New RCM abortion statement is a further assault on freedom of conscience

Christian Medical Fellowship Blogs

Steve Fouch

Fallout from the Glasgow Midwives case continues to roll out. This month the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) released (rather quietly) their new position statement on abortion. The case of Doogan & Wood highlighted an issue with the conscientious objection clause in the 1967 Abortion Act. Specifically this was around what constituted actually being involved in an abortion procedure.

The two senior midwives at a Glaswegian maternity unit made it clear that they did not wish to be responsible for supervising junior staff involved in termination of pregnancy procedures on the basis of a conscientious objection to abortion.

Although the Scottish Court of Appeal upheld their claim, The Supreme Court eventually ruled that they had no right to opt out of supervision, delegation or support of junior staff, as the right to conscientious objection only applied to those involved in direct, clinical procedures. Supervisory roles or other areas of care could not be subject to the right to conscientious objection in the Abortion Act. . . [Full Text]

Will hospitals reject California’s assisted suicide law?

Los Angeles Times

David Lazarus

Medical leaders at Huntington Hospital in Pasadena voted behind closed doors this week for the facility’s hundreds of doctors and affiliated personnel to opt out of California’s assisted suicide law, which goes into effect June 9.

If the proposed amendment to the hospital’s medical rules is approved by the board of directors this month, Huntington will become one of the largest non-religious medical institutions statewide to turn its back on a law that Gov. Jerry Brown called “a comfort” to anyone “dying in prolonged and excruciating pain.”

The End of Life Option Act allows doctors, medical groups and hospitals to opt out of the law’s guidelines for assisting the terminally ill achieve a dignified end. Most, if not all, religious hospitals are expected to reject the law.

It’s unclear at this point if Huntington is an outlier among secular facilities or representative of a wave of opt-outs to be revealed by month’s end. The California Hospital Assn. was unable to provide an estimate for the number of institutions considering a similar move. . . [Full Text]

 

Project proposes amendment to Canadian euthanasia/assisted suicide bill to stop coercion, intimidation

Amendment to Bill C-14 to prevent coerced participation in inflicting death

News Release
For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project has proposed an amendment to Bill C-14 to prevent coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force citizens to become parties to homicide or suicide.  The amendment is set out in a submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Bill C-14 is the bill proposed by Canada’s Liberal government to implement the 2015 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General. It will legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia administered by medical an nurse practitioners.  However, the Bill as introduced does nothing to prevent intimidation and coercion of objecting health care workers to force them to participate in or facilitate the procedures by referral or similar means.

The Project’s proposed amendment is an addition that does not otherwise change the text of  Bill C-14. Nor does it touch the eligibility criteria proposed by Carter, nor the criteria or procedural safeguards recommended by the Special Joint Committee or Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group.  It simply establishes that, as a matter of law and Canadian public policy, no one can be compelled to become a party to homicide or suicide, or punished or disadvantaged for refusing to do so.

The Protection of Conscience Project does not take a position on the acceptability of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide or the merits of legalization of the procedures. The Project’s concern is to ensure that health care workers who object to providing or participating in homicide and suicide for reasons of conscience or religion are not compelled to do so or punished or disadvantaged for refusal.

“Coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force citizens to become parties to homicide or suicide is both an egregious violation of fundamental freedoms and a serious threat to society that justifies the use of criminal law,” states the submission.

“Other countries have demonstrated that it is possible to provide euthanasia and physician assisted suicide without suppressing fundamental freedoms.  None of them require ‘effective referral,’ physician-initiated ‘direct transfer’ or otherwise conscript objecting physicians into euthanasia/assisted suicide service.”

-30-

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

Submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights(Parliament of Canada)

Re: Bill C-14 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

I.    Introduction
I.1     The Protection of Conscience Project does not take a position on the acceptability of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide or the merits of legalization of the procedures. The Project’s concern is to ensure that health care workers who object to providing or participating in homicide and suicide for reasons of conscience or religion are not compelled to do so or punished or disadvantaged for refusal.

I.2    The arguments supporting this submission are more fully set out in the Project’s submission to the parliamentary Special Joint Committee.

II.    Coerced complicity in homicide and suicide
II.1     Carter should not be understood to mean that a learned or privileged class, a profession or state institutions can legitimately compel people to be parties to homicide or suicide – and punish them if they refuse.

II.2     This is not a reasonable limitation of fundamental freedoms, but a reprehensible attack on them and a serious violation of human dignity.  From an ethical perspective, it is incoherent.  From a legal and civil liberties perspective, it is profoundly dangerous.

II.3     Other countries have demonstrated that it is possible to provide euthanasia and physician assisted suicide without suppressing fundamental freedoms.  None of them require “effective referral,” physician-initiated “direct transfer” or otherwise conscript objecting physicians into euthanasia/assisted suicide service.

III.    Criminal legislation
III.1     By virtue of the subject matter of Bill C-14 (homicide and suicide), the federal government has jurisdiction in criminal law.

III.2     The use of criminal law is justified to prevent and to punish particularly egregious violations of fundamental freedoms that also present a serious threat to society, such as unlawful electronic surveillance, unlawful confinement and torture.

III.3     Coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force citizens to become parties to homicide or suicide is both an egregious violation of fundamental freedoms and a serious threat to society that justifies the use of criminal law.  For this reason, the Project proposes an amendment to Bill C-14, set out in Appendix “A.”

III.4      The proposed amendment is an addition that does not otherwise change the text of  Bill C-14. Nor does it touch the eligibility criteria proposed by Carter, nor the criteria or procedural safeguards recommended by the Special Joint Committee or Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group.  It simply establishes that, as a matter of law and national public policy, no one can be compelled to become a party to homicide or suicide, or punished or disadvantaged for refusing to do so.

Appendix “A” – Proposed Amendment