Appeal to Belgian parliamentarians on medical ethics

Belgian Medical Society of Saint-Luc

We learn that our federal parliament wants to legislate again in the field of bioethics. In particular, parliamentarians from several parties are proposing two things, which we think have serious consequences.

First, they want to extend the duration allowed to abort; and extend the statutory period to 18 weeks, instead of 12 weeks.

These parliamentarians vote among themselves, a text and a law, that they do not intend to bring to the public discussion. This is indeed how representative democracy works; and it is their privilege not to have to consider any other opinion than theirs.

However, in such a sensitive subject, where it is decided which living being can be cut off from society and its protection; where we decide who deserves the name of a human being and who does, it seems to us that the voice that publicly opposes this decision must also be heard. It can not be said later that no one has opposed it.

We therefore call for a major public debate on this important issue.

However, we wonder about the real willingness to take into account proposals of this type. In fact, the example of France makes us rather pessimistic about the real sincerity of parliamentarians; where the advice received during the debate was put aside, without taking it into account, because the result was not the result expected by them.

Secondly, they want to force the conscience of the doctors.

Doctors who do not wish to participate in an act that they believe to be bad, will be forced by law to participate. There will be no more freedom of conscience.

Would the law be superior to medical ethics? This is not the opinion of our association.

Of course, the execution of a seriously unjust order of the act lessens the responsibility of the physician, but does not make it completely disappear. The responsibility of the physician in the collaboration to this act therefore proceeds from the Law, to which obedience is due.

But it is this same reasoning that has sentenced the executors of national socialist decisions in the last century from the point of view of moral responsibility.

The state constraint, therefore, never makes the individual moral responsibility disappear.

On this basis, we urge the recognition and protection of the law, the freedom of conscience of physicians, and the recognition of the autonomy of our medical ethics.

This medical ethics is currently fairly widespread worldwide, as re-stated by the World Medical Association, which concludes in the beginning of life, that “it is a matter of personal conviction and conscience that must be respected. “(Medical Ethics Manual, 3rd Edition, p. 57).

In faith whereof, we make this appeal to our parliamentarians.

Dr. Henri Marechal
President of the Belgian Medical Society of Saint-Luc
Brussels, 18 November 2019
Catholic Medical Association Belge Saint-Luc
p/a Abdij der Norbertijnen
Kerkplein 1
1850 Grimbergen
info@cathmed.be

Rally against ‘conscience rights’ Bill 207 gathers hundreds at legislature

CTV News

Alex Antoneshyn

EDMONTON — Criticism swelled on Saturday of a new private member’s bill that would undo a requirement of doctors to refer treatment or service which goes against their beliefs, as protestors rallied at the Alberta Legislature to express their concern.

Sanda Azocar, executive director of Friends of Medicare, called Bill 207, The Conscience Rights Protection Act, an unnecessary piece of proposed legislation that would cause discrimination and harm. . . [Full text]

Protesters say Alberta bill would make it harder to access some medical services

National Post

The Canadian Press

EDMONTON — Opponents of a private member’s bill that calls for more protection for health workers who invoke conscience rights gathered at the Alberta legislature Saturday, arguing the bill would limit access to medical services such as abortions or assisted dying.

Speakers with groups including Friends of Medicare, the Alberta Abortion Access Network and Dying With Dignity told the crowd that people in small communities already have a hard time getting access and advice on some issues. . .[Full text]

Calgary-area UCP MLAs say they won’t support conscience rights bill

Calgary Herald

 Zach Laing

A pair of Calgary MLAs say they won’t support a controversial private-member’s bill meant to extend protection for physicians’ conscience rights.

Introduced in the legislature last week by Peace River MLA and UCP backbencher Dan Williams, Bill 207 would prevent patients from submitting a professional complaint or suing a health-care worker for failing to provide a service if medical staff objects to it. The bill would also add “conscientious beliefs” as grounds protected from discrimination in the Alberta Human Rights Act. . . [Full text]

Freedom of conscience in health care: “an interesting moral swamp”?

Responding to Caplan AL. Whose rights come first: Doctors or patients? Medscape, 5 November, 2019

Sean Murphy*

“Whose rights come first?” asks Professor Arthur Caplan in a recent Medscape column. “Doctors’ or patients?”

“You can’t have physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and social workers saying they are not going to do legally allowed medicine or standard-of-care treatment because it violates their rights,” says Professor Caplan. He does suggest that refusal can be allowed if the objector can find a substitute “and it doesn’t disrupt the ER or the organization of healthcare delivery.” . . . Full text