Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code

Ontario Human Rights Commission attempts to suppress freedom of conscience (August-September, 2008)

Letter to to College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

E-mail to Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons

RE: Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code

I have just become aware of the document "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code" and I feel compelled to inform the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons (the "College") of my concerns that this document is both deeply flawed and unworkable. This letter is not to be construed in any way as providing legal advice but as a member of the Law Society of Alberta and a former member of the Law Society of Upper Canada I believe the wording of this policy may cause a number of unintended problems.

It is very disconcerting that the College advises that "it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical treatment and services they require" (emphasis added). This statement does not require a physician to provide medical treatment and services that are in the best interests of the patient's health. Rather it suggests that the overriding emphasis should be on what the patient requires. In addition a physician must "[c]ommunicate clearly and promptly any treatments or procedures the physician chooses not to provide" and "provide information about all clinical options that may be available or appropriate based on the patient's clinical needs or concerns" (emphasis added). As a result a physician is required to inform a patient of every treatment available (regardless of whether that treatment is appropriate) based on merely the concerns of a patient. A patient could use this policy to make a complaint to the human rights commission that a physician did not provide them with all information of the treatments available for whatever health concern that patient might have. In fact, your document suggests that withholding of all information would constitute professional misconduct.

To further illustrate the problems with your proposed policy here are some examples of how a physician could be in danger of committing professional misconduct:

1. A physician would have to inform a patient about all for-profit health services outside of the public system.

2. A physician would have to inform a patient about all holistic medicine options.

3. Whenever performing a blood transfusion, a physician would have to advise of all of the alternatives to blood transfusion in case the patient is a Jehovah's witness (and you are not permitted to ask if a person religious beliefs before treating them) as this would constitute discrimination by the physician on the basis of creed.

The last example shows that your policy requires doctors to provide information to patients regardless of whether the physician believes such information is in the best interests of the health of the patient. Our medical profession is in a very sorry state when the College is advocating that physicians be more concerned about offending the Ontario Human Rights Code that the health of the patient.

The main purpose of this policy appears to be directed to the situation where a doctor refuses provide abortion services. The assumption appears to be that this refusal is based on the religious belief of the physician and therefore must constitute discrimination. Of course many doctors do not provide abortion services because, in their professional opinion, such a procedure is not in the best interests of the health of the patient. To avoid this objection the College was compelled to put forward a document that prevents physicians from exercising their professional judgement in order to provide patients with whatever services the patient requires.

I strongly encourage the College to withdraw the draft policy entitled "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code" and instead focus on ways to support and encourage physicians in exercising their professional judgement in the best interests of the health of the patient.

Respectfully submitted,

John W. Veldkamp
Edmonton, Alberta