Danielle Smith, leader of Alberta’s Wildrose Party, is reported to be thinking of reconsidering the party’s support for freedom of conscience following the party’s defeat in the recent provincial election. The premier of the province, who stated that she was “frightened” by freedom of conscience, was re-elected with a large majority. [National Post]
Tag: Alberta
In the True North Strong and Free
Project Letter to the Calgary Herald
Twelve years ago, an editorial in the Calgary Herald1 expressed hope that a bill proposed by MLA Julius Yankowsky2 would ensure that health care professionals would not be forced to participate in procedures or services to which they objected for reasons of conscience.
The editorial cited the example of coerced participation of nurses in late term abortions at Foothills Hospital3 and the case of Maria Bizecki, a pharmacist facing discipline for refusing to dispense the morning after pill.4 The bill, said the editorial, was “a common sense compromise” that would respect freedom of conscience without preventing access to abortion or drugs. Yankowsky’s bill did not pass, but a common sense compromise was eventually worked out between Ms. Bizecki and her employer, the Calgary Cooperative Association.5
While Ms. Bizecki’s case was grinding slowly forward, she and Professor Donald De Marco met the Herald editorial board. Danielle Smith, then a member of the board, was at the meeting. So was Herald columnist Naomi Lakritz, who, at one point, personally congratulated Ms. Bizecki for her stand.6
Danielle Smith, now leader of the Wildrose Party, appears to be advocating the kind of compromise supported by the Herald when it expressed support for freedom of conscience for health care professionals. Ms. Lakritz, however, seems to have changed her mind.
“The word ‘conscience,’” she writes, “is now being used to advocate doing the wrong thing” – like refusing to dispense the morning after pill. (“Conscience rights is another way of allowing discrimination.”Calgary Herald, 10 April, 2012)
Ms. Lakritz is not alone in this belief. She reports that Alison Redford, the Premier of the province, is actually frightened by suggestions that at least some people in Alberta might refuse to do what they believe to be wrong. We are told that Liberal and NDP leaders also oppose freedom of conscience, and that the Alberta Party leader condemns protection of conscience legislation as “an exercise in exclusion,” a point apparently overlooked by those who drafted Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to Ms. Lakritz, the Premier believes that suppression of freedom of conscience demonstrates respect for diversity, that people are treated with “dignity and respect” when they are forced to do what they believe to be wrong, and that threatening conscientious objectors with dismissal makes people feel “safe and included.”
We are not told if the Premier and other leaders opposed to freedom of conscience insist that their candidates sacrifice their personal integrity in order to run for office. Nor does Ms. Lakritz tell us if employees at the Calgary Herald must do what they believe to be wrong as a condition of employment or promotion.
She does, however, claim that those who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to provide a legal drug or service act wrongly and dishonourably because they thus treat some people “as though they were much less equal to others.” This is like saying that refusing to sell tobacco is wrong because it treats smokers “as though they were much less equal” to non-smokers, or that refusing to facilitate prostitution is dishonourable because it denies equality to ‘sex trade workers.’ Even if one accepts such a peculiar notion of equality, however, equality is not the only principle relevant to the moral evaluation of an act. Moreover, the mere legality of a product or service imposes no duty to provide it or to affirm its moral acceptability. Ms. Lakritz made this clear when she excoriated Henry Morgentaler and abortion rights groups for suggesting that Catholic bishops should ask people to stop protesting abortions – a legal, tax-paid service.
“[The bishops] are not exactly known for indulging in moral relativism,” she observed.
“What this society needs is more people like them who take a firm stand on issues and do not apologize for refusing to be swayed by whatever current compromise passes for morality.”7
It is a pity that Ms. Lakritz no longer believes this: that she now holds that such people are “truly disgusting,” and that personal integrity and courage are grounds for dismissal in the true north strong and free.
O, Canada.
Notes
1. “Editorial, The Calgary Herald, April 11, 2000. (Accessed 2012-04-11)
2. Bill 212, Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, 2000.
3. Ko, Marnie, “Personal Qualms Don’t Count: Foothills Hospital Now Forces Nurses To Participate In Genetic Terminations.” Alberta Report Newsmagazine, April 12, 1999
4. Mastromatteo, Mike, “Alberta Pharmacist Vindicated for Pro-Life Stand.” The BC Catholic, 3 November, 2003
5. Gerald D. Chipeur to the Calgary Co-operative Association Re: Maria Bizecki, 19 December, 2001
6. E-mails from Maria Bizecki to the Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project, 10 and April, 2012.
7. Lakritz, Naomi, “Hypocrite Henry: Morgentaler exercises his own brand of violence.” Winnipeg Sun, 17 January, 1995 (Accessed 2012-04-13)
Freedom of conscience frightens Premier of Alberta
Progressive Conservative Premier Alison Redford of Alberta states that she is “very frightened” by support for freedom of conscience expressed by the leader of the Wildrose Party, her principal opponent in the current provincial election campaign. The Wildrose Party is officially committed to protection of conscience legislation for health care workers. Danielle Smith, party leader, recently stated that she would apply the same principle to marriage commissioners who object to performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. Smith’s comments have drawn strident denunciations, equating the exercise of freedom of conscience with discrimination and hate-mongering. [Canadian Press] [Project letter to Calgary Herald]
Planned Parenthood and “Anti-Choice” Rhetoric
News Release
Protection of Conscience Project
Planned Parenthood Alberta is recycling the accusation that physicians who object to abortion may “scare” patients with “misinformation” or “impose their moral beliefs.” This smear may be unfairly applied to conscientious objectors who follow the guidelines of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA).
