The policy Conscientious Refusal <\/em>requires all 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.\u00a0 No evidence was provided to justify the policy.\u00a0 None of the arguments provided to Council justify the policy, nor do the principles included in the text.<\/p>\n Conscientious Refusal<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n The original text virtually copied by Conscientious Refusal<\/em> was written by believers: by people who believe that whatever is “legally permissible and publicly-funded” is morally acceptable- including euthanasia, assisted suicide and abortion. It is an assertion of those beliefs and an authoritarian attempt to compel others to conform to them. It is a partisan document that is profoundly disrespectful of the moral agency of physicians, not a compromise.<\/p>\n Conscientious Refusal<\/em> advances the dangerous idea that a learned or privileged class, a profession or state institutions can legitimately compel people to do what they believe to be wrong and punish them if they refuse. This is not a limitation of fundamental freedoms, but a serious violation of human dignity. It is also incoherent, because it posits the existence of a moral or ethical duty to do what one believes to be wrong.<\/p>\n The Associate Registrar has made it clear that those who refuse to do what the policy demands will be disciplined by the College or forced out of the medical profession. This clashes seriously with the approach taken by the Supreme Court of Canada, which has affirmed that public policy must make room for physicians whose “concept of the good life” precludes their participation in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or other morally contested procedures.<\/p>\n The burden of proof was on the Associate Registrar and the appointed committee to prove beyond doubt that Conscientious Refusal<\/em> is justified and that no less authoritarian alternatives are available.\u00a0 They failed to discharge that burden; neither has College Council discharged it. The policy should be withdrawn.<\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Origin of the draft policy, <\/span><\/strong> Conscientious Refusal<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Content of the proposed policy<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Focus of this submission<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Justification for the proposed policy<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n V.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The issues<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n VI.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Response to the issues<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n VII.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Discussion<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n VIII.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Conclusions<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Appendix “A”: Origin of the CPSS Draft Policy<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Appendix “B”:\u00a0 Development of the CPSS Draft Policy<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/a>Contents<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n