Vaccine refusal endangers everyone, not just the unvaccinated

Science Blogs: Respectful Insolence

Dr. David M. Gorski*

One of the more frequent claims of antivaccine activists often comes in the form of a  question, usually something like, “If your child is vaccinated, why are you worried about my children? They don’t pose any danger to you.” Of course, the premise behind that question is, ironically, one that conflicts with the belief that vaccines are ineffective: that vaccines are so effective that there’s no reason for the parents of a vaccinated child to be concerned if that child comes in contact with another child with a vaccine-preventable disease. . . [Full text]

Bill to Allow Doctors to Refuse Patients for Moral Reasons

The Arkansas Traveller

Hunter McFerrin

Following the Arkansas Supreme Court’s ruling that the same anti-discriminatory laws must be implemented statewide, two organizations collaborated to author and introduce House Bill 1628, the Healthcare Freedom of Conscience Act, which would allow health care providers to refuse treatment to patients because of a violation of conscience.

Sponsored by Rep. Brandt Smith (R), Sens. Jason Rapert (R) and Linda Collins-Smith (R), HB 1628 states that its purpose is to protect physicians, health care institutions and health care providers from providing treatment to any patient if the treatment or procedure violates their consciences. . . [Full text]

 

Project comment on Quebec euthanasia statistics

News Release

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

LifeSite News has published an article concerning Quebec euthanasia statistics collated by the Project.

During the interview that led to the publication of the article, the Project Administrator expressed concern that a significant increase in the volume of cases in the last half of 2016 could increase pressure on physicians and other health care workers who do not wish to participate in the procedure.  Such pressure was generated across Canada by the exponential increase in the number of abortions following liberalization of the abortion law in 1969, from under 300 in eleven years[1] to over 11,000 in the first year after the change in the law.[2]  The number of euthanasia and assisted suicide cases in the first year of legalization seems unlikely to exceed 20%  of that number, but this is still sufficient to warrant concern about pressure on objecting health care workers.

The statistical returns disclose some wide differences between different regions or reporting agencies, and sometimes between reporting agencies in the same administrative region.  For example: the number of euthanasia requests per 100,000 population is reported to be much higher in the Quebec City area than in the rest of the province, while the number of euthanasia requests per 100,000 palliative patients reported in Lanaudiere and Laval is much higher than in the Montreal Region.  Euthanasia is reported to be provided per 100,000 population in the Quebec City area at a rate three times that of Montreal.

The Administrator explained that the statistics were primarily useful in raising important questions about the reasons for such variations or trends, such as differences in the quality or accessibility of palliative care or the nature of patient illnesses.

Note

1. Waring G. “Report from Ottawa.” CMAJ Nov. 11, 1967, vol. 97, 1233 (Accessed 2016-06-15).

2. In 1970, the first year under the new rules, there were more than 11,000. In 1971 there were almost 39,000. “Therapeutic abortion: government figures show big increase in ‘71.” CMAJ May 20, 1972, Vol. 106, 1131 (Accessed 2016-06-15)

[Release revised 2017-03-14]

Conscience rights hit by proposed pharmacy rules, Institute warns

Christian Institute

Conscience protections for pharmacists would be diluted by draft proposals, The Christian Institute has warned.

Currently, pharmacists who do not wish to sell abortifacients, such as the morning after pill, may refer customers to another pharmacist.

But new draft General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) standards weaken that right of referral and state that pharmacists must ensure that “person-centred care is not compromised because of personal values and beliefs”. . . [Full text]