Freedom to refuse euthanasia relevant to protection of practitioners, institutions – and patients

Alberta’s Bill 18 in light of assurances to Supreme Court of Canada

News Release

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

Introduced on 18 March in the provincial legislature, the Alberta Government’s Bill 18, the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act, will provide the framework for Alberta’s provision of euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS: known in Canada as “Medical Assistance in Dying”/MAiD).

The bill makes no reference to conscience. Nonetheless, it appears to offer substantial protection for health care practitioners and health care facilities by formally recognizing their freedom to refuse to collaborate in killing patients or helping patients kill themselves.

“In this respect, Bill 18 seems to deliver on assurances given to the Supreme Court of Canada by the late Joseph Arvay,” said Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project.

Joseph Arvay led the constitutional challenge that ended the absolute prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

“The title of Bill 18 reflects what Mr. Arvay told the Supreme Court of Canada,” explained Murphy. “He believed that physicians were ideal euthanasia practitioners because, in his words, ‘[I]t is an irrefutable truth that all doctors believe it is their professional and ethical duty to do no harm.’”

Which means, in almost every case, that they will want to help their patients live, not die. It is for the very reason that we advocate only physician assisted dying and not any kind of assisted dying because we know physicians will be reluctant gatekeepers, and only agree to it as a last resort.1

“Mr. Arvay assured the Supreme Court of Canada that physicians would only agree to euthanasia as a ‘last resort,’” said Murphy. “So far, Alberta’s government seems to be the only one in Canada willing to make that a reality.”

“That is important not only for practitioners who object to euthanasia and assisted suicide in principle, but for EAS practitioners who may be unwilling to collaborate in the procedures in particular cases,” he added. “And, if we accept Mr. Arvay’s reasoning, it is equally important for the protection of patients.”

The Protection of Conscience Project does not take a position on the acceptability of morally/ethically contested services like EAS. It is reviewing the text of Bill 18 with a view to making a submission to the Alberta government.

Contact:
Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
protection@consciencelaws.org

Notes:

  1. Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 SCR 331 (Oral argument, Appellant), Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), “Webcast of the Hearing on 2014-10-15” (22 January, 2018) at 00:20:03 to 00:20:40. ↩︎

Project Advisor Iain Benson honoured

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

Project Advisor Professor Iain T. Benson has been elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of New South Wales (FRSN).

A Fellow is someone “ who has made outstanding achievements in one or more of academia, industry, government, public administration, culture or civil society, is held in high professional standing or has made a significant contribution to the welfare and well-being of Australia.” The Society describes him as “an internationally recognized barrister, teacher and writer on legal philosophy.”

The Royal Society of New South Wales is a learned society that traces its origins to the Philosophical Society of Australasia formed in 1821, with its purpose to ‘awaken a spirit of research or excite a thirst for information.’ That sentiment that is alive today through the mission of enriching lives through knowledge and inquiry, principally through public, interdisciplinary discussions and debates of important matters in the sciences and humanities.

Contact: Sean Murphy, Administrator
Email: protection@consciencelaws.org

Nova Scotia medical regulator: unwilling physicians must collaborate in euthanasia and other controversial procedures

News Release

For Immediate Release

Protection of Conscience Project

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia (CPSNS) has adopted a new policy (Conscientious Objection) that will compel physicians unwilling to provide a service for reasons of conscience – including euthanasia – to help patients obtain the service elsewhere. The College adopted Conscientious Objection notwithstanding letters from at least 24 Nova Scotia physicians indicating that they would have to retire early or leave the province if the policy were ratified by the College Council.

The hostility of the CPSNS to physician freedom of conscience may reflect the College Registrar’s longstanding promotion of mandatory effective referral for abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. Nova Scotians will not be well-served by morally partisan CPSNS standards likely to cause physicians to emigrate, retire, restrict their practices or leave family medicine or palliative care.

It is unacceptable to compel unwilling physicians to become parties to killing their patients or to other procedures they believe to be gravely wrong and/or contrary to good medical practice. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has repeatedly gone on record against mandatory effective referral, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta does not support it, contrary to what Conscientious Objection seems to imply by referencing these authorities.

