With no law in place to govern assisted suicide, physicians and vulnerable patients face uncertainty, confusion and more opinions than facts.
“It’s a matter of weeks before people (in healthcare) are going to have to choose between their conscience and their career,” said Deacon Larry Worthen, executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society.
Doctors have told Worthen that some hospitals have already put in place procedures and protocols for doctor-assisted death. Some hospitals will force objecting doctors to refer for assisted suicide, even though, said Worthen, “our physicians are just unable to refer” for reasons of conscience.
Worthen and the doctors he represents want Bill C-14 passed, but they also want the Senate to add specific conscience protections for objecting doctors and health-care institutions.
“We’re pleased with what’s there, but we want to be more specific,” he said. “We want to protect facilities. We want to protect against the requirement to refer.” . . . [Full Text]
Provincial-Territorial Experts recommend coercion to ensure delivery of euthanasia and assisted suicide
Recommendations designed to broaden and maximize impact of Supreme Court ruling
The Experts’ recommendations are intended to extend and maximize the impact of the Carter ruling. They will effectively require all institutions, facilities, associations, organizations and individuals providing either health care or residential living for elderly, handicapped or disabled persons to become enablers of euthanasia and assisted suicide. This will entail suppression or significant restriction of fundamental freedoms.
The broader the criteria for the provision of morally contested procedures, and the more people and groups captured in the Experts’ enablers’ net, the greater the likelihood of conflicts of conscience. Relevant here are recommendations to make euthanasia/assisted suicide available to mentally ill and incompetent persons, and to children and adolescents, even without the knowledge of their parents.
The Experts’ distinction between “faith-based” and “non-faith-based” facilities is meaningless. They impose identical obligations on both. All will be forced to allow homicide and suicide on their premises, or compelled to arrange for euthanasia or assisted suicide elsewhere.
Likewise, they recommend that objecting physicians be forced to actively enable homicide or suicide by providing referrals, arranging direct transfers or enlisting or arranging the enlistment of patients in a euthanasia/assisted suicide delivery system.
The Supreme Court did not rule that people ought to be compelled to become parties to homicide and suicide, but that is what the Experts recommend. This is not a reasonable limitation of fundamental freedoms, but a reprehensible attack on them and a serious violation of human dignity.
Other countries make euthanasia and assisted suicide available without attacking fundamental freedoms. In this respect, the Experts’ claim to have produced “a uniquely Canadian approach to this important issue” is regrettably accurate. They fail to provide any evidence that the suppression of freedom of fundamental freedoms they propose can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Table of Contents
I.1 Formation and work of the Advisory Group
II.1 Moral/ethical unanimity
II.2 “Statement of Principles and Values”
II.3 Recommendations broadening the Carter criteria
II.4 Recommendations impacting freedom of conscience and religion
III.1 Expanded criteria and increasing likelihood of conflict
III.1.1 “Irremediable medical condition”.
III.1.3 Euthanasia approved for future suffering.
III.1.7 No waiting/reflection period.
III.1.10 Adolescents and children.
III.1.13 Euthanasia/assisted suicide by non-physicians.
III.1.15 Doctor shopping.
III.1.18 Physicians need not be present at suicides.
III.1.20 Euthanasia/assisted suicide wherever people live.
III.1.22 Families, caregivers may not be advised.
III.2 Institutions, associations, organizations
III.2.1 The meaning of institution.
III.2.3 All “institutions” must allow/arrange euthanasia/assisted suicide
III.2.6 All “institutions” must disclose policies.
III.2.8 “Institutions” may not manifest or enforce commitments
III.3 Objecting physicians: information, disclosure, non-discrimination
III.3.3 Objecting physicians must provide information.
III.3.8 Objecting physicians must disclose views and their implications.
III.3.11 Objecting physicians must not illicitly discriminate.
III.4 Objecting physicians must become critical enablers
III.4.4 Referral or direct transfer of care.
III.4.5 Referral to “system/third party.”
III.4.8 The Experts’ proposal and the CMA’s proposal.
IV.1 Expert recommendations broadening Carter criteria
IV.2 Expert recommendations and fundamental freedoms in general
IV.3 Expert recommendations and freedom of conscience
A1. Carter criteria for euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
A2. Carter and the criminal law
A3. Carter and freedom of conscience and religion
B1. Expanding the Carter criteria
B1.1 “Grievous and irremediable medical condition” includes mental illness
B1.2 Suffering not a prerequisite
B1.3 Competence not a prerequisite: euthanasia for dementia
B1.4 Euthanasia and assisted suicide for children and adolescents
B1.5 Assessment, euthanasia and assisted suicide by non-physicians
B2. Increasing the impact of Carter
B2.3 Doctor shopping
B2.4 No “waiting/reflection” period
B2.5 Physicians need not be present at suicides
B2.6 Euthanasia & assisted suicide in hospitals, hospices, etc.
B2.7 Families and caregivers may not be advised
C1.1 Meaning of “institution”
C1.2 “Institutions” must allow or arrange for euthanasia or assisted suicide
C1.3 All “institutions” must disclose position on euthanasia and assisted suicide
C1.4 “Institutions” must not require patients/residents to give up “the right to access,” interfere with employees providing eutanasia or assisted suicide elsewhere
C2. Objecting physicians/health care providers
C2.1 Must provide information on “all options”
C2.2 Must disclose views on euthanasia and assisted suicide
C2.3 Must not discriminate
C2.4 Must act as critical enablers
C2.4.1 Three alternatives
C2.4.3 Direct transfer of care
C2.4.4 Transfer to “a publicly-funded system” or “third party”
C2.4.5 The Experts’ “system/third party” and the CMA’s “central service”
D1. CMA policy: Euthanasia and Assisted Death (2014)
D2. CMA Annual General Council, 2015
D2.1 Surveys on support for euthanasia/assisted suicide
D2.2 Physician freedom of conscience
D3. CMA rejects “effective referral”
HALIFAX – Physicians from across the country spent hours at the Canadian Medical Association’s annual general meeting discussing what their role would entail if asked to assist a patient in dying.
Dozens of physicians