{"id":6228,"date":"2015-08-17T03:27:39","date_gmt":"2015-08-17T10:27:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.consciencelaws.org\/?p=6228"},"modified":"2018-03-05T22:20:13","modified_gmt":"2018-03-06T06:20:13","slug":"canadian-medical-association-plans-for-physician-assisted-suicide-euthanasia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.consciencelaws.org\/?p=6228","title":{"rendered":"Canadian Medical Association plans for physician assisted suicide, euthanasia"},"content":{"rendered":"

Commentary on draft framework (August, 2015)<\/h2>\n

Sean Murphy*<\/a><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/h2>\n

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) draft framework, Principles Based Approach to Assisted Dying in Canada <\/em>presumes that physicians have an obligation to kill patients or help them commit suicide in the circumstances described by the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v. Canada<\/em>. It claims that objecting physicians are obliged to support physicians who do so, and to facilitate their work. By presuming these contested obligations as normative, the framework imposes a structure for response and discussion that is prejudicial to objecting physicians.<\/p>\n

CMA officials define “participation” in the draft framework to mean only providing a lethal injection or writing a lethal prescription, although this is not stated in the document. Referral is not counted as “participation,” and the draft framework appears to reflect the view that referral is the preferred method for reconciling conflicts between patients seeking euthanasia or assisted suicide and physicians unwilling to be involved with homicide or suicide. This introduces a fundamental structural bias in framing the CMA approach to accommodating freedom of conscience and religion.<\/p>\n

The bias in favour of mandatory referral becomes particularly evident in Schedule B, which considers only compulsory referral as a means of reconciling freedom of conscience and access to services. Further, the structural bias is reflected and reinforced by numerous erroneous and substantially misleading statements.<\/p>\n

What support might be offered to physicians unwilling to provide or facilitate euthanasia and assisted suicide is conditional upon their referring the patient to a third party, but the formulation in the draft framework is insufficiently clear and has been compromised by revisions to fundamental principles. An acceptable policy will not require objecting physicians to become part of a chain of causation culminating in a morally contested procedure.<\/p>\n

Despite the bias apparent in the draft framework, it should be possible to reconcile respect for the fundamental freedoms of physicians and demands for access to morally contested services. This can be done within the framework proposed by the CMA in the manner suggested in this commentary..<\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>Table of Contents<\/h2>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Introduction<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h6>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Overview<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

III.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Principles Based Approach to Assisted Dying in Canada<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h6>\n

III.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Highlights of the decision from a physician perspective<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

III.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Strategic Questions<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

III.2.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Strategic Question 3<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

III.2.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Additional strategic questions<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Schedule A: Draft Principles-Based Recommendations<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h6>\n

IV.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Foundational principles<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.1.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2.\u00a0 Equity<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.1.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3.\u00a0 Respect for physician values <\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.1.3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5.\u00a0 Clarity<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.1.4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 9: Solidarity<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recommendations – \u00a01.\u00a0 Patient qualifications for access to medical aid in dying<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.2.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.2\u00a0 Informed decision<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.2.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.3\u00a0 Capacity<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recommendations- 2.\u00a0 Process map for decision-making in medical aid in dying<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IV.3.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Stages 1& 2: Requesting\/Before undertaking medical aid in dying<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n