As vaccine mandates multiply, so do requests for religious exemptions

The Buffalo News

Jay Tokasz

A couple dozen people asked the Buffalo Diocese for letters supporting a religious exemption from a Covid-19 vaccination.

The University at Buffalo and other area colleges and universities granted several hundred exemptions from their mandatory vaccine policy for students, mostly for faith reasons.

A national religious liberty organization is threatening to sue New York State over a vaccine mandate for health care workers that doesn’t include a religious exemption. . . . continue reading

Push for conscientious objection ruled out

The Advocate

Adam Holmes

Tasmanians will not be able to claim “conscientious objector” status should they require a mandatory vaccination for work in healthcare settings, Premier Peter Gutwein has confirmed. . . continue reading

Catholic doctors cannot refuse COVID-19 vaccines on moral or religious grounds in Tasmania

The Examiner

Isabel Bird

Conservative catholic doctors, nurses and other health workers who oppose mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations on moral or “conscience grounds” will not be allowed to refuse the vaccine in Tasmania.

The state government, and other jurisdictions, are making vaccinations mandatory for all health workers in the public and private healthcare systems, leading the Catholic Medical Association of Australia (CMAA) to call for the right to a “conscientious objection to vaccination”.

The association says vaccines can be rejected on moral grounds, and because of a lack of research, testing and knowledge about future side effects, but this in comparison to the views of Catholic Church head Pope Francis who has urged people to get vaccinated, saying that vaccines “bring hope to end the pandemic, but only if they are available to all”. . . . continue reading

HHS Denies Conscience Freedom for Physicians

National Review

Matt Bowman

We’ve all read about how President Biden recently ordered his Health and Human Services Department to issue a national eviction-moratorium mandate, even though “the bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that it’s not likely to pass constitutional muster.” And indeed, the Supreme Court has just struck it down.

What can you do when the president brazenly admits that he is trampling on constitutionally protected freedoms?

But the eviction moratorium is not the only mandate from this president that far exceeds his authority. It’s not even the only illegal mandate from President Biden’s HHS.

On August 26, two organizations of medical doctors and an obstetrician/gynecologist filed a lawsuit in federal court over a mandate from President Biden and HHS that will force doctors to perform gender-transition procedures, even on children.

The administration’s excuse for this mandate is Obamacare, but that 1,000-page statute . . . simply prohibits sex discrimination, as Congress understood that term when it enacted civil-rights laws half a century ago.

Yet on January 20, President Biden ordered his federal agencies to go far beyond the law and reinterpret sex discrimination to include “gender identity” discrimination. . . . continue reading

Canada’s politicians go MIA in debate over conscientious objection for doctors

BioEdge

Michael Cook

Conscientious objection to abortion and euthanasia has emerged as an election issue in Canada’s 2021 federal election – and politicians are refusing to defend it.

The pro-choice leader of the Conservatives, Erin O’Toole, has walked back from a promise in his party’s platform to “protect the conscience rights of health-care professionals.”

Does this mean that the Conservatives will defend the right not to refer patients for Medical Aid in Dying? O’Toole fudged an answer, but he was clearly not in favour.

The governing Liberal Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, jumped on an opportunity to score points: “Pro-choice doesn’t mean the freedom of doctors to choose. It means the freedom of women to choose. Leaders have to be unequivocal on that,” he said last week.

The politicians’ reluctance to support doctors who do not want to refer for abortion or euthanasia is mirrored in the reluctance of the professional associations to defend refusal to refer. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario requires doctors to provide an “effective referral” within a “timely manner” to another professional or agency, should they consciously object. “Physicians must not impede access to care for existing patients, or those seeking to become patients,” reads the college’s policy.

Quebec’s Collège des médecins du Québec says that: “In Quebec, doctors cannot abandon patients or even ignore their request by invoking conscientious objections, particularly in matters of abortion or medical assistance in dying, without referring them to another colleague. It is an ethical obligation.”

However, Colleges in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Manitoba all explicitly say that professionals who refuse to provide service are not required to make a referral. They cite the Canadian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics and Professionalism.


This article is published by Michael Cook and BioEdge under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees