{"id":6209,"date":"2015-08-07T23:31:07","date_gmt":"2015-08-08T06:31:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.consciencelaws.org\/?p=6209"},"modified":"2018-03-06T15:03:36","modified_gmt":"2018-03-06T23:03:36","slug":"protection-of-conscience-project-submission-to-the-college-of-physicians-and-surgeons-of-saskatchewan-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.consciencelaws.org\/?p=6209","title":{"rendered":"Project Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan"},"content":{"rendered":"

Re: Conscientious Objection<\/em><\/h2>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conscientious Objection<\/em> is 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.<\/p>\n

Council has been given no evidence that anyone in Saskatchewan has ever been unable to access medical services or that the health of anyone in Saskatchewan has ever been adversely affected because a physician has declined to provide or refer for a procedure for reasons of conscience. In the absence of such evidence, the limits proposed in Conscientious Objection<\/em> are neither reasonable nor demonstrably justified.<\/p>\n

Conscientious Objection<\/em> is not justified by the principles included in the policy because there is no necessary connection between the principles and a policy requiring physicians to do what they believe to be wrong. The principles can be applied to force physicians to facilitate morally contested procedures only if they are ideologically interpreted in order to impose one world view at the expense of others. The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously affirmed that such an approach is unacceptable.<\/p>\n

It is unrealistic to believe that the approach taken in Conscientious Objection<\/em> will not be taken with respect to physician administered euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The disclaimer to the contrary is ill-advised and misleading. A policy on Conscientious Objection<\/em> should be sufficiently flexible to apply to direct or indirect participation in killing patients or helping them commit suicide. If Council is uncertain how this can be done, it should postpone policy development concerning Conscientious Objection<\/em> until after the Carter<\/em> decision comes into force in 2016.<\/p>\n

Alternatively, if the College believes that some kind of guidance should be provided with respect to this contentious issue, the Project offers an alternative that protects physician freedom of conscience and religion but does not obstruct patient access to services, including euthanasia and assisted suicide.<\/p>\n

\n

Contents<\/h2>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Introduction<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Overview of this submission<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

III.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Limitation of fundamental freedoms<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

IV.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 “Purpose” and “Principles”<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

V.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Scope of Conscientious Objection<\/em><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

V.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The disclaimer<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

V.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dissecting the disclaimer<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

V.3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Summary<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

V.4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recommendations<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

VI.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Physician obligations<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

5.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Taking on new patients (Comment)<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n