Fewer than half of GPs let their names be given to women using abortion helpline

Irish Independent

Eilish O’Regan

Just 126 of the 253 GPs who have thus far signed up to provide medical abortions are allowing their names to be released to women who ring up the ‘My Options’ freephone information line. 

If a GP allows their name to be released as part of the information line directory it means that women inquiring about abortion may be able to choose who is the most . . . Full Text

958 days without medical assistance in dying policy

Lack of government regulation leaves Nova Scotians without access to legal practice and beset by misinformation.

The Coast

Brooklyn Connolly

It’s been 958 days since Bill C-14 passed federal legislation, yet Nova Scotia still lacks a program for medical assistance in dying—MAiD—as well as MAiD policy and regulation.

Without policy, physicians and nurse practitioners have no way of governing MAiD, creating a series of loopholes and lack of general knowledge surrounding the subject. The Nova Scotia Health Authority, meanwhile, has published false information on its website and staff at St. Martha’s hospital in Antigonish still refuse to perform the assistance at all.

Dalhousie professor Jocelyn Downie has been investigating the legal aspects of this for quite some time, and held an open lecture last week in Halifax to present her information. . . [Full text]

The CCRL Participates In Ontario Court of Appeal with Oral Arguments in Support of Physicians’ Conscience Rights

News Release

Catholic Civil Rights League

Toronto, ON January 25, 2019 – The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) participated with oral arguments in the CMDS et al v. CPSO hearing at the Ontario Court of Appeal on January 21 and 22. Individual Catholic and Christian doctors and organizations had challenged the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which over the course of the past three years had stipulated an “effective referral” regime, forcing Ontario doctors who objected to morally objectionable procedures to provide an “effective referral” to a willing doctor for such services. Previously, doctors were relieved from any such obligation. Ontario is the only provincial or territorial jurisdiction which has made such demands of its doctors.

The Ontario Divisional Court had ruled in favour of the CPSO, on January 31, 2018, despite finding that the religious freedom of doctors had been infringed. The appellants and the League, in conjunction with the Faith and Freedom Alliance and the Protection of Conscience Project, had argued that such “effective referrals” made objecting doctors complicit in the provision of the objectionable procedures, such as abortion, or assisted suicide. The previous court decision allowed the infringement as a modest incursion into the rights of physicians, in the context of the ability of patients to access publicly available “services”. Moreover, the court previously ruled that objecting physicians could re-arrange their practice specialties to “accommodate” such referrals. The doctors and their respective organizations appealed.

In addition to the arguments presented by the lawyers for the appellants, the CCRL and its partners raised the particular arguments that such demands were in breach of the conscience rights of Ontario doctors, as forcing individuals to do something that they considered “wrong”, and was a form of enforced servitude.

Click here to view the CCRL’s written factum, submitted in November 2018, which made reference to important principles of law and philosophy, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., Jacques Maritain, and others.

At the appeal hearings, held at Toronto’s Osgoode Hall, arguments focused on whether the CPSO could justify its referral policy as a “reasonable limit” on the rights of objecting doctors. The CCRL’s lawyer, Mr. Emrys Davis, submitted that moral rights are central to one’s sense of human dignity, and that it was unacceptable to marginalize objecting physicians as religious extremists. Moreover, given that the Ontario Medical Association likewise opposed the “effective referral” regime, such concerns were shared by a large numbers of Ontario doctors. The CCRL and its partners argued that the referral requirement imposed the values of the state upon individuals, forcing them to violate their own constitutionally protected consciences, without justification.

The CPSO’s lawyers had suggested that objecting doctors could go so far as to instruct an intake employee to make the proposed referrals on their behalf. We argued that such doctors would still be responsible morally to such a proposal, and would be left with no meaningful choice. Telling an employee to commit an immoral act would still offend the consciences of objecting doctors. The choice imposed by the CPSO was either to violate one’s conscience, or become subject to professional discipline for refusing to make such referrals.

In his closing remarks, Chief Justice of Ontario George Strathy thanked the many interveners for bringing their unique viewpoints and knowledge to the assistance of the court, which reserved its decision to a later date. The CCRL thanks the fine work of our lawyers at Bennett, Jones in Toronto, for its efforts on behalf of our interveners.


About the CCRL

Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. The CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization with a large nationwide membership base. The CCRL is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.

To donate to the CCRL, please click here.

For further information: Christian Domenic Elia, PhD CCRL Executive Director 416-466-8244 @CCRLtweets

A proposal to reduce vaccine exemptions while respecting rights of conscience

Medical Xpress / The Conversation

Stacie Kershner, Daniel Salmon, Hillel Y. Levin and Timothy D. Lytton

Vaccine resistance is one of the top 10 threats to global health in 2019, according to the World Health Organization. Here in the U.S., New York City is currently experiencing its worst outbreak of measles in decades, sickening scores of children in ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods.

Other clustered outbreaks of deadly and highly contagious, but vaccine-preventable, diseases are becoming frustratingly routine around the country. These outbreaks are caused by some parents’ decision to claim religious and philosophical exemptions to state mandates that children must be vaccinated in order to attend school.

In response, prominent health organizations and advocacy groups have called on state legislatures to eliminate religious and philosophical exemptions. . . .

. . . In a collaboration among legal scholars and public health experts, we have developed an alternative approach: a model law that aims to reduce the number of parents who decline to vaccinate their children while respecting freedom of conscience. . . [Full text]

A matter of conscience

The Irish Catholic

Greg Daly

“The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience,” Alabama lawyer Atticus Finch tells his daughter in Harper Lee’s 1960 novel To Kill a Mockingbird. It’s a powerful statement, and one worth bearing in mind by those who’d seek to make an idol of the ballot box.

It also homes in on one of the key issues facing doctors, religious or otherwise, who believe that they have duties towards all human beings, born or unborn, regardless of how the 36th Amendment to the Constitution permits the State to regulate abortion by law. . .[Full text]