Category: Legal Commentary

Forced Referral and Freedom of Religion vs Freedom of Conscience

Without freedom of conscience our free democracy would not exist

The Epoch Times

Shawn Whatley, MD*

A recent court decision in Ontario missed the mark when it ignored the impact forced referral has on freedom of conscience.

On May 15, the Ontario appeals court ruled that doctors must give patients a referral for euthanasia, abortion, and other contentious issues, regardless of what an individual doctor thinks about them.

The court battle started after the medical regulator in Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), created a policy that forced doctors to refer for procedures, regardless of doctors’ deeply held convictions of religion or conscience. Doctors who refuse would risk being fined and/or losing their license to practice medicine. . . [Full text]

HHS Final Conscience Rule and Protected Employees

Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman PC

Robin M. Sheridan and Lindsey Croasdale

On May 2, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced the issuance of the final conscience rule, which prohibits discrimination of individuals on the basis of their exercise of conscience in HHS-funded programs. The rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, but HHS has released an unofficial version of the document. This rule will be effective 60 days after is it published in the Federal Register. . . [Full text]

With Ontario court’s ruling on doctors, the revolution continues

There is a growing antipathy among Canadian elites against conscientious individuals who refuse to accept their views

National Post

Barry W. Bussey*

How is it that such a simple decision could be made so complicated? Given the history of accommodating individual conscience in the medical profession and in Canadian law, the case before the Ontario Court of Appeal to accommodate doctors’ consciences was a “no-brainer.” The law, history, and basic human decency cried out: “Accommodate the physician!” Instead, the highest court in Ontario followed the worrying legal revolution against accommodation and stomped on conscience. And it did so wrapped up in language that purported to support vulnerable patients.

The decision against physicians who, because of conscience, cannot assist in the intentional killing of a human being, pre- or post-birth, is a travesty of justice. It is wrong. It is wrong morally, ethically and legally. . . [Full Text]

Physician Participation in Lethal Injection

Deborah W. Denno

On April 1, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Missouri death-row inmate’s claim that executing him using the state’s lethal-injection protocol would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” because blood-filled tumors in his head, neck, and throat could rupture and cause him to choke and suffer “excruciating” and “prolonged pain.”. . . the opinion’s unusual facts and circumstances throw into sharp relief the pervasiveness of physician participation in lethal injection despite the medical community’s professed condemnation of such involvement. . .

Denno DW. Physician Participation in Lethal Injection. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:1790-1791 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1814786

Labour Court clarifies freedoms of religion and conscience in healthcare sector

Wistrand International Law Office

Jörgen Larsson

Introduction

Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the world with full freedom of religion. Further, freedom of conscience is a right protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, domestic law recognises no right to conscientious objection. In this respect, Sweden differs from most other European countries.

In 2017 the Labour Court clarified from an employment law perspective whether freedom of conscience gives healthcare professionals a right to conscientious objection.

Facts

A midwife expressed that her religious beliefs forbid her from performing abortion services. When she expressed her opinion, three different healthcare regions in Sweden refused to employ her. The midwife brought the case to the Equality Ombudsman, which found that her refusal to perform abortion services was a manifestation of her religious beliefs and was thus protected by Article 9 of the ECHR. The Equality Ombudsman also found that the healthcare regions’ requirement that the midwife perform abortion services was reasonable and motivated by social interests in order to secure women’s effective access to abortion services. Therefore, the midwife’s freedom of religion had not been violated. . . . Full Text