The Protection of Conscience Project is a non-profit, non-denominational initiative that advocates for freedom of conscience among health care workers. It does not take a position on the acceptability of morally contested procedures. The Project’s critical review of Conscientious Objection addresses issues directly or indirectly related to the protection of physician freedom of conscience, including:

Contact:
Sean Murphy, Administrator,
Protection of Conscience Project
Email: protection@consciencelaws.org

Dr. Iain Benson returns to the Project Advisory Board

News Release
For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

Dr. Iain Benson has returned to the Protection of Conscience Project Advisory Board. Dr. Benson was a member of the Board from early 2018 to the fall of 2022, when he stepped down due to other commitments. He is Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney (2016, ongoing) and
Extraordinary Professor of Law, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein South Africa (2009, ongoing).

Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, the father of seven children, Professor Benson is an academic, lecturer and practising lawyer specialising in pluralism and human rights.  His particular focus is on freedoms of association, conscience and religion, the nature of pluralism, multi-culturalism and relationships between law, religion and culture. He has been involved in many of the leading cases on rights of association, conscience and religion in Canada and abroad for two decades.  As a barrister he has appeared before all levels of court and his work has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitutional Court of South Africa.

He was one of the drafters of the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms (signed by all major religions in that country in September 2010) and remains closely involved in advancing the Charter in that country and similar projects elsewhere. He was Special Rapporteur on Law and Religion in Canada and South Africa to the Pontifical Academy of the Social Sciences, Vatican City ( May, 2011, pub’d in Acad. Proceedings, 2012).

Author of over 40 academic articles and book chapters, he is co-editor with Tom Angier and Mark D. Retter of The Cambridge Handbook of Natural Law and Human Rights (C.U.P., 2023) and with Barry W. Bussey, of Religion Liberty and the Jurisdictional Limits of Law (Toronto: Lexis Nexis, 2017); he authored “Subsidiarity: Ancient and Contemporary Accounts” in Nicholas Aroney and Ian Leigh (eds) Christianity and Constitutionalism (O.U.P., 2022) as well as a monograph, Living Together with Disagreement: Pluralism, the Secular and the Fair Treatment of Beliefs by Law (Ballan Australia: Connor Court, 2012). His scholarly work is referred to in many books and articles.

He teaches Legal Philosophy, Legal History, Public International Law, Law and Religion and Contemporary Legal Issues and examines and supervises at Masters and Doctoral levels. He works in English and French, dividing his time between Australia (where he now lives) and France, South Africa and Canada (in the latter two of which he has or has had appointments).
[Faculty profile]

Contact: Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
email: protection@consciencelaws.org

Health Canada standard seeks conformity, collaboration in euthanasia practice

Submission to Canadian health ministers and regulators urges protection of practitioner freedom of conscience

News release

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

Canada is becoming a world leader in euthanasia and assisted suicide (Medical Assistance in Dying: MaiD).1

Practitioners are expected to conform, comply, condone and actively collaborate in the procedure, even if they cannot conscientiously do so and/or believe it is clinically inappropriate.

Health Canada’s Model Practice Standard for “MaiD” is likely to increase the pressure, forcing those unwilling to collaborate in euthanasia and assisted suicide to leave health care or emigrate.

The Protection of Conscience Project has sent a critique of the Model Practice Standard to Canadian health care regulators and ministers of health, since Health Canada’s Standard has no legal effect unless they formally adopt it.

The submission does not challenge the acceptability or practice of MaiD. It argues that the service can be provided while accommodating those unwilling to collaborate in euthanasia or assisted suicide. The Canadian Medical Association has made this point: “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. . . . [M]edical 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.”

The submission is available on the Project website.

Contact:
Sean Murphy, Administrator,
Protection of Conscience Project
Email: protection @consciencelaws.org

Notes:

  1. Owen Dyer, “Assisted deaths: Quebec passes Netherlands to lead world in number per capita” (2022) Brit Med J 379:o3023; Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers, “Written Brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights House of Commons Canada” (5 November, 2020), Parliament of Canada (website) at 3.