Doctor's faith under scrutiny:
Barrie physician won't offer the pill, could lose his licence
The Barrie Examiner, February 21, 2002Reproduced with permission
A Barrie doctor could lose his licence to practise medicine because of his
religious beliefs.
Dr. Stephen Dawson faces a discipline committee at the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in April because he refused to
prescribe birth control pills to unmarried women.
"If a Christian physician must forsake his religious beliefs to
maintain his medical licence, we cannot delude ourselves to believe we
live in a free country," said Dawson.
Last summer, four female patients made formal complaints to the college,
citing Dawson's refusal to prescribe birth control to the
"unmarried" women as the reason, he said.
Dawson believes that when a doctor prescribes birth control pills to an
unmarried woman, he unwittingly promotes sex outside of marriage, because
he removes the fear of pregnancy.
In a letter addressed to his patients, Dawson quotes warnings from Ezekiel
3:18-21: "When you do not warn nor dissuade an unrighteous man from
his evil ways, he will lose his soul for his iniquity, and his blood will
be on your hands. Yet if you do warn him and he does not change from his
evil ways, he will lose his soul, but you will at least save your own
soul."
Dawson said he was advised he should have referred the patients to another
doctor to prescribe the pill, but he feels that because the pill doesn't
require a referral to a specialist, the patients were free to find another
doctor on their own.
Kathryn Clarke, the spokesperson for the college of physicians, said after
a review of the previous 10 years' discipline reports, she doesn't believe
the college has had to address a similar situation.
"I don't know of any other case like this," said Clarke.
Although it is not specifically detailed in the college's regulations that
doctors' must prescribe certain medications (that may interfere with their
religious beliefs), Clarke doesn't describe the action as falling into a
grey area.
"There is no precedent, I know it's not written down, the standards
are more general in nature - they're not that specific."
Clarke says the committee determines what the standards are once evidence
has been presented during the hearing.
So until the committee actually meets, Dawson has only been loosely
charged with 'professional misconduct in that he failed to meet the
overall moral and professional standard of care.'
The disciplinary committee is comprised of three doctors and two members
of the public. They have several options when it comes to disciplining
doctors.
The doctor can be reprimanded, his licence could be suspended for a period
of time, or they could impose certain terms and conditions on his licence,
or revoke his licence.
"Based upon the allegations, we will present evidence to prove those
allegations and his lawyer will defend those accusations," Clarke
said.
The Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics reads 'When a physician's
religious or moral conscience alone prevents him from recommending some
form of therapy, he will so acquaint the patient.'
Dr. James Robert Brown, a professor of science and religion at the
University of Toronto, said he agrees with prosecuting a doctor with that
sort of conflict. "Suppose someone (doctor) said, 'I'm uncomfortable
with (treating) a minority,' I'd say, 'So long scum'," said Brown.
Brown believes performing abortions and offering other forms of
contraception are necessary and if Dawson won't perform them, then, Brown
added, 'Fine - just resign from medicine and find another job."
"Religious beliefs are highly emotional - as is any belief that is
effecting your behaviour in society. You have no right letting your
private beliefs effect your public behaviour."
At this point, Dawson may back down a little on his stand for religious
freedom.
After speaking with his lawyer earlier this week, the college has
suggested he write letters to the four women, apologizing for what might
have been perceived as an "overzealous" approach to their
request for oral contraceptives. If he does, he feels they might
reconsider their professional misconduct charges.
However, he is still tossing around the prospect of how he could inform
prospective clientele of his desire not to prescribe the pill, provide
abortions, offer the-morning-after pill to unmarried women, or prescribe
Viagra (a sex enhancement drug) to unmarried men.
"I'm willing to compromise," said Dawson.
But Father Tom Lynch, a professor of St. Augustine Seminary at the
University of Toronto, said that might not be necessary. Lynch said
conscience clauses are pretty typical.
"He has a right in terms of not doing anything that goes against his
conscience," he said.
Disciplinary Hearing of Doctor Who Won't Prescribe Pill Open to Public
Dr. Dawson Requests Prayers and Letters of Support
Life Site NewsReproduced with permission
BARRIE, ON, February 22, 2002 (LSN.ca) - Dr. Stephen Dawson, the family
doctor who is in danger of losing his medical licence over his refusal to
prescribe the birth control pill to unmarried women clarified his position
in an interview with LifeSite last night. Dr. Dawson told LifeSite
that the initial coverage in the Barrie Examiner suggested he may
compromise on the matter. He clarified: "Under no circumstances will
I compromise. I would rather lose my licence."
