Christians and civil disobedience

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

Background Paper

John H. Redekop*

Introduction

A basic requirement for the functioning of civil society, especially in a democracy, is that citizens, generally speaking, should obey the laws of the land.  Christians and most, if not all, other religious groups accept that principle as an over-arching reality.  The logic is compelling. If citizens, in substantial numbers, would take the law into their own hands and individually decide which laws to obey and which to disobey, then anarchy might result rather quickly.  The theory is clear and essentially true but the practical situation is sometimes more complicated.

What is to be done by responsible and highly moral citizens if certain laws are inherently evil?  What should citizens do if the government of the day pressures them to violate their conscience on a fundamental principle?  What should they do if their government suddenly denies them the most basic of freedoms?  We know from history as well as from the present global situation that Christians often encounter laws which are unjust and simply wrong.  The Christian response is clear. . . [Read on]

Testimony of Wang Guoqi

Former Doctor at a Chinese People’s Liberation Army Hospital

United States House of Representatives
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights

Introduction
Wang Guoqi was a doctor at a Chinese People’s Liberation Army Hospital who willingly participated in organ harvesting from executed prisoners. However, after a particularly gruesome experience he experienced a conflict of conscience and tried to avoid further involvement in the process. His initial attempt was rejected and he was met with various forms of pressure to continue his participation. He eventually left China and appeared before a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives, where he provided the following testimony.

My name is Wang Guoqi and I am a 38-year-old physician from the People’s Republic of China. In 1981, after standard childhood schooling and graduation, I joined the People’s Liberation Army. By 1984, I was studying medicine at the Paramilitary Police Paramedical School. I received advanced degrees in Surgery and Human Tissue Studies, and consequently became a specialist in the burn victims unit at the Paramilitary Police Tianjin General Brigade Hospital in Tianjin. My work required me to remove skin and corneas from the corpses of over one hundred executed prisoners, and, on a couple of occasions, victims of intentionally botched executions. It is with deep regret and remorse for my actions that I stand here today testifying against the practices of organ and tissue sales from death row prisoners. . . [Full text]

Testimony from the gynaecological-obstetrical frontline

André O. Devos, MD*

. . .Since a fair amount of their income was the result of contraception, and surgical sterilisation, I refused to join the pool . . . According to my conscience, I could not accept any part of that income. I soon was dismissed, losing hospitalisation and surgical privileges. The letter of dismissal was signed both by our Mother Superior . . . and . . . a Reverend Canon, who at the same time was one of the secretaries of our
Bishop. [Full text]

Letter to the Editor,The Province

Sean Murphy

Readers might be confused by Susan Martinuk’s quote from the College of Pharmacists about what the future may hold for the profession: “preparation of drugs to assist voluntary or involuntary suicide, cloning, genetic manipulation or even suicide.” (Customer isn’t always right on issues of conscience, The Province, 13 June, 2001).

The College Registrar has explained that “involuntary suicide” should have read “involuntary euthanasia“, a clarification that hardly diminishes the moral issues that arise when people are killed without their consent. The second reference to suicide in the same quote is an error in Ms. Martinuk’s article. The sentence in the College statement ended, “…or even execution“. The reference is to the participation of pharmacists in execution by lethal injection, as in the case of Timothy McVeigh.

The paper quoted by Ms. Martinuk was written by the Ethics Advisory Committee of the College, and included imputations of dishonesty directed against conscientious objectors within the profession which the College is unable to substantiate, but which it refuses to withdraw. It is difficult to see how this is consistent with justice nor non-maleficence, two ethical principles that are supposed to be upheld by ethics committees.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Canadian Physicians for Life corrects Planned Parenthood Alberta

News Release

CANADIAN PHYSICIANS FOR LIFE

RE:  “Even doctors ethically must make referrals for abortion services, whether they morally support that or not.”  Melanie Anderson – Planned Parenthood Alberta  (CTV News and Current Affairs Sat 02 Jun 2001)

The erroneous allegation that physicians who object to abortion for reasons of conscience are obliged to refer patients for the procedure continues to be promulgated in Alberta.

Our correspondence with Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons registrar, Dr. Ohlhauser, states clearly that physicians do not have a professional obligation to refer a patient for an abortion.  The College requires, as does the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association, that physicians “inform a patient when their personal morality would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants.”

A pro-life physician should declare her personal views to a pregnant patient considering an abortion, in order to place her subsequent discussion in context.  The doctor then has every right, indeed, a responsibility, to outline the potential mental and physical risks of abortion just as she would before prescribing a drug or weighing the merits of surgery.

A number of studies report a close correlation between abortion, especially of a first pregnancy, and breast cancer. Are Alberta physicians telling abortion seekers of this threat to their health? Are women being informed of the risk of post-abortion emotional trauma? Are patients being warned that some physicians’ ardent pro-abortion beliefs bias the “counselling” process?

A physician’s duty of care extends to two patients in the case of a pregnant woman – the woman and her unborn child.  For a woman to make a truly “informed decision” she must be presented with the facts of human embryology of her unborn child so that she will know that what she is aborting is a human being, not just a clump of cells or a piece of her own tissues.  Withholding basic information shows disrespect for women and is both dishonest and patronizing, since it implies that women are too weak to know the truth.

The suggestion that morally troublesome issues need only be referred to a colleague is oblivious to the principled objections of pro-life physicians. Increasingly exotic reproductive technologies may eventually offend even the most laissez-faire physicians.  There may come a day where no physician feels free from coercion to violate his or her conscience.

Will Johnston, MD
President – Canadian Physicians for LifeContact: 
Canadian Physicians for Life
10150 Gillanders Road; Chilliwack, BC  V2P 6H4
Phone:  604-794-3772  Fax:  604-794-3960
Email:  info@physiciansforlife.ca
Visit us at:  www.physiciansforlife.ca