical profession, “terminal palliative sedation” (TPS). By this the Quebec government means an irreversible procedure intended to kill the patient slowly. Any patient is eligible for TPS, and a proxy can consent to it on behalf of an incompetent patient.

Section 26 permits patients to be killed quickly by “medical aid in dying”(MAD) if they are competent adult Quebec residents suffering from an incurable serious illness, in an advanced state of irreversible decline and suffering from constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain. The patient need not be terminally ill and is free to refuse effective palliative treatments.

A qualifying patient must personally make a written request for MAD “in a free and informed manner.” It must be signed in the presence of professional, who must also sign the request. The attending physician must confirm the eligibility of the patient and the free and informed nature of the request. He must verify the persistence of suffering and a continuing desire for euthanasia, speak to other members of the health care team and see that the patient is able to discuss the decision with others. However, the physician cannot advise family members unless the patient so wishes. Thus a physician may kill a patient without the knowledge of the family. Finally, the attending physician must obtain a written opinion of an independent physician confirming eligibility for euthanasia.

Only physicians may provide euthanasia (MAD), and, having done so, must “take care” of a patient until he dies. Physicians who provide TPS or MAD must report the fact to institutional authorities. They must report all euthanasia cases to the Commission on End-of-Life Care.

The Act appears to assume that the regulators will establish “clinical standards” for euthanasia but does not assign them a central role, making institutional authorities primarily responsible for it.

Canadian criminal law is not affected by the Act. It continues to apply to the killing of patients by physicians, but also to any act or omission done for that purpose, including the making and distribution of MAD guidelines and protocols.

First degree murder is defined as murder that is “planned and deliberate.” A physician who does what the Act requires will have provided excellent evidence that the killing was intentional, planned and deliberate. Conforming to the Act respecting end-of-life care would seem to increase the likelihood that a physician – and anyone counselling, aiding, abetting his act – could be charged and convicted for first degree murder, for which the punishment is life imprisonment without parole for 25 years. [Full commentary]

Redefining the practice of medicine – Part 1

Winks and nods and euthanasia in Quebec

Re:  Bill 52: An Act respecting end-of-life care (June, 2013)

Sean Murphy*

Part 1: Overview

Abstract

An Act respecting end-of-life care (Bill 52) is intended to permit physicians, in defined circumstances, to kill their patients as part of the redefined practice of medicine. However, the procedure cannot become part of medical practice in Quebec unless the medical profession itself (broadly speaking) formally accepts it as a form of health care.

The strategy of the Quebec government includes three key elements:

a) A statute that authorizes and allows the regulation of “medical aid in dying” (MAD) but does not define the term, so as to avoid conflict with the criminal law and constitutional challenges to the law;

b) Compliant medical regulators, professionals and health care authorities who are expected to define MAD to include euthanasia, thus establishing it as a legitimate aspect of health care;

c) Refusal to prosecute physicians who kill patients in accordance with MAD guidelines, thus circumventing the criminal prohibition of euthanasia.

While the federal government could, in theory, appoint and pay lawyers to act as prosecutors to enforce the criminal law, this would be especially contentious in Quebec and would involve political and practical problems. If Bill 52 passes, it seems unlikely that Quebec physicians who provide euthanasia under MAD guidelines will be prosecuted. The province formerly refused to enforce Canada’s criminal law on abortion for over twenty years, so a policy of refusing to prosecute physicians providing euthanasia could have similar staying power.

Though Bill 52 does not actually require or authorize the killing of patients, from a practical perspective, the text of the statute is a “mere technicality.” Nonetheless, it is not a mere technicality that the medical establishment and not the statute will have directed that patients can be killed in order to relieve their symptoms.

On the contrary: it is profoundly significant. Having formally approved of euthanasia, the medical establishment (meaning all of those who collaborate in drawing up MAD guidelines and protocols) will be at particular pains to defend and enforce the decision. In the end, freedom of conscience for Quebec health care workers who object to euthanasia may come to mean nothing more than the freedom to find another job, or the freedom to leave the province.  [Full commentary]

Proposed Irish abortion law demands referral by objectors, denies freedom of conscience to denominational institutions

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013

The general scheme for a new Irish abortion law will permit abortions when there is a “real and substantial risk” to the life of a woman by reason of physical illness, suicidal ideation, or emergency medical conditions.  The scheme is called a “heads of bill”, with each “head” corresponding to what is likely to become a section of the final
bill.  However, the wording and content of each head are not settled.

Protection  of Conscience Provision

The General Scheme for the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 includes a protection of conscience provision that is limited to medical practitioners, midwives and nurses.  The commentary states that the provision is derived from a bill passed by the Irish Parliament in 2001 (which ultimately did not become law), but it is narrower provision than the original, which extended protection to all persons.

All hospitals and institutions operated by the state or by persons contracted by the state will be required to provide abortions if they provide maternity or neonatal care.  No exemptions are permitted for facilities operated by religious denominations or persons who object to abortion for reasons of conscience.

Section 2 of the protection of conscience provision may deny freedom of conscience to psychiatrists and other medical practitioners who do not wish to participate in panels convened to approve abortions for women who are threatening to commit suicide.  One third of Irish psychiatrists have already signed a letter to the government asserting that abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation.

Finally, the bill demands that medical practitioners who do not want to participate in the procedure must find someone willing to do so.  Many conscientious objectors are unwilling to refer patients for morally contested procedures because they believe that by doing so they become morally complicit in wrongdoing.

It is not clear how much difficulty the mandatory referral requirement will cause, since the bill envisions abortion only in circumstances involving a substantial risk to the mother’s life.  This is very rare, and in such circumstances there is much less likelihood of conscientious objection, so it may not prove to be troublesome in operation.  On the other hand, government comments accompanying the bill note that medical practitioners do not need to be of the opinion that the risk to the woman’s life “is inevitable or immediate.”  The more broadly this interpretation is construed, the more likely it is that conflicts of conscience will occur.

While the proposed bill is the product of the controversy generated by the death of Savita Halippanavar in Galway in October of last year, it does not appear to propose anything that would have made a difference to the outcome of that case.  Her death was caused by a particularly virulent infection that is not normally found in maternity settings.  An emergency induction of the kind contemplated by Head 3 in the proposed bill was legal at that time and had been decided upon when she spontaneously delivered a stillborn daughter.  (See A “medical misadventure” in Ireland: Deaths of Savita and Prasa Halappanavar)

Australian Medical Association Submission to the Tasmanian Government

On the law governing termination of pregnancy

Introduction

The Tasmanian branch of the Australian Medical Association expressed qualified support for statutory legalization of abortion in a submission to the Tasmanian state government concerning its proposed Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill 2013.  However, the Association also emphasized its opposition to parts of the proposed bill that would suppress freedom of conscience among physicians.  Those parts of the submission are reproduced below. [Read more . . .]