Project News Releases Archives - Page 5 of 9 - Protection of Conscience Project News

Ontario physicians unwilling to kill patients must help find someone who will

College of Physicians and Surgeons demands “effective referral” for euthanasia, assisted suicide

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has quietly issued a directive that physicians who, for reasons of conscience or religion, are unwilling to kill patients or help them commit suicide, must help them find someone willing to do so.

The requirement appears in the policy Planning for and Providing Quality End-of-Life Care, approved in September by College Council:

8.3 Conscientious Objection

Physicians who limit their practice on the basis of moral and/or religious grounds must comply with the College’s Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy.

A note explains that limiting practice includes refusals to “provide care” (i.e., kill patients or assist with suicide.)

The College’s policy, Professional Obligations and Human Rights , demands that physicians who are unwilling to provide procedures for reasons of conscience or religion must make “an effective referral to another health-care provider,” which is defined as “a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician, other health-care professional, or agency.”

As a result of the demand for “effective referral,” Professional Obligations and Human Rights is the subject of a legal challenge filed by the Christian Medical and Dental Society and the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies. Among other things, the suit alleges actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the working group that developed the policy.

Professional Obligations and Human Rights was approved by College Council in March, 2015, despite overwhelming opposition to the demand for “effective referral” that was evident in the returns during the public consultation. The College issued a statement with the policy to the effect that it did not apply to euthanasia or assisted suicide. It promised to revisit the issue after Parliament or the provincial legislature enacted laws in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. Canada.

“It was obvious at the time that this was an ingenuous tactic that they hoped would defuse opposition to the policy, at least among Council members” said Protection of Conscience Project Administrator, Sean Murphy. “This development simply confirms the obvious.”

Project to Saskatchewan regulator: no evidence to support limitation of fundamental freedoms

Draft policy attacks character, competence of physicians

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

Project to Saskatchewan regulator: no evidence to support limitation of fundamental freedoms For the third time this year, the Protection of Conscience Project has criticized a draft policy proposed by officials of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan who want to control the exercise of freedom of conscience and religion by physicians. The draft policy, Conscientious Objection, was approved in principle by the College Council on 19 June and released for a public consultation that ended on 7 August.

Citing Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Project states that “the limits proposed in Conscientious Objection are neither reasonable nor demonstrably justified” because the College had no evidence that conscientious objection by Saskatchewan physicians has ever deprived anyone of access medical services or adversely affected anyone’s health.

The Project submission calls Conscientious Objection unacceptable “because it attacks the character and competence of objecting physicians, and it nullifies their freedom of conscience by compelling them to arrange for patients to obtain services to which they object.”

This has become of particular concern because physician assisted suicide and physician administered euthanasia will be legal in Canada in February of next year. The draft policy states that it does not apply to those services, but the Project submission rejects that disclaimer, calling it “ill-advised and misleading.”

Among other things, the Project points out that, even after the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the legalization of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, the College’s Associate Registrar “defended the proposition that physicians should be disciplined or fired if they refuse to at least help to find someone willing to kill patients or help them commit suicide.”

The disclaimer was added only after it became clear that the policy faced overwhelming opposition, either as a tactic to secure the approval of the policy, or because some of its supporters began to realize the policy’s implications.

The submission warns the College that a policy on conscientious objection should be flexible enough to apply to requests for assisted suicide and euthanasia.

” If Council is uncertain how this can be done, it should postpone policy development concerning Conscientious Objection until after the Carter decision comes into force in 2016.”

The Project also strongly criticizes the policy because it suggests that physicians who refuse to do what they believe to be wrong cannot be trusted.

“Solely on the basis of their beliefs,” the submission notes, “it implies that they are unacceptably biased and effectively prohibits objecting physicians from communicating with their patients about morally contested procedures.”

Instead, the policy demands that they refer their patients to someone who can provide “full and balanced health information,” apparently assuming that physicians who have moral viewpoints are incapable of properly communicating with patients.

“But all physicians have moral viewpoints,” the Project reminds the College. “Conscientious Objection simply exchanges one kind of ‘bias’ for another.”

The Project submission includes an alternative policy that protects physician freedom of conscience and religion but does not obstruct patient access to services, including euthanasia and assisted suicide. The alternative draws on the CPSS draft policy, the Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics, and a joint statement by the Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Healthcare Association, Canadian Nurses’ Association, and Catholic Health Association of Canada.