He said that he would not apologize for refusaling to offer the pill to
unmarried women but would apologize for the perhaps "overzealous
manner in which I presented my case to these women initially."
Dr. Dawson told LifeSite he was pro-life and thus would never offer
abortions, or the abortifacient morning-after pill. But as he did
not feel the birth control pill to be abortifacient, (despite its
ingredients and operation being very similar to the morning-after pill) he
would not prescribe the pill to unmarried women or Viagra to unmarried men
since by doing so he would be promoting sex outside of marriage.
"Honoring the Hippocratic Oath I feel that I must tell the patient
about these concerns otherwise I am advocating a treatment that would
(spiritually) harm," said Dr. Dawson.
Dr. John Patrick, Director of
Public Policy of the Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS) of Canada
echoed these concerns to LifeSite. Apart from all the medical and
psychological concerns over abortion and abortifacient drugs, Dr. Patrick
explained that
physicians with a faith in God approach situations of moral concerns from
a radically different perspective than do physicians of no faith.
Dr. Patrick compared the viewpoint of an abortionist to that of a
Christian doctor. An abortionist when confronted with a woman
deciding to have an abortion sees a patient who is has chosen the least
troublesome of undesirable alternatives. However, faced with the same
situation, the Christian doctor would see two patients before him, one of
whom is going to die and the other who is
putting herself at risk of eternal death. The CMDS is following Dr.
Dawson's case closely and is willing to intervene in the case on his
behalf.
The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) is also interested in the case.
CCRL Vice President Phil Horgan told LifeSite: "It is important to
cite the principle from Canada's first case on religious freedom (by
Supreme Court Chief Justice Dickson [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at 336-7) in R v.
Big M Drug Mart Ltd.: "Freedom means that, subject to such
limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or
morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be
forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience."
"If Dr. Dawson has been charged with failing to meet the overall
moral and professional standard of care, will the College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Ontario suggest that morality and professionalism are
distinct? If not, what morality are they proposing to impose?",
asked Horgan.
Dr. Dawson requested prayer and letters of support. The College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario told LifeSite that the disciplinary
hearing on Dr. Dawson's case to be held April 16-19 at 80 College St. in
Toronto are open to the public.
Send letters of support to Dr. Dawson at:
Doctor's Family Medical & Walk-In Clinic
353 Duckworth St, Barrie, ON L4M 5C2
email: dawson8@attcanada.ca
Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons accommodates Christian physician
The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons has accepted a suggestion from Dr. Stephen Dawson that has resolved complaints lodged against him. Dr. Dawson, a Christian physician who practises in Barrie, Ontario, was charged for professional misconduct because he refused to prescribe birth control pills to four unmarried women.
Dr. Dawson now posts a policy statement in his waiting room that includes a statement that he will not prescribe birth control pills to unmarried women nor Viagra to unmarried men, nor will he arrange for abortions. He will not offer further information about his religious convictions except in response to queries from patients.
The resolution reflects the fact that there were two different issues at play in the case: the exercise of freedom of conscience, and the manner in which it was exercised. College spokesman Kathryn Clarke explained that the focus of the College was on the latter. "We simply wish to be assured that when he explains to his patients why he does not provide these services that he does so in a professional and respectful manner."
Dr. John Williams, director of ethics for the Canadian Medical Association, confirmed that physicians are not obliged "to do something that they feel is wrong", and do not have to refer patients in such cases. Dr. Williams made a similar statement in conversation with the Project Administrator in the spring of 2000.
Dawson's licence revoked for sexual misconduct
On 9 May, 2005, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoked Dr. Dawson's registration as a physician for having engaged in the sexual abuse of a married female patient. He was ordered to appear before a panel to be reprimanded and to pay costs to the College in the amount of $2,500.00. A summary of the judgement is available on the College website.
The Globe and Mail reported that Dawson did not dispute the allegations that he had engaged in sexual activity with the patient, including oral sex and masturbation, in November and December, 1999. Dawson was, at that time, separated from his wife, and the patient was having severe marital problems. A statement by Dawson, quoted in the report, indicates that he ended the affair because his faith had become increasingly important to him, " that he felt compelled to reconcile with his spouse, and . . .encouraged Patient A to do the same." He continued to see patient until 2002. A victim impact statement from the patient indicated that Dawson used bible study as an excuse to establish the relationship with her, and that the incident had such an effect on her that she considered suicide a year after the affair ended.