Home   Site Map

Protection of Conscience Project
Positions Papers & Policies - Medical Organisations

Traduire à français         Tradurre all'italiano         Traduzca al español         Traduza a português            Übersetzen Sie zu Deutsch     Oversett til Norsk

Comment by College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick
(Reproduced with permission)

Related Links

Freedom of
Conscience
& the Needs
 of the Patient

Referral: A False Compromise

Customer Isn't
Always Right

Project Letter to
Telegraph Journal-
 Nov. 2002

Project Letter to
Telegraph Journal
- Feb. 2002

Bishop Troy Letter to Telegraph Journal Feb.2002

One of the most difficult dilemmas in the patient/physician relationship occurs when the physician has a personal moral objection to a procedure or treatment that the patient may request or inquire about. Such issues create a conflict between the recognized autonomy of a competent patient to make their own decisions regarding health care and the autonomy of physicians to practice according to their own knowledge, experience and conscience.

It is the Council’s view that the autonomy of both patients and physicians can be respected, on the basis of physicians following the principles of good medical practice, the Code of Ethics, and College Regulations.

To that end, it is a basic obligation under the Code of Ethics and College Regulations for physicians to advise patients when their personal morality would influence any recommendation or practice they may make regarding a patient. In other words, it would be improper to refuse a patient’s request without stating such. The basic requirement is that patients should be informed as to why a physician is declining to provide the service or treatment requested.

Council also feels that, while it is not an obligation to do so, it is preferred practice for physicians who have such objections to refer the patient to another where such objections may not arise. Nevertheless, if the physician feels even that is unacceptable, Council does view it as an acceptable alternative for the physician to provide information, upon the patient’s request, regarding resources which may be directly accessible to the patient.

In any case, any discussions, should these issues arise, should be dealt with in a manner which is neither judgemental, nor intimidating.

Physicians are also reminded that other factors may have some influence here. In addition to the Code of Ethics and College Regulations, the Human Rights Act prevents physicians discriminating in access to care based on a number of factors, including specifically "race, colour, religion, national origin, ancestry, place of origin, age, physical disability, mental disability, marital status, sexual orientation or sex."

Finally, physicians are reminded that, should a complaint arise, any care offered will be judged by accepted medical and scientific standards.

 

 

 


(Reproduced with permission)

Related Links
Doctor's faith under scrutiny

National Post

The Barrie Examiner

Who is "imposing morality" in Barrie?

OCP&S accommodates Christian physician

Freedom of
Conscience
& the Needs
 of the Patient

Referral: A False Compromise

Customer Isn't
Always Right

 

As from August 22, 2002, Dr. Stephen Thomas Dawson undertakes to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario,
  1. To have copies of "Schedule 1" to his undertaking openly available in his waiting room. [See  Schedule 1 below.]
     
  2. To provide to his patients only the explanation in Schedule 1 explaining why he does not, in his practice,
  3. a) prescribe birth control pills to unmarried patients for the purpose of birth control;

    b) prescribe Viagra to unmarried men;

    c) participate in securing abortions for his patients

    unless a patient should specifically request further information about the religious beliefs on which his position is based.

Schedule 1:

On February 8, 2000, I [Dr. Stephen Thomas Dawson] established a policy in this Medical Centre to stop prescribing birth control pills to unmarried patients for the purpose of birth control. I also established a policy of not prescribing Viagra to unmarried men.

I have never involved myself in abortions. As a Christian physician, the prescription of birth control pills to unmarried women for birth control purposes is contrary to the dictates of my conscience and religion. Similarly, arranging for abortions and the prescription of Viagra to unmarried men is contrary to the dictates of my conscience and religion.

According to the Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics, one of the responsibilities of a physician is to inform the patient:

when his morality or religious conscience alone prevents him from recommending some form of therapy . . .

In accordance with my Christian beliefs and the Canadian Medical Association's Code of Ethics, I am setting out my policy so that you are informed in advance of  my beliefs and practice. If you wish further information about the religious basis for my policy, please feel to ask me about it.


Back Next