The CMA advises physicians to inform a patient when their personal morality would influence their recommendations or practice, and to advise patients of their objections to abortion. The CPSA expects physicians to provide information to patients seeking abortion so that they can “make informed decisions on all available options for their pregnancies, including termination.”
On the other hand, objecting physicians can hardly be expected to present morally controversial procedures as morally uncontroversial, or in such a way as to indicate that they approve of them or are indifferent to them. Moreover, the information they reasonably believe necessary to permit the patient to make a truly “informed decision” may be more comprehensive or in other respects different from what Planned Parenthood is accustomed to provide its clients.
An interest group like Planned Parenthood might well stigmatize such discussion as ‘moralizing’ and providing ‘misinformation’. Partisan polemics of this sort do not provide a basis for sound policy making.
Planned Parenthood Alberta is compiling a list of what it calls “anti-choice doctors.” If it is desirable to help patients find physicians who share their outlook on moral issues, it would be preferable for doctors to identify themselves, perhaps through the College of Physicians and Surgeons or professional associations.
But if Planned Parenthood persists in its plan to identify “anti-choice doctors”, it should include in its list the names of physicians who believe that their colleagues should be forced to provide or facilitate morally controversial procedures.
Related: Planned Parenthood and “Anti-Choice Rhetoric” (commentary)
Planned Parenthood and “Anti-Choice” Rhetoric
Sean Murphy*
A response to Mario Toneguzzi, “Planned Parenthood Targets ‘Anti-choice’ Docs”, Calgary Herald (19 August, 2004)
In 1999, citing allegations by un-named “individuals,” a Councillor of the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons claimed that some physicians who were not “supportive” of women seeking abortions were “rude and bullying to patients.”(1) Canadian Physicians for Life rebuked the Councillor for relying upon “polemical hearsay” and demanded that the College substantiate the allegation.(2) No evidence was forthcoming.
Three years later the Assistant Registrar of the College indicated that complaints about physician ‘moralizing’ were largely hearsay “from groups who provide birth control and family planning counselling to women” – not a bad definition of Planned Parenthood.(3)First-hand accounts from individual patients were a “distinct minority” of the total.(4)
Planned Parenthood Alberta is now recycling the accusation that physicians who object to abortion may “scare” patients with “misinformation” or “impose their moral beliefs.”(5) One of the problems with this kind of generalized smear is that it may be unfairly applied to conscientious objectors to abortion who follow the guidelines of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA).
The CMA advises physicians to “inform a patient when their personal morality would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants,” and to advise patients of their objections to abortion so that they can consult another physician.(6) The CPSA does not require physicians to advise every pregnant woman that she can have an abortion or put her child up for adoption,(7) but does expect them to provide information to patients seeking abortion so that they can “make informed decisions on all available options for their pregnancies, including termination.”(8)
In following these guidelines an objecting physician must, at all times, be respectful of the patient’s dignity, and must not be threatening, overbearing or abuse his authority by preaching or moralizing in order to influence his patient’s decision. On the other hand, objecting physicians can hardly be expected to present morally controversial procedures as morally uncontroversial, or in such a way as to indicate that they approve of them or are indifferent to them (i.e., to adopt a ‘neutral’ position). Moreover, the information they reasonably believe necessary to permit the patient to make a truly “informed decision” may be more comprehensive or in other respects different from what Planned Parenthood is accustomed to provide its clients.
A third party who was not present during this kind of exchange, especially an interest group like Planned Parenthood, might well stigmatize the discussion as ‘moralizing’ and providing ‘misinformation’. Partisan polemics of this sort do not provide a basis for sound policy making.
Planned Parenthood Alberta suggests that patients who are unsure of their doctor’s position on abortion should contact the organization because it is compiling a list of what it calls “anti-choice doctors”. Asking the doctor directly seems a simpler and more reliable way for patients to resolve such doubts. If it is desirable to help patients find physicians who share their outlook on moral issues, it would be preferable for doctors to identify themselves, perhaps through the College of Physicians and Surgeons or professional associations.
In the meantime, if Planned Parenthood persists in its plan to identify “anti-choice doctors”, it should include in its list the names of physicians who believe that their colleagues should not be forced to provide or facilitate morally controversial procedures.
Notes
1. Kretzul E. Ethical Responsibilities in Dealing with Women Requesting Abortion Services. The Messenger. 1999 Sep; 73: 6.
2. Canadian Physicians for Life. News Release: Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons challenged to think about conscience rights [Internet]. Powell River: Protection of Conscience Project; 1999 Oct 11.
3. Theman TW. Freedom of Conscience and the Needs of the Patient. Presentation to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Conference “New Developments-New Boundaries”; 2001 Nov 9-12; Banff, Alberta.
4. Theman, Trevor W. (Assistant Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta). Letter to: Sean Murphy (Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project). 2002 Jan 2. 1 leaf. Located at: Protection of Conscience Project.
5. Be Aware of Anti-Choice Doctors and Radiologists [Internet]. Edmonton: Planned Parenthood Alberta; 2004 [cited 2004 Aug 28].
6. Canadian Medical Association. Induced Abortion [Internet]. CMAJ. 1988 Dec 15 [cited 2020 Sep 16]; 139:12 1176a–1176b. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1268491/pdf/cmaj00181-0059.pdf.
7. Theman, Trevor W. (Assistant Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta). Letter to: Sean Murphy (Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project). 2002 Mar 27. 1 Leaf. Located at: Protection of Conscience Project.
8. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Termination of Pregnancy. 2000 Jun.