Uniform coercive policy urged for all Canadian physicians

Project submission to the Saskatchewan College of Physicians discloses details

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project has charged that a controversial policy proposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan is unjustified.

The policy, Conscientious Refusal, will require all Saskatchewan physicians who object to a procedure for reasons of conscience to facilitate the procedure by referring patients to a colleague who will provide it, even if it is homicide or suicide.

The Project noted that the burden of proof was on the policy’s supporters to prove that the policy is justified and that no less oppressive alternatives are available. “They failed to do so,” states the submission. “The policy should be withdrawn.”

“Conscientious Refusal fails to recognize that the practice of medicine is a moral enterprise, that morality is a human enterprise, and that physicians, no less than patients, are moral agents” said the Project, describing the policy as “profoundly disrespectful of the moral agency of physicians.”

Using documents provided by the College, the Project’s submission traces the origin of the policy to a meeting in 2013. The meeting was apparently convened by the Conscience Research Group (CRG), activist academics whose goal is to compel physicians unwilling to provide morally contested procedures like abortion or euthanasia to refer patients to someone willing to do so. They presented a coercive model policy that had been drafted to achieve that goal.

According to a CPSS memo, College attendees included Saskatchewan Associate Registrar Bryan Salte, Dr. Gus Grant, Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, Andréa Foti of the Policy Department of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and a representative of the Collège des Médecins du Québec. They agreed upon a text virtually identical to the CRG model.

In May, 2014, Bryan Salte proposed the policy to Registrars of the Colleges of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, who, he reported, agreed to review it and consider implementing it. He later urged all of the Registrars of Colleges of Physicians in Canada to adopt the coercive policy or one very like it, noting that “physician assisted suicide, in particular” would be present a challenge for administrators.

“Any College that is an outlier, either because it has adopted a different position than other Colleges, or because it has not developed a policy, will potentially be placed in a difficult position,” he warned.

The CPSS memo discloses that, unbeknownst to physicians, officials in several provinces have been making plans behind closed doors to suppress freedom of conscience in the medical profession.

“One of the disturbing aspects of the story,” notes the submission, “is what appears to be a pattern of concealment, selective disclosure, and false or misleading statements that all serve the purpose of supporting the policy.”

The Project’s most recent submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario identifies a similarly troubling pattern, describing briefing materials supplied to College Council in support of its controversial policy as “not only seriously deficient, but erroneous and seriously misleading.”

Project Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (2015)

Project Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (2015)

Project Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan

Re: Conscientious Refusal

Abstract

The policy Conscientious Refusal requires all physicians who object to a procedure for reasons of conscience to facilitate the procedure by referring patients to a colleague who will provide it, even if it is homicide or suicide. No evidence was provided to justify the policy. None of the arguments provided to Council justify the policy, nor do the principles included in the text.

Conscientious Refusal fails to recognize that the practice of medicine is a moral enterprise, that morality is a human enterprise, and that physicians, no less than patients, are moral agents.

The original text virtually copied by Conscientious Refusal was written by believers: by people who believe that whatever is “legally permissible and publicly-funded” is morally acceptable- including euthanasia, assisted suicide and abortion. It is an assertion of those beliefs and an authoritarian attempt to compel others to conform to them. It is a partisan document that is profoundly disrespectful of the moral agency of physicians, not a compromise.

Conscientious Refusal advances the dangerous idea that a learned or privileged class, a profession or state institutions can legitimately compel people to do what they believe to be wrong and punish them if they refuse. This is not a limitation of fundamental freedoms, but a serious violation of human dignity. It is also incoherent, because it posits the existence of a moral or ethical duty to do what one believes to be wrong.

The Associate Registrar has made it clear that those who refuse to do what the policy demands will be disciplined by the College or forced out of the medical profession. This clashes seriously with the approach taken by the Supreme Court of Canada, which has affirmed that public policy must make room for physicians whose “concept of the good life” precludes their participation in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or other morally contested procedures.

The burden of proof was on the Associate Registrar and the appointed committee to prove beyond doubt that Conscientious Refusal is justified and that no less authoritarian alternatives are available. They failed to discharge that burden; neither has College Council discharged it. The policy should be withdrawn.

I. Origin of the draft policy, Conscientious Refusal

II. Content of the proposed policy

III. Focus of this submission

IV. Justification for the proposed policy

V. The issues

VI. Response to the issues

VII. Discussion

VIII. Conclusions

Appendix “A”: Origin of the CPSS Draft Policy

Appendix “B”: Development of the CPSS Draft Policy

Appendix “C”: Interview of CPSS Associate Registrar

Appendix “D”: Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan College Policies

Appendix “E”: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan Re: Guideline: Unplanned Pregnancy

Appendix “F”: Morally Significant Participation

Appendix “G”: Notes on Referral, Abandonment and Fiduciary Duty

Unacceptable to force doctors to participate in assisted dying against their conscience: CMA head

National Post

Sharon Kirkey

No physician in the country should be forced to play a role in any aspect of assisted dying against their moral or religious beliefs — including referring patients to another doctor willing to help them die, the Canadian Medical Association says.

Legalized physician-assisted death will usher in such a fundamental change in practice “we simply cannot accept a system that compels physicians to go against their conscience as individuals on something so profound as this,” CMA president Chris Simpson said in an exclusive interview.

The unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling legalizing assisted dying would not compel doctors to help patients end their lives when the historic decision takes effect next year.

But the justices were more guarded on the issue of mandatory referral, saying the Charter rights of both patients and doctors will need to be reconciled.

Dr. Simpson said that many doctors who conscientiously object to assisted dying feel the very act of referral “is contrary to their personal ethics or moral or religious beliefs.” . . . [Full text]

Giving doctors a choice on assisted suicide

National Post

The following is an open letter written by medical professionals to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Should Ontario’s doctors be forced to violate their consciences? On Feb. 6, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Criminal Code provisions against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Concurrently, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is proposing to oblige physicians, at the risk of professional discipline, to refer patients for procedures that a physician has refused for reasons of conscience, to a willing physician or agency established for such referrals.

This is a major shift in policy for the CPSO. Aside from Quebec, this position is not held by any other medical regulatory college in Canada and is inconsistent with the position of the Canadian Medical Association, the American Medical Association and similar bodies in Commonwealth countries. . . [Full Text]

Project Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Re: Professional Obligations and Human Rights

Abstract

The focus of this submission about Professional Obligations and Human Rights (POHR) is its demand for “effective referral” – the demand that physicians do what they believe to be wrong – even gravely wrong – even arranging homicide or suicide – and the implied threat that they will be punished if they refuse.

This is a dangerous and extraordinarily authoritarian policy, completely at odds with liberal democratic aspirations and our national traditions. The burden of proof is on the working group to prove beyond doubt that it is justified and that no reasonable alternatives are available. The working group has not done so.

The working group provided no evidence that such a policy is necessary, and there is evidence that it is not. The briefing materials supplied to Council in support of POHR were not only seriously deficient, but erroneous and seriously misleading. “Public sentiment” captured by a random poll does not justify the suppression of fundamental freedoms, and the results of consultation, when carefully considered, suggest that a policy of “effective referral” is highly controversial.

An example of a reasonable alternative is available from the Australian Medical Association – an example not offered to Council members by the working group, which, instead, completely misrepresented AMA policy.

This submission, supported by detailed analysis in the appendices, provides good reason for Council members to doubt that the requirement for effective referral in POHR is necessary or justifiable, or prudent policy. It also provides reason for them to believe that reasonable alternatives can be developed.

Council members unpersuaded by the working group or left in doubt about POHR should give the benefit of doubt to freedom of conscience and refuse to approve the draft policy in its present form. They should direct the working group to collaborate with those opposed to the present draft to produce a broadly acceptable text. If the real goal is to ensure access – not ideologically driven ethical cleansing – there is no reason to demand that physicians do what they believe to be wrong. If the College’s real goal is to ensure access to services – not to punish objecting physicians, or drive them out of family practice, or out of the profession – that goal is best served by connecting patients with physicians willing to help them.