Tag: referral

Canadian Medical Association Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Consultation on CPSO Interim Guidance on Physician-Assisted Death

Project Introduction

The following submission sets out the position of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) on referral, within the context of the provision of euthanasia and assisted suicide.  The submission concerns a proposed policy by the state regulator of medicine in the province of Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO).  The College proposed that its policy of “effective referral” for morally contested services be applied to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Among the excellent points made by the Association:

It is in fact in a patient’s best interests and in the public interest for physicians to act as moral agents, and not as technicians or service providers devoid of moral judgement. . . . medical regulators ought to be articulating obligations that encourage moral agency, instead of imposing a duty that is essentially punitive to those for whom it is intended and renders an impoverished understanding of conscience.

Full text of the CMA submission

 

Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

 

Re: Interim Guidance on Physician Assisted Death

 Abstract

Virtually all of what is proposed in Interim Guidance on Physician-Assisted Death (IGPAD) is satisfactory, requiring only clarifications to avoid misunderstanding and appropriate warnings concerning the continuing effects of criminal law.

The College has no basis to proceed against physicians who refuse to do anything that would entail complicity in homicide or suicide, including “effective referral,” because they believe that a patient does not fit the criteria specified by Carter. College policies and expectations are of no force and effect to the extent that they are inconsistent with criminal prohibitions.

Proposals about respect for patients, access to services, and providing information are acceptable, subject to some clarifications and limitations with respect to offering the option of suicide. Simple and uncontroversial recommendations are offered to avoid problems associated with failed assisted suicide and euthanasia attempts, and in urgent situations.

However, the requirement for “effective referral “is completely unacceptable. It is ludicrous to assert that the reasoning that underpins the law on criminal complicity and culpability, civil liability and the College policy that prohibits referral for Female Genital Cutting can be dismissed as legally irrelevant to the exercise and protection of fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion.

The College cannot justify a demand for “effective referral” on the grounds that it cannot be understood to involve morally significant complicity in killing patients or helping them to commit suicide, nor can it be justified as a reasonable limitation on fundamental freedom.
The only apparent basis for the College’s demand for effective referral is that it has decided what the Supreme Court of Canada did not decide: that euthanasia and assisted suicide in circumstances defined by Carter are morally/ethically acceptable. College officials seem to consider the College justified in using force – the force of law – to compel dissenting physicians to conform to their moral/ethical views.

This is not a reasonable limitation of freedom but a reprehensible attack on them. It is a paradigmatic example of the authoritarian suppression of freedom of conscience and religion and a serious violation of human dignity. Examples of alternative acceptable policies demonstrate that access to assisted suicide and euthanasia can be ensured without suppressing freedom of conscience and religion.

Contents

I.    Outline of the submission

II.    Avoiding foreseeable conflicts

II.1    Failed assisted suicide and euthanasia II.2    Urgent situations
II.3    Project recommendations

III.    IGPAD and criminal law

IV.    IGPAD on respect, access, notification and providing information

IV.1    Treat patients respectfully; do not impede access
IV.2    Notification of objections
IV.3    Providing information

V.    Freedom of conscience

V.1    IGPAD and “effective referral”
V.2    “Effective referral” and criminal law
V.3    Legal vs. ethical/moral evaluation of euthanasia, assisted suicide
V.4    The College position: “error has no rights”

VI.    Project response

VI.1    Previous submissions
VI.2    Making freedom easy – or impossible
VII.    Alternative acceptable policies

VIII.    Conclusion

Appendix “A”    Supreme Court of Canada, Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5

A1.    Carter criteria for euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
A2.    Carter and the criminal law
A3.    Carter and freedom of conscience and religion

Appendix “B”    Carter in theTrial Court, Part VII: A Judicial Soliloquy on Ethics

B1.    A note of caution
B2.    The questions addressed in Part VII
B3.    Plaintiffs’ claim shapes and limits the analysis
B4.    Ethics: which one?
B5.    Medical ethics
B5.1    Ethics and the willingness of physicians
B5.2    Ethics and the positions of medical associations
B5.3    Ethics and the opinions of ethicists
B5.4    Ethics and current end-of-life practices
B6.    Ethics of society
B6.2    Ethics and public opinion
B6.3    Ethics and public committees
B6.4    Ethics and prosecution policies
B7.    Summary of the ethical debate
B8.    Conclusions about the ethical debate
B8.2    Would Canadian physicians provide the services?
B8.3    Current medical practice with respect to end-of-life care?
B8.4   Does the law attempt to uphold a conception of morality?
B9.    Carter Part VII: in brief
B9.1    Unanswered questions
B9.2    Meaningless findings
B9.3    Inconclusiveness
B9.4    Neglected evidence
B9.5    Deficient review of end-of-life decision-making
B10.    On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Appendix “C”    Physician Exercise of Freedom of Conscience and Religion

