Hearings on Quebec Bill 52: College of Physicians

Dr. Charles Bernard, Dr. Yves Robert, Dr. Michelle Marchand

Tuesday 17 September 2013 – Vol. 43 N° 34

Note: The following translation is the product of a first run through “Google translate.”  In most cases it is sufficient to identify statements of interest, but more careful translation is required to properly understand the text.

Original Text

Caution: machine assisted translation
M. Bernard (Charles) : Merci, M. le Président. Alors, M. le Président, Mme la ministre, Mmes, MM. les parlementaires, alors le Collège des médecins du Québec vous remercie de lui permettre de vous présenter ses réflexions sur le projet de loi n° 52 concernant les soins de fin de vie, et j’ajouterais que nous sommes honorés d’être les premiers à auditionner devant cette commission en cette journée de rentrée parlementaire, alors on vous en remercie. Thank you, Mr. President. So, Mr. President, Madam Minister, Mrs, Mr. parliamentarians, while the College of Physicians of Quebec thank you for allowing him to present his thoughts on Bill No. 52 on the end-of-life, and I would add that we are honored to be the first to audition before the Committee on this day parliamentary session, so we thank you.
Alors, ce projet de loi constitue, à nos yeux, un jalon très important dans la réflexion sur les soins de vie, et, à notre avis, il devrait être adopté. Amorcée en mai 2006 à l’occasion de notre assemblée générale annuelle, cette réflexion s’est transformée en un vaste débat public, à l’issu duquel la Commission spéciale sur la question de mourir dans la dignité a remis sont rapport en mars 2012. D’entrée de jeu, vous nous permettrez de souligner le travail exceptionnel effectué sur ce sujet extrêmement complexe et sensible par tous les parlementaires, et en particulier le vôtre, Mme la ministre, vous avez fait preuve d’un respect, d’une qualité d’écoute, d’une rigueur et d’une compréhension des enjeux d’une rare qualité, et nous vous en remercions sincèrement, cela mérite d’être souligné. So this bill is, in our view, a very important milestone in thinking about life care, and, in our opinion, should be adopted. Began in May 2006 at our annual general meeting, the discussion turned into a broad public debate, the end of which the Special Committee on Dying with Dignity are handed over in March 2012. From the outset, please allow us to recognize the outstanding work done on this topic extremely complex and sensitive by all parliamentarians, particularly yours, Madam Minister, you have demonstrated compliance, quality listening, rigor and an understanding of the challenges of a rare quality, and we sincerely thank you, it deserves to be highlighted.

Full Translation

Science: the religion that must not be questioned

 It’s time for the priesthood to be taken to task – and journalists aren’t up to the job

The Guardian

Henry Gee

You’d think from the way that science tends to be reported in the popular prints, as they used to be called, that Professor Helsing von Frankenstein goes into the dungeon laboratory of his castle one morning, dons his white coat and – by elevenses, and working completely alone – discovers a way to kill all known germs, tautologically. He gets his assistant, Igor, to set up a press conference at lunchtime, at which the professor emphasises that the research raises more questions than it answers. By teatime he has won the Nobel prize and his magic nostrum will be available on the NHS next morning. It’s always a “he”, by the way – received wisdom finds no place for female scientists, unless they also happen to be young, photogenic and, preferably, present television programmes.

Well, as we all know, science doesn’t work like that. Scientific research gets trapped in more box canyons than the Lone Ranger; does more U-turns than the average government; falls to certain death more often than Wile E Coyote; has more women in it than you might at first imagine (though probably not nearly enough); and generally gets the wrong answer.

As my learned colleague Dr Sylvia McLain, who is both a scientist and a person of the opposite sex, explained here just the other day, this is business as usual. All scientific results are in their nature provisional – they can be nothing else. Someone will come along, either the next day or the next decade, with further refinements, new methods, more nuanced ways of looking at old problems, and, quelle surprise, find that conclusions based on earlier results were simplistic, rough-hewn – even wrong. . . [Read more]

Artificial reproduction unregulated in Ireland

Artificial reproduction is not regulated in Ireland, so that sperm and egg donors and people having recourse to it and children conceived or carried to term in surrogacy arrangements may have to go to court to determine their legal status and relationships.  Questions about what to do with embryos abandoned by their parents have also arisen, although this problem also exists in jurisdictions that regulate the procedures.  The Irish Ministry of Health is now considering regulatory proposals. [Irish Examiner]

El problema de la objeción de conciencia no regulada

Cuando la conciencia molesta a la ley

Sean Murphy*

A finales de 2010, en la Asamblea Parlamentaria del Consejo de Europa (PACE) se presentó un informe de su Comisión de Asuntos Sociales, Salud y Familia en el que expresaba su profunda preocupación por el problema de la “objeción de conciencia no regulada” en Europa. El Comité propuso que los Estados adoptaran “una regulación integral y clara” para hacer frente a este problema. . .[aceprensa]

Embryos abandoned by parents present ethical, legal quandary

The Calgary Herald reports that fewer than 5% (20,000) of the roughly 400,000 frozen embryos at fertility clinics in the United States have been abandoned by their parents.  It suggests that over 135,000 frozen embryos are stored at clinics in Canada; a  5% rate would imply over 6,700 abandoned embryos.  That figure might be too low, since one clinic is reported to have 1,000 “unclaimed” embryos.  The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has decided that clinics can destroy embryos that have been abandoned for at least five years, the parents cannot be located, and there are no written instructions to indicate what should be done with them.  The guidance is legally and ethically contested. [Calgary Herald]