Among amendments proposed to House Bill 4244, the controversial Reproductive Health Bill, it is proposed that health care workers still be forced to refer for services to which they object for reasons of conscience, though “Without in anyway agreeing or endorsing the family planning service or procedure required by the persons concerned.” [Sun Star]
Tag: referral
United Kingdom report recommends compulsory referral for assisted suicide
A report produced by a privately established and funded Commission on Assisted Dying has recommended that assisted suicide be legalized in the United Kingdom for any competent person over 18 years old who is terminally ill and expected to live less than 12 months. It also recommends that physicians who refuse to assist with suicide for reasons of conscience be compelled to refer patients to colleagues who will do so [P. 311, Report]. The eleven members of the Commission included Lord Falconer, a lawyer and former solicitor general, who acted as Chair. The validity of the Commission has been challenged from the outset, and a number of groups, including the British Medical Association, refused to take part, though about 1,300 sources gave evidence. [BBC]
Medical student charged by professor with “abandonment” for no abortion referral
(USA: 2008)
- Freedom2Care.org | Brief examples that demonstrate the often subtle, sometimes flagrant and increasingly pervasive discrimination faced by pro-life, faith-based and conscience-driven individuals in the healthcare professions. Full Text
Ethical misconduct by abuse of conscientious objection laws
Med Law. 2006 Sep;25(3):513-22. PubMed PMID: 17078524
Abstract:
This paper addresses laws and practices urged by conservative religious organizations that invoke conscientious objection in order to deny patients access to lawful procedures. Many are reproductive health services, such as contraception, sterilization and abortion, on which women’s health depends. Religious institutions that historically served a mission to provide healthcare are now perverting this commitment in order to deny care. Physicians who followed their calling honourably in a spirit of self-sacrifice are being urged to sacrifice patients’ interests to promote their own, compromising their professional ethics by conflict of interest. The shield tolerant societies allowed to protect religious conscience is abused by religiously-influenced agencies that beat it into a sword to compel patients, particularly women, to comply with religious values they do not share. This is unethical unless accompanied by objectors’ duty of referral to non-objecting practitioners, and governmental responsibility to ensure supply of and patients’ access to such practitioners. [Full Text]
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)