C1.    Introduction
C2.    Providing information to patients
C3.    Exercising freedom of conscience or religion
C4.    Reminder: treatments in emergencies

Ontario physicians unwilling to kill patients must help find someone who will

 College of Physicians and Surgeons demands “effective referral” for euthanasia, assisted suicide

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has quietly issued a directive that physicians who, for reasons of conscience or religion, are unwilling to kill patients or help them commit suicide, must help them find someone willing to do so.

The requirement appears in the policy Planning for and Providing Quality End-of-Life Care, approved in September by College Council:

8.3 Conscientious Objection

Physicians who limit their practice on the basis of moral and/or religious grounds must comply with the College’s Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy.

A note explains that limiting practice includes refusals to “provide care” (i.e., kill patients or assist with suicide.)

The College’s policy, Professional Obligations and Human Rights , demands that physicians who are unwilling to provide procedures for reasons of conscience or religion must make “an effective referral to another health-care provider,” which is defined as “a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician, other health-care professional, or agency.”

As a result of the demand for “effective referral,” Professional Obligations and Human Rights is the subject of a legal challenge filed by the Christian Medical and Dental Society and the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies.  Among other things, the suit alleges actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the working group that developed the policy.

Professional Obligations and Human Rights was approved by College Council in March, 2015, despite overwhelming opposition to the demand for “effective referral” that was evident in the returns during the public consultation.  The College issued a statement with the policy to the effect that it did not apply to euthanasia or assisted suicide.  It promised to revisit the issue after Parliament or the provincial legislature enacted laws in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. Canada.

“It was obvious at the time that this was an ingenuous tactic that they hoped would defuse opposition to the policy, at least among Council members” said  Protection of Conscience Project Administrator, Sean Murphy.  “This development simply confirms the obvious.”

National Post View: On physician-assisted suicide, respect the conscience rights of all

National Post

The Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Now the physicians are speaking.

According to a poll of 1,047 doctors by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), released as part of the organization’s annual general meeting in Halifax, 63 per cent would refuse to provide so-called “medical aid in dying.” Twenty-nine per cent said they would consider killing a patient upon request, with 19 per cent saying that they “would be willing to help end the life of a patient whose suffering was psychological, not physical.”

The results suggest there remains strong opposition to assisted suicide among the membership of the CMA, which until recently was officially opposed to a loosening of anti-euthanasia laws in any form. At the same time, it suggests there are enough doctors willing to aid a patient to commit suicide to serve the demand. Unfortunately, that is not enough to settle the matter of just when and how physicians will be involved. . . (Full text)

Podcast: Canadian Medical Association draft framework on euthanasia and assisted suicide

Podcast: Canadian Medical Association draft framework on euthanasia and assisted suicideOn August 25, 2015, delegates at the 148th Annual General Council of the Canadian Medical Association will be voting on a draft policy framework for euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The draft document warrants close attention because of its potential impact on freedom of conscience among health care workers who do not want to be involved with these procedures.

This podcast supplements the Project’s commentary on the draft framework, which includes an on-line annotated version.

Podcast Contents

Introduction (00:00-06:35)

  • The problem of referral
  • “Providing” or “participating”?

Principles Based Approach to Assisted Dying in Canada (07:09-11:27)

  • Carter v. Canada
  • Strategic Questions

Schedule A: Foundational Principles (11:27-19:05)

  • Equity
  • Respect for physician values
  • Solidarity

Schedule A: Recommendations (19:38-27:33)

  • Patient qualifications
    • Informed decision
    • Capacity
  • Process map for medical decision making
    • Stage 1 & 2: Requesting; Before undertaking
    • Stage 3: After undertaking

Schedule A: Recommendations (28:07-31:02)

  • Conscientious objection by a physician

Schedule B: Legislative criteria across jurisdictions (31:35-35:00)

  • Q3: Reconcile refusal and equitable access?

Summing up (35:32-39:12)