There are good reasons to favour conscience.
The SNC-Lavalin affair, which continues to reverberate, raises many issues in a democracy dominated by political parties — and all these issues take on greater relevance with a federal election approaching. One of them is the conflict that can arise between the conscience of a politician and the strictures of party politics, in a variety of contexts, and how that conflict should be resolved. When our representatives are voting on legislation, there are good reasons to favour conscience. . . [Full Text]
Doctors should not be obliged to write referrals for procedures they find morally objectionable
Earlier this week, Ontario’s highest court heard a case that pits access to health care against the moral convictions of doctors. The case essentially tests the extent to which Canadians can follow their own moral compasses while operating in a professional capacity.
In Ontario, doctors can refuse to perform procedures or prescribe drugs that they consider immoral. However, the public body that regulates these doctors – the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) – requires them to refer patients to doctors who are willing and able to provide the requested health care service. . .
The year 2017 marks the 150th anniversary since Confederation and the 35th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By virtue of a court case in Ontario that might go all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, 2017 may also be the year when freedom of conscience — until now a dormant Charter freedom — is brought to life.
In June, Ontario’s Divisional Court heard arguments in a case that challenges a policy in Ontario obliging physicians to provide an effective referral if they conscientiously object to performing a medical procedure. An effective referral means that the objecting physician must promptly direct the patient to a physician who will perform the procedure. In May, two of the lawyers representing the side that is challenging the policy outlined their position in Policy Options. In essence, they argue that the policy unduly infringes the freedom of conscience and religion of physicians who refuse on the basis of those Charter grounds to participate in medical procedures. . . [Full text]