Tag: physicians

Project Submission to the Canadian Provincial/Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying

Re:  Implementation of Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Carter v. Canada

I.    Introduction

I.1    The Protection of Conscience Project is a non-profit, non-denominational initiative that advocates for freedom of conscience among health care workers. It does not take a position on the acceptability of morally contested procedures. For this reason, almost half of the questions in the Written Stakeholder Submission Form are outside the scope of the Project’s interests.

I.2    The completed Written Stakeholder Submission Form is in Appendix “A” of this submission. The responses are numbered for reference purposes.

II.    Scope of this submission

II.1    The responses in the Written Stakeholder Submission Form (Appendix “A”) are supplemented, in some cases, by additional comments in Part III. A protection of conscience policy is suggested in Appendix “B.”

III.    Additional comments on numbered responses

III.1    Role of Physicians (Response 11)

III.1.1    While the Quebec euthanasia kits are to include two courses of medication in case the first does not work,1 insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that euthanasia and assisted suicide drugs do not always cause death as expected.2

III.1.2    Physicians willing to perform euthanasia as well as to assist in suicide should disclose and discuss options available in the event that a lethal injection or prescribed drug does not kill the patient.

III.1.3    Physicians willing to prescribe lethal drugs but unwilling to provide euthanasia by lethal injection should consider what they may be expected to do if a prescribed drug incapacitates but does not kill a patient.

III.1.4    The possibility of this complication provides another reason for insisting that the physician who approves assisted suicide or euthanasia should be the one to administer the lethal medication or to be present when it is ingested. Expecting other health care workers to deal with this complication is likely to increase the likelihood of conflict in what will be an already emotionally charged situation. . . . [Full Text]

Project Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan

Re: Conscientious Refusal (as revised)

5 June, 2015

Abstract

Council has been given no evidence that anyone in Saskatchewan has ever been unable to access medical services or that the health of anyone in Saskatchewan has ever been adversely affected because a physician has declined to provide or refer for a procedure for reasons of conscience.

The conclusion that objecting physicians “should not be obligated to provide a referral to a physician who will ultimately potentially provide the service” is entirely satisfactory. It is a tacit admission that such a policy would be an unacceptable assault on freedom of conscience.

Conscientious Refusal as revised attempts to nullify the alleged ‘bias’ of physicians who object to a procedure for reasons of conscience by requiring them to refer patients to a non-objecting colleague. This proposal is not sound, since, if it is to be applied fairly and consistently, the ‘bias’ of physicians who do not object to a procedure should be nullified in the same way. This would simply exchange one kind of alleged ‘bias’ for another, inconvenience patients and provide them with no better care.

The more sensible course is to require all physicians to provide patients with sufficient information to satisfy the requirements of informed medical decision making.  Physicians must advise patients at the earliest reasonable opportunity of services or procedures they decline to recommend or provide for reasons of conscience, advise affected patients that they may seek the services elsewhere, and ensure that they have sufficient information to approach other physicians, heath care workers or community organizations.  They must not promote their own moral or religious beliefs when interacting with a patient.

Physicians unwilling to abide by these requirements must promptly arrange for a patient to be seen by another physician or health care worker who is able to do so.

If the College is determined to enact a policy on conscientious refusal, it should ensure that the policy adopted is sufficiently flexible to accommodate physicians with respect to all procedures or services. Otherwise, Council should reject Conscientious Refusal as revised and postpone policy development until after the Carter decision comes into force in 2016.

Contents

I.    Revision of draft policy – Conscientious Refusal

II.    Focus of this submission

III.    Section 5.3

IV.    Section 5.3: Suggested modification

V.    Section 2: Scope

VI.    Summary

Appendix “A” – Ontario College briefing materials

Appendix “B” – Providing Information

Appendix “C” – Conscientious Refusal and assisted suicide/euthanasia

Christian doctors’ group says new college policy infringes on freedom of conscience

Christian Medical and Dental Society seeks protection from a College of Physicians rule requiring doctors to refer patients seeking abortions and, once it’s legal, euthanasia.

Toronto Star

Lauren Pelly

With physician-assisted suicide on the horizon, the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada is asking the Ontario Superior Court to declare that a new regulatory policy infringes upon doctors’ freedom of conscience.

The society, which represents close to 1,700 members, filed documents in court on Friday regarding the CPSO’s Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy that was announced on March 6. The policy means doctors who refuse to refer patients for services on religious and moral grounds, including abortions, could face discipline from their regulating body. . . [Full Text]

 

CMDS Canada plans legal challenge to new Ontario College of Physicians policy

Note:  The following message has been sent to members of the Christian Medical Dental Society of Canada concerning the decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to enact a policy that demands that physicians facilitate procedures to which they object for reasons of conscience by referring patients to a non-objecting colleague or agency.  It is reproduced here with permission.

We received the disappointing news today that the CPSO has passed their policy “Professional Obligations and Human Rights”. We ask that all members across the country join in prayer and ask our Lord to have mercy on us and to act to undo this policy that tramples on the constitutional freedoms of doctors of conscience.

We have already been in discussion with our lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos who has been asked to prepare an application in court to have the policy struck down because it runs contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are planning a press conference in Toronto to launch this court challenge in the next two weeks and we sincerely hope this stops other colleges from following suit. We know that Saskatchewan has a similar policy up for consideration, and other provinces might be considering this. We need to act quickly to try to stop other provinces from taking this step. Bryan Dias, national president of the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physician’s Societies has indicated that his organization will join in the application as well and other groups are also welcome.

We will be making a solicitation of members for this cause next week. We will be preparing to move legally in Saskatchewan as well if we are not successful with the Saskatchewan College.  We are going to try to raise $150,000 for this project. $25,000 has already been raised from the CMDS Canada Board of Directors alone. The money raised will also go towards a public awareness campaign and towards the development of a database of supporters.

Three doctors have come forward to be named in the court application in Ontario. We would encourage other Ontario doctors who feel strongly about this matter to come forward and allow their names to stand as well.  For more information, contact Larry at lworthen@cmdscanada.org

Many doctors are concerned about what to do in their practice now that the policy has been passed. We will be asking Albertos for his advice on this and will get back to you on this with a note very shortly.

One of the things we could consider is to try to get before the court quickly to ask that the policy be suspended until it gets before a judge, to hear the merits of the case.

One thing is for sure – please do not give up hope. We have a good legal strategy and alot of people pulling for us. There were over 16,000 submissions to CPSO on this issue and it has been reported that most were in favour of conscience rights generally. Most importantly, we have a God who is looking out for us and who wants us to continue His healing ministry. Let us keep each other in prayer and let us ask our respective congregations and parishes to pray for us as well.

Let’s not worry – because we know that the Lord has a plan.

Larry Worthen BA, MA (Th.), LLB
Executive Director
Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada
Cell: (902) 880-2495

National Office:
1-197D Main Street  Steinbach MB R5G 1Y5 Phone: 204-326-2523
Fax: 204-326-3098 Toll Free:  1-888-256-8653 Website: www.cmdscanada.org

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)