Service, not Servitude
In a policy statement that included reference to dispensing euthanasia drugs, RU486 and the ‘morning after pill’, Canada Safeway advised pharmacists who have conscientious objections to dispensing certain drugs that they would be required to do so if a non-objecting pharmacist was not available.
An article said to originate in Quito, Ecuador, and circulated by Life Site News (Canada), reports that tribunals operating under government auspices will investigate violations of “gender rights” including the “refusal to perform legal abortions.”
When the Markham-Stoufville Hospital in Ontario tried to force health care workers to assist in abortion, eight nurses stood their ground. One of them died during the five years it took for the case to reach a human rights tribunal. The hospital settled the case on the eve of the hearing, agreeing to financial compensation and a policy statement protecting rights of conscience.
For vindication of freedom of conscience, five years is too long too wait, thousands of dollars in legal fees too much to pay. It is past time to put an end to coercive conduct by employers, educational authorities and others who demand freedom of choice except for those who don’t share their moral outlook.
The Protection of Conscience Project supports authentic freedom of conscientious choice for everyone. It is a non-denominational, non-profit group of individuals consisting of a project team and advisory board, operating a website at http://www.consciencelaws.org.
The Project
The Markham-Stoufville case concerned abortion. What about euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and demands for access to reproductive technologies?
“Without proper legislation,” warned Maurice Vellacott, M.P., speaking to the issue in the House of Commons, ” there may come a day where no physician feels free from coercion to violate his or her conscience.”
Saskatchewan, Canada
In speaking to the protection of conscience bill he introduced in the Canadian House of Commons, Mr. Maurice Vellacott told the House about an encounter he had had with one of his constituents, a student who was under some duress to participate in abortion. [Full text]
Ottawa — Bill C-207, which would protect health care providers, particularly nurses, from being forced to participate, against their wills, in abortion procedures or acts of euthanasia, will be debated in the House of Commons this week. Debate is currently scheduled for Thursday November 18 at 5:30pm.
The bill summary for C-207 (formerly designated C-461 during the last session of parliament) reads as follows: “This enactment protects the rights of health care practitioners and other persons to refuse, without fear of reprisal or other discriminatory coercion, to participate in medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is inviolable.”
In recent years there have been many nurses either refused employment or dismissed because of their unwillingness to capitulate in the face of pressure to assist in abortions. Bill C-207 would remedy that situation. Unfortunately, after the bill is debated it will not be voted on, so that it has no chance of becoming law. This is because the Liberal-dominated sub-committee on Private Members Business chose not to make the bill votable.
The bill has now also been introduced in the Senate as Bill S-11 by Senator Raymond Perrault.