23 States Sue Feds to Block HHS “Conscience” Rule Permitting Refusal of Care

Non Profit Quarterly

Ruth McCambridge

Twenty-three states joined in a suit filed on May 21st to block a new federal regulation known as the Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care rule. Published yesterday in the Federal Register, it would give health care providers, insurers, and employers—as well as a wide range of others, such as ambulance drivers, receptionists, and customer service representatives at insurance companies—the right to refuse to provide or pay for medical services that violate their religious or moral beliefs. These services would include abortion and other reproductive services, as well as assisted suicide. Additionally, any health care provider would risk federal funding if they do not respect the right of these workers to deny service. . . [Full text]

Some Quebec doctors still resisting assisted dying, commission chair says

Montreal Gazette

Aaron Derfel

One out of two doctors who have turned down requests for medical assistance in dying by terminally-ill patients have probably done so without justification under the Quebec law, says the head of the province’s commission on end-of-life care.

“It’s 50-50,” Dr. Michel Bureau told the Montreal Gazette in an interview. “Are there some doctors who are too strict in the application of the criteria? We have observed this (attitude) in several cases.”

Despite the progress made in implementing the so-called dying with dignity law, some physicians continue to resist carrying out assisted dying, although in fewer numbers than when the legislation came into effect on Dec. 10, 2015, Bureau added. . . . [Full text]

HHS Final Conscience Rule and Protected Employees

Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman PC

Robin M. Sheridan and Lindsey Croasdale

On May 2, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced the issuance of the final conscience rule, which prohibits discrimination of individuals on the basis of their exercise of conscience in HHS-funded programs. The rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, but HHS has released an unofficial version of the document. This rule will be effective 60 days after is it published in the Federal Register. . . [Full text]

Conscientious objection must be respectful, pope tells health care workers

Crux

Junno Arocho Esteves

ROME – When doctors, nurses and health care workers conscientiously object to a procedure to protect the life and dignity of their patients, they must do so respectfully, Pope Francis said.

Without respect, conscientious objection can be “a reason for contempt or pride” that would impede dialogue “with those who hold different positions” and mask the true reason of that objection, which is to the seek the patient’s well-being, the pope told a group of Catholic health care workers May 17 at the Vatican. . . [Full text]

With Ontario court’s ruling on doctors, the revolution continues

There is a growing antipathy among Canadian elites against conscientious individuals who refuse to accept their views

National Post

Barry W. Bussey*

How is it that such a simple decision could be made so complicated? Given the history of accommodating individual conscience in the medical profession and in Canadian law, the case before the Ontario Court of Appeal to accommodate doctors’ consciences was a “no-brainer.” The law, history, and basic human decency cried out: “Accommodate the physician!” Instead, the highest court in Ontario followed the worrying legal revolution against accommodation and stomped on conscience. And it did so wrapped up in language that purported to support vulnerable patients.

The decision against physicians who, because of conscience, cannot assist in the intentional killing of a human being, pre- or post-birth, is a travesty of justice. It is wrong. It is wrong morally, ethically and legally. . . [Full Text]