Do it anyway

More and more Canadian workers are being compelled to violate their own beliefs

 Terry O’Neill

Two of the most commonly heard expressions uttered in the name of modern egalitarian society are “workers’ rights” and “freedom of choice.” Let an employer order a non-Christian to put up Christmas decorations, and it will not be long before news-hungry media and human-rights enforcers show up in the employee’s defence (as happened in B.C. not long ago). However, a growing number of Canadian workers are being discriminated against on  conscience-related issues, and the institutions that should be protecting them are turning a blind eye to their plight. As is becoming increasingly apparent, the double standard seems to be entirely political. [Full text]

Christians and civil disobedience

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

Background Paper

John H. Redekop*

Introduction

A basic requirement for the functioning of civil society, especially in a democracy, is that citizens, generally speaking, should obey the laws of the land.  Christians and most, if not all, other religious groups accept that principle as an over-arching reality.  The logic is compelling. If citizens, in substantial numbers, would take the law into their own hands and individually decide which laws to obey and which to disobey, then anarchy might result rather quickly.  The theory is clear and essentially true but the practical situation is sometimes more complicated.

What is to be done by responsible and highly moral citizens if certain laws are inherently evil?  What should citizens do if the government of the day pressures them to violate their conscience on a fundamental principle?  What should they do if their government suddenly denies them the most basic of freedoms?  We know from history as well as from the present global situation that Christians often encounter laws which are unjust and simply wrong.  The Christian response is clear. . . [Read on]

Testimony of Wang Guoqi

Former Doctor at a Chinese People’s Liberation Army Hospital

United States House of Representatives
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights

Introduction
Wang Guoqi was a doctor at a Chinese People’s Liberation Army Hospital who willingly participated in organ harvesting from executed prisoners. However, after a particularly gruesome experience he experienced a conflict of conscience and tried to avoid further involvement in the process. His initial attempt was rejected and he was met with various forms of pressure to continue his participation. He eventually left China and appeared before a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives, where he provided the following testimony.

My name is Wang Guoqi and I am a 38-year-old physician from the People’s Republic of China. In 1981, after standard childhood schooling and graduation, I joined the People’s Liberation Army. By 1984, I was studying medicine at the Paramilitary Police Paramedical School. I received advanced degrees in Surgery and Human Tissue Studies, and consequently became a specialist in the burn victims unit at the Paramilitary Police Tianjin General Brigade Hospital in Tianjin. My work required me to remove skin and corneas from the corpses of over one hundred executed prisoners, and, on a couple of occasions, victims of intentionally botched executions. It is with deep regret and remorse for my actions that I stand here today testifying against the practices of organ and tissue sales from death row prisoners. . . [Full text]

Testimony from the gynaecological-obstetrical frontline

André O. Devos, MD*

. . .Since a fair amount of their income was the result of contraception, and surgical sterilisation, I refused to join the pool . . . According to my conscience, I could not accept any part of that income. I soon was dismissed, losing hospitalisation and surgical privileges. The letter of dismissal was signed both by our Mother Superior . . . and . . . a Reverend Canon, who at the same time was one of the secretaries of our
Bishop. [Full text]

Letter to the Editor,The Province

Sean Murphy

Readers might be confused by Susan Martinuk’s quote from the College of Pharmacists about what the future may hold for the profession: “preparation of drugs to assist voluntary or involuntary suicide, cloning, genetic manipulation or even suicide.” (Customer isn’t always right on issues of conscience, The Province, 13 June, 2001).

The College Registrar has explained that “involuntary suicide” should have read “involuntary euthanasia“, a clarification that hardly diminishes the moral issues that arise when people are killed without their consent. The second reference to suicide in the same quote is an error in Ms. Martinuk’s article. The sentence in the College statement ended, “…or even execution“. The reference is to the participation of pharmacists in execution by lethal injection, as in the case of Timothy McVeigh.

The paper quoted by Ms. Martinuk was written by the Ethics Advisory Committee of the College, and included imputations of dishonesty directed against conscientious objectors within the profession which the College is unable to substantiate, but which it refuses to withdraw. It is difficult to see how this is consistent with justice nor non-maleficence, two ethical principles that are supposed to be upheld by ethics committees.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project