The proposed CPSS policy has also been criticized by the Christian Medical and Dental Societies, the Federation of Catholic Physicians Societies of Canada and Canadian Physicians for Life. Their joint submission states that Conscientious Objection “does not adequately deal with physicians’ human rights” and “does not accurately reflect the law.”

Protection of Conscience Project sees progress, room for improvement in draft Saskatchewan policy

Draft policy no longer demands referral by objecting physicians

Project – Prohibiting communication with patients by objecting physicians “unsound”; disclaimer re: euthanasia and assisted suicide “misleading and ill advised”

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

A committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has revised a controversial draft policy after a public consultation yielded “a very significant return” of over 4,400 responses, almost all of which opposed it. The consultation appears to have produced no evidence that anyone in Saskatchewan has ever been unable to access medical services because a physician has declined to provide or refer for a procedure for reasons of conscience, or that the health of anyone in Saskatchewan has ever been adversely affected by conscientious objection by a physician.

The committee concluded that objecting physicians “should not be obligated to provide a referral to a physician who will ultimately potentially provide the service.” The requirement was deleted from the revised draft.

In a submission to the College, the Protection of Conscience describes the deletion as as “entirely satisfactory” and “a tacit admission that such a policy would be an unacceptable assault on freedom of conscience – not a compromise.”

However, the revised draft effectively prohibits objecting physicians from communicating with patients about morally contested procedures, requiring them to refer patients to a non-objecting colleague. The assumption underlying the recommendation is that a physician who has a moral viewpoint is incapable of properly communicating with a patient because of ‘bias’.

In its submission, the Project points out that all physicians have moral viewpoints. If the proposed policy 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 proposal is unsound. If applied as now written, it would simply exchange one kind of alleged ‘bias’ for another. If applied fairly and consistently to all physicians, it would inconvenience patients, delay treatments, provide no better outcomes, double the costs of providing health care and antagonize physicians on all sides of any issue.

Instead, the Project recommends that all physicians should be required to provide patients with sufficient information to satisfy the requirements of informed medical decision making, and

advise patients at the earliest reasonable opportunity of services or procedures they decline to recommend or provide for reasons of conscience, and
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

After the public consultation, the drafting committee added a disclaimer to the revised draft stating that the policy will not apply to physician administered euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Among the ostensible reasons offered for this are that the issue is “in a state of development,” ethical implications have not been fully explored, legislation is lacking and there is “considerable uncertainty” about it.

The Project submission describes this as “misleading and ill-advised.” It reminds the College that, when the associate registrar proposed the coercive policy in July, 2014, it was well known that the Supreme Court of Canada might well legalize physician assisted suicide, and he specifically referred to that. After the Supreme Court of Canada issued its judgement in Carter, the associate registrar defended the proposition that physicians should be disciplined or fired if they refused to at least refer patients for euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. He did not then urge caution because the ethical implications of the ruling were unclear or there was considerable uncertainty about it.

“It is unrealistic to believe that Conscientious Refusal as revised will not be applied to physician administered euthanasia and physician assisted suicide,” states the Project submission, “either directly, after a certain length of time, or indirectly, as a paradigm for further policy development.”

It recommends that, 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.

The revised policy, Conscientious Refusal, may again be considered by Council on 19 June, 2015.

Contact:
Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
Email: protection@consciencelaws.org

Project advisor awarded honour by state of Indiana

Dr. Shahid Athar receives Golden Hoosier Award

Dr. Shahid Athar, who has been an adviser to the Project from its inception, has received the state of Indiana’s Golden Hoosier Award.

Indiana has annually honoured selected senior citizens for their lifetime of service and commitment to their communities since 2008. The Golden Hoosier Award is considered one of the highest honours given by the State of Indiana to senior citizens.

Dr. Athar was nominated by Pastor Jerry Zehr and Razzi Nalim. The award citation states:

Dr. Shahid Athar serves his community as a volunteer physician for Indianapolis’s homeless, HIV patients and other individuals who may not be able to afford medical treatment. In addition, he serves as a board member for the Protection of Conscience Project, St. Vincent Ethical Committee, and the Islamic Medical Association of North America. Most notably, Dr. Athar is known for his advocacy of interfaith as a way to overcome terrorism and to help Hoosier Muslims deal with the negative fallout of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Dr. Athar is highly regarded among his peers and his community. Whether he is providing professional medical care for the needy, or presenting on interfaith, he always leads by example and with compassion for others. His generosity has left a lasting impression on Hoosiers of all faiths.

The term “Hoosier” means a resident of Indiana.

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)