Re: Standard of Practice: Physician Assisted Death
The Project considers the proposed standard of practice satisfactory with respect to the accommodation of physician freedom of conscience and respect for the moral integrity of physicians. Neither direct nor indirect participation in euthanasia and assisted suicide is required.
The Project offers simple and uncontroversial recommendations to avoid conflicts of conscience associated with failed assisted suicide and euthanasia attempts and urgent situations.
The standard does not adequately address the continuing effects of criminal law. The College has no basis to proceed against physicians who, having the opinion that a patient does not fit one of the criteria specified by Carter, refuse to do anything that would entail complicity in homicide or suicide. College policies and expectations are of no force and effect to the extent that they are inconsistent with criminal prohibitions.
While the standard is satisfactory with respect to freedom of conscience, the fundamental freedoms of physicians in Nova Scotia will remain at risk as long as the College Registrar and others persist in the attitude and intentions demonstrated in his presentation to the Special Joint Committee on Physician Assisted Dying.
I. Outline of the submission
II. Avoiding foreseeable conflicts
II.1 Failed assisted suicide and euthanasia
II.2 Urgent situations
II.3 Project recommendations
III. SPPAD and criminal law
IV. Remarks of the Registrar
IV.1 The Registrar before the Special Joint Committee on Physician Assisted Dying
IV.2 The Registrar, the Conscience Research Group, and “effective referral”
IV.3 The Registrar’s intentions
IV.4 The Registrar’s complaint
IV.5 An ethic of servitude, not service
Appendix “A” Supreme Court of Canada, Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5
A1. Carter criteria for euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
A2. Carter and the criminal law
A3. Carter and freedom of conscience and religion
B1. Attempts to coerce physicians: abortion
B2. Plans to coerce physicians: assisted suicide and euthanasia
B3. Plans to coerce physicians: the CRG Model Policy
B4. CRG convenes meeting with College representatives
Huge ethical problem. Crisis of conscience. Religious conflict.
Mary Ellen MacIntyre
Like doctors across this country, those who practise medicine in Nova Scotia wonder what the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on physician-assisted death will mean to them.
“The silence from the (federal) government has been deafening and the province is waiting for Ottawa,” said Dr. Gus Grant, speaking to the 20th annual meeting of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia on Friday.
Grant, the organization’s registrar and CEO, told the gathering that physicians must take part in discussions on how the new law will affect their practice and their treatment of patients. . . [Full text]
March 11, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Only a few weeks after Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons voted to compel the province’s doctors to refer and even perform operations they consider immoral, Saskatchewan’s College is scheduled to follow suit. But all Canada’s provincial governing bodies have been urged to get on the bandwagon as part of a national campaign from an obscure, federally-funded coterie of pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia academics.
According to Sean Murphy, director of the British Columbia-based Protection of Conscience Project, the pro-abortion Conscience Research Group is the prime mover behind efforts by the leadership of the Ontario and Saskatchewan medical professions to force their members to do abortions, assist at suicides, and euthanize their patients upon request.
“Based on the correspondence I’ve seen,” Murphy told LifeSiteNews, “there does appear to be a movement to impose this on all doctors in Canada.” . . .[Full text]