Tag: referral

Physician’s conscience should trump patient demands, argues Justice Centre

News Release

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

TORONTO: The Justice Centre will intervene at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Tuesday June 13 through June 15, in support of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada (“CMDS”) Application against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “CPSO”) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The CPSO has adopted policies that require doctors to assist patients who want to commit suicide, and other medical services such as abortion, even if those services conflict with a doctor’s conscience or religious beliefs.  The CPSO further requires doctors to provide “an effective referral” for physician-assisted suicide, also known as Medical Assistance in Dying (“MAID”).

The Justice Centre’s intervention will focus on the Supreme Court’s repeated rulings that there is no Charter right to health care, or any medical procedure, including MAID.  Therefore, there cannot be a right, Charter or otherwise, which allows patients to demand that an individual doctor perform or provide any medical procedure or an “effective referral” for any specific medical procedure or service that violates that doctor’s conscientious or religious beliefs.

On the contrary, doctors have protected conscience and religious rights under section 2(a) of the Charter, and government bodies like the College are required to respect those Charter freedoms. In failing to respect the conscience rights of medical practitioners, the CPSO threatens the integrity of the entire medical profession.

The Justice Centre’s Factum concludes:

The Policy uses threats and coercion to compel conduct that overrides a physician’s foundational right-and-wrong imperatives. The CPSO’s justifications as to why it is  necessary in the instant case to violate an individual’s conscience are fallacious. There is no constitutional right to health care, and no fiduciary obligations exist to require a physician to assist with suicide. History is replete with examples of state entities that compelled their citizens to act contrary to conscience, with horrific and tragic results. In attempting to compel conduct against the wills and consciences of medical practitioners the CPSO adds itself to a list of infamy.

How to End a Life

A year since assisted suicide became legal, only a small number of physicians are willing to perform the procedure, and their numbers are shrinking. Taking a life is harder than they thought

Toronto Life

Nicholas Hune-Brown

The first thing April Poelstra noticed was the hitch in her father’s shoulder. Jack’s left arm was drooping, hanging limply at his side, as if he didn’t have the muscle to cinch it into alignment. It was the fall of 2015, and Jack was living in Frankville, Ontario, waking up at 4:30 a.m. to plow roads and work odd jobs for a construction company. . . Jack tried to downplay his shoulder problems. He visited his doctor for a battery of tests, but always changed the subject when April pressed for details. . . .In early 2016, her fears were validated: Jack was diagnosed with ALS. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig’s disease . . .On June 17, Bill C-14 became law, making medical assistance in dying, or MAID, legal for mentally competent Canadians. Jack Poelstra was overjoyed. . . [Full text]

 

Victory for Vermont health professionals after pro-suicide group drops appeal

Compassion & Choices withdraws appeal of court decision that affirmed pro-life physician groups aren’t mandated to counsel, refer for assisted suicide

News Release

Alliance Defending Freedom

RUTLAND, Vt. – A pro-suicide group has dropped its appeal of a federal court’s decision which affirmed that a Vermont law can’t be interpreted to require pro-life health professionals to counsel or refer patients for assisted suicide. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit officially dismissed the appeal Monday, thus ending the case.

The withdrawal of the appeal by Compassion & Choices leaves in place a consent agreement between physician groups and the Vermont Attorney General’s office, which agreed that the court was correct in deciding that the state’s Act 39 does not force conscientious professionals to ensure all “terminal” patients are informed about the availability of doctor-prescribed death.

“Vermont health care workers just want to act consistently with their reasonable and time-honored convictions without fear of government punishment,” said ADF Senior Counsel Steven H Aden, who argued before the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont in November of last year in Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare v. Hoser. “Conscientious Vermont healthcare professionals are in agreement with the state that the law doesn’t force them to participate in this heinous process, and they are pleased that the nation’s foremost advocate of assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, has abandoned its effort to force them to do so.”

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and ADF-allied attorney Michael Tierney represent the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare and the Christian Medical and Dental Association, groups of medical professionals who wish to abide by their oath to “do no harm.”

Act 39, Vermont’s assisted suicide bill, passed with a very limited protection for attending physicians who don’t wish to dispense death-inducing drugs themselves, but state medical licensing authorities construed a separate, existing mandate to counsel and refer for “all options” for palliative care to include a mandate that all patients hear about the “option” of assisted suicide. For that reason, the groups representing pro-life health professionals filed suit.

The court ruled that the groups lacked a legal right to bring the lawsuit because the law actually doesn’t force them to act contrary to their conscience—a finding that Compassion & Choices initially opposed. The dismissal of the appeal leaves Vermont healthcare professionals free to “do no harm” without fear of retaliation for their pro-life views.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

# # # | Ref. 50739

Additional resources: Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare v. Hoser

Scroll down to view additional resources pertaining to this case and its surrounding issue.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Previous news releases:

  • 2017-04-05: Vt. health professionals planning next legal steps after decision on conscientious objection to providing suicide info
  • 2016-11-07: Health professionals to court: Don’t allow Vermont to force us to help kill patients
  • 2016-09-26: Health professionals ask court to stop Vermont from forcing them to help kill patients
  • 2016-07-20: Vermont health professionals: Don’t force us to help kill our patients

 

Why is Ontario forcing docs to participate in euthanasia?

Toronto Sun

Editorial

From the beginning of the debate over the now legal medical procedure of medically assisted dying, politicians have simply assumed doctors would do it.

Why? Why assume all doctors (and nurses) would be comfortable with this burden?

Especially since the medical professionals most likely to encounter requests for euthanasia would be those devoted to palliative care, to giving their patients as good a quality of life as possible in the final stages of life.

Canada’s assisted dying law does not require doctors to provide medically assisted death personally.

But in Ontario, they must refer the patient to a doctor who will do it, known as effective referral, which many medical professionals say violates their conscience rights not to participate in the euthanasia process. . . [Full text]

 

Ontario conscience rights bill voted down

Catholic Register

Michael Swan

In a strict party lines vote, a bill that would have shielded doctors and other health care providers from punishment for refusing to refer their patients on for assisted suicide was voted down at Queen’s Park on May 18.

In a recorded vote, 39 Liberals and New Democrats voted against Bill 129, Jeff Yurek’s private members’ bill aimed at protecting the conscience rights of doctors and other health care professionals. All 23 Progressive Conservatives backed their health critic’s bill.

Focus now shifts to the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada’s court challenge to the forced referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Three days of oral arguments are scheduled for Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court June 13-15. . . [Full text]