Doctor Fired after Suing Catholic Hospital over Assisted Suicide

National Review

Wesley J. Smith

Colorado doctor Barbara Morris wants to assist her patient’s suicide. She works at Centura Health, a Catholic/Seventh Day Adventist-owned hospital that prohibits its employees from participating in assisted suicide, legal in Colorado.

Morris sued to be allowed to participate in her patient’s suicide by doctor — which would not happen in the hospital. The hospital responded by firing Morris for violating the terms of her contract by seeking to engage in acts in the context of her employment that violate the hospital’s religiously based moral beliefs.

Morris contends she can’t be prohibited from assisting her patient’s suicide because the Colorado law only allows health care facilities to opt-out if the suicide will occur on-site. The hospital is seeking shelter in the Trump administration’s medical conscience protection policies.

Expect more of these kinds of disputes as many U.S. hospitals are Catholic or otherwise religiously affiliated with churches that reject abortion and assisted suicide doctrinally. From the Kaiser Health News story:

More doctors and patients in the country are providing and receiving health care subject to religious restrictions. About 1 in 6 acute care beds nationally is in a hospital that is Catholic-owned or -affiliated, said Lois Uttley, a program director for the consumer advocacy group Community Catalyst. In Colorado, one-third of the state’s hospitals operate under Catholic guidelines.

The ACLU has already sued several Catholic hospitals over the last few years seeking to force them to violate Church doctrine on issues ranging from sterilization, to abortion, to sex-change surgeries.

Medical conscience disputes are going to become far more common as health care becomes immersed in our accelerating cultural conflicts and vexing questions of federalism. Bottom line: The ultimate goal of those who seek to force medical professionals and institutions to violate their religious beliefs, I believe, is to drive pro-lifers and Hippocratic Oath-adherents out of medicine.

Korean doctors categorize 12 cases to refuse treatment

Korean Biomedical Review

Song Soo-youn

The local medical community’s voice is growing for doctors’ rights to refuse to treat a patient, but patients are against the idea. However, the U.S. and Europe have already recognized such rights.

Based on examples in other countries, Korean physicians should also be allowed to refuse treatment in particular situations such as a forced surgery to terminate a fetus, a report said.

The Korean Medical Association (KMA)’s Medical Policy Research Institute released the report, “Status and Challenges of Treatment Refusal,” on Thursday. The institute analyzed examples in other countries and offered 12 situations where doctors can refuse to deliver treatment services. . . [Full text]

Protection of conscience an issue in backbench revolt on Australian abortion bill

Demand for compulsory referral by objecting physicians among provisions deemed unacceptable

Sean Murphy*

Two Liberal Members of Parliament in New South Wales, Australia, have threatened to break with their party cross the floor to sit in opposition if the government does not make changes to a bill decriminalizing abortion (the Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019). Should they do so, the government will lose its parliamentary majority.

Among the amendments Tanya Davies and Kevin Conolly are seeking is removal of a requirement that objecting physicians provide patients with contact information for non-objecting colleagues.

If the bill passes unamended, a physician will be free to fully exercise freedom of conscience at 22 weeks plus one day (when there is no requirement to provide contact information), but not at 22 weeks minus one day (when the bill requires contact information to be supplied.)  The inexact calculation of gestational age contributes further to the arbitrariness of this restriction of fundamental human freedom. (See Abortion bill in New South Wales a global first)

Coalition’s religious discrimination bill goes far, but not far enough

The Sydney Morning Herald

Reproduced with permission

Xavier Symons*

It is no surprise that the Religious Discrimination Bill is being criticised as too strong by aggressive secularists and too weak by people of faith. Federal Attorney-General Christian Porter describes the bill as a “shield against discrimination”, not a sword.

The fundamental point is that this is not a religious freedom bill. It is a religious discrimination bill with a narrow focus on a very specific set of issues.

It characterises religious belief as a “protected attribute” of individuals akin to age, sex or sexual orientation. This is unlikely to satisfy many religious stakeholders who believe that religion is a positive good, not just for individuals (like sexual orientation), but also for communities. . . [Full text]

Australia’s legislative laboratory for euthanasia

BioEdge

Michael Cook

The Labor-majority Parliament of the Australian state of Victoria passed assisted dying legislation in December 2017. This came into effect in June and the first patient has already died. Applications from a dozen or so Victorians have already been approved. Two other Labor states are also debating euthanasia – and it appears that their legislation will be even more permissive than Victoria’s.

According to critics of euthanasia interviewed by The Australian, this is “death creep”, the slippery slope in action.

“There is serious concern about this slippage,” the chair of the Australian Medical Association’s ethics and medico legal committee, Chris Moye, says. “A lot of this (change) was happening even before the Victorian law, which is only two months old, has actually been tested. At this point, we haven’t seen how assisted dying works in Victoria and yet the slippage is happening across these various jurisdictions. I think there are two reasons: people were always going to be looking at it (the Victorian law) and the tendency always is to relax legislation.”

Critics focus on details of a proposed bill in the parliament of Western Australia. In Victoria, doctors are not allowed to raise the topic of assisted dying. But in WA, doctors would be permitted to suggest the possibility of euthanasia and no specialist has to be involved.

Conscientious objection is more difficult as well. In Victoria, objecting doctors are not obliged to refer the person on; in WA they would be.

In Queensland, a parliamentary committee is studying draft legislation. This is even more permissive than Victoria’s or WA’s. There is no time requirement – only that the patient have an incurable terminal illness which is causing intolerable and enduring suffering.

However, Professor Ben White, who helped write Queensland draft bill,  dismisses fears of a “slippery slope”. “When people talk about a slippery slope in terms of the law, they are talking about law X in a particular state or country that is enacted and over time gets changed,” he says. “We live in a federation … and there are differences in laws from one state to another, reflecting a range of factors, including geography. What might be appropriate for a state like Victoria might … require different solutions in Western Australia or Queensland.”


This article is published by Michael Cook and BioEdge under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.