Category: Protection of Conscience Project

Project Letter to the Barrie Examiner

Barrie, Ontario, Canada
22 February, 2002

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Continuing attempts to suppress the freedom of conscience of health care workers like Dr. Stephen Dawson (“Doctor’s Faith Under Scrutiny,” The Barrie Examiner February 21, 2002) give the lie to the claim, oft repeated by Canadian politicians, that protection of conscience legislation is unnecessary. Perhaps their complacent attitude reflects the influence of rigid party discipline that only rarely permits them  the ‘privilege’ of voting according to conscience.

Professor J.R. Brown of the University of Toronto appears to covet the role of party whip, ready to lash or to exile recalcitrant ‘scum’ like Dr. Dawson for daring to let their beliefs affect their public behaviour.

Yet Professor Brown’s private beliefs affected his public behaviour when he asserted that people like Dr. Dawson should “find another job.” Will Professor Brown take his own advice? Or will he continue to speak, act and live in accordance with his own beliefs, even as he denies the same freedom to others who think differently – those whom he characterizes as ‘scum’?

Thoughtful readers will recognize that their relationships and their political and social activities are almost always governed, not by an analysis of empirical evidence, but by deeply held convictions about human dignity and equality, about good and evil, and other equally fundamental concepts. Some of these beliefs may be religious, others not, but all are beliefs. There is no reason, apart from anti-religious bigotry, to allow only atheists and agnostics the freedom to act on their beliefs in public life.

Project Letter to the BC Medical Journal

British Columbia, Canada
16 February, 2002

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

The cover of your  January/February 2002 edition highlighting Dr. Roey M. Malleson’s article on ‘emergency contraception’ was unexpected: a brawny, half-naked, Aryan warrior, eyes glinting murderously from under his horned helmet, wielding a copper IUD, crouched to spring and slaughter.

I would like permission to  post the cover on the Project website, and would appreciate it if you would send me seven copies of the issue. The cover is a splendid  illustration of the usual basis for conscientious objection to  potentially abortifacient devices and drugs, and the article provides  an excellent example of moral obfuscation masquerading as science.

Dr. Malleson clearly  believes, as a matter of faith (for it cannot be science), that it is not immoral to destroy an early human embryo by preventing implantation. However, the article fails to explain why this belief should be forced upon those who do not share it. The Journal of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, cited to support Dr. Malleson’s threatening accusation of negligence, is not widely acknowledged to be an infallible authority on faith and morals, nor is Dr. Malleson.

Finally, astute readers will recognize that the law is more complex than suggested by the article. Freedom of conscience is recognized as a fundamental freedom that must be accommodated. It is imprudent and unhelpful to publicly incite civil actions against colleagues in order to secure their submission to the moral outlook so aptly expressed by your cover.

Protection of Conscience Project one year old

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project was officially launched one year ago. The Project is a non-denominational, non-profit initiative that seeks laws to protect the freedom of conscience of health care workers and others, who have come under increasing pressure to participate in morally controversial procedures.

Over the first few months, the original board of advisors grew from three to seven; it now includes members from three continents, four countries and a number of academic disciplines.

During the year, submissions on freedom of conscience were made to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution (Ireland), the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities (Canada). The potential impact of the Access to Abortion Services Act (British Columbia) was examined in the first Project report, and efforts have been made to support conscientious objectors by facilitating communication, and by referrals and correspondence.

The Project website has been used by some legislators and others advocating for protection of conscience. Entry level pages in English and French are now available on the site. Posted documents are linked to a service that provides free translation of the gist of the text into six languages, with an option for more accurate, paid translation.

There have been over 800 visitors and 1,000 visits to the website since mid-February, 2000, an average of four visits per day. “The numbers aren’t large,”  comments Sean Murphy, the Project Administrator. “But word is slowly getting out to the people who need to hear about it. And comments from people in difficulty indicate that the work being done is appreciated.”

Project letter to the editor, The Province

There is a whiff of arrogance, as well as intolerance, in the BC College of Pharmacists threat to discipline conscientious objectors (Pharmacists’ college warns renegades about not dispensing morning-after pill, The Province, 23 November, 2000).

While the moral convictions of conscientious objectors are trivialized by describing them as ‘personal’ or ‘private’, many of those convictions are, in fact, shared by millions in religious, philosophical and moral traditions that have existed for millennia. If such convictions are ‘private’, those of the College are not less so, even if dressed up as ‘the ethics of the profession’. Yet the College refuses to explain – or cannot explain – why its newly-minted code of ethics (1997) is morally superior to the moral or ethical systems that it threatens to suppress.

Moreover, it is unclear why the College demands blind faith in the dogmatic judgement of its Ethics Advisory Committee. Among other things, the College has no policy governing qualifications, selection and appointment of ethics committee members, nor does it appear that any of the current committee members have formal qualifications in ethics or related fields.

Finally, the College has not demonstrated that, with respect to a dissenting minority, it is necessary to pursue a policy of institutional aggression rather than accommodation.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

 

Government declines to rule out prosecution of conscientious objectors

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

A spokesperson for the British Columbia Ministry of Health has declined to provide assurance that health care workers who object to abortion will not be prosecuted under the Access to Abortion Services Act.

The Act could be used to prosecute health care workers in “bubble zones” who decline to participate in abortion, or express disapproval of abortion in meetings or private conversations. It could also be used against clergy or counsellors providing pastoral care in “bubble zones” who provide information about abortion, or express disapproval of abortion.

The potential for conflict was first brought to the attention of the Minister of Health in 1995. It was raised again in correspondence this year with the Okanagan Similkameen Health Region and the Minister of Heath, as a result of discussion about the imposition of  a “bubble zone” at Kelowna General Hospital.

The Minister of Health refused to provide written assurance that the Act would not be applied against conscientious objectors, and refused to amend the Act. The Okanagan  Similkameen Health Region declined to consider the question, since a “bubble zone” had not been imposed on the Kelowna General Hospital.

A report on the subject is available on the Protection of Conscience Project website (Report 2000-01)