{"id":4979,"date":"2008-09-13T00:05:40","date_gmt":"2008-09-13T07:05:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.consciencelaws.org\/?p=4979"},"modified":"2021-03-25T15:58:27","modified_gmt":"2021-03-25T22:58:27","slug":"rights-commission-threat-blasphemy-against-the-human-spirit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.consciencelaws.org\/?p=4979","title":{"rendered":"Rights Commission threat “blasphemy against the human spirit”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

College of Physicians secrecy said unacceptable<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

News Release<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Immediate Release<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Protection of Conscience Project<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBlasphemy against the human spirit.\u201d That is how the Protection of Conscience Project describes a threat by Ontario\u2019s Human Rights Commission to punish doctors who refuse to do what they believe to be wrong. The rebuke is found in a submission<\/span><\/span><\/a> to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citing writers and philosophers in the democratic tradition, as well as the landmark Morgentaler decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Project argues that to force doctors to act against their conscientious convictions is \u201cto deprive them of their essential humanity.\u201d It calls the proposed policy \u201cprofoundly offensive and demeaning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTo abandon one\u2019s moral or ethical convictions in order to serve others is prostitution,\u201d states the submission, \u201cnot professionalism.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The brief denies that doctors who refuse to do what they believe is wrong are violating the Human Rights Code<\/i>. It explains that they are concerned about \u201ccomplicity in wrongdoing,\u201d not race, sex or other patient characteristics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Project submission addresses the College draft policy, Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code<\/i>. Deadline for comment on the policy was extended to 12 September following protests when news of it became public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The President of the College told the National Post<\/i> that the draft has been revised, but refuses to make it public. Project Administrator Sean Murphy finds College secrecy unacceptable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAt least two substantial briefs reached the College only on Friday,\u201d he said. \u201cThe National Post <\/i>story appeared Saturday. It seems very unlikely that College officials could have considered either submission before revising the draft. This brings into question the validity of the consultation process.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut the more important issue,\u201d he said, \u201cis that decision-making that impacts fundamental freedoms should be conducted transparently, not secretly. Why keep the revised draft secret? Is there something to hide?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-30- <\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Related Links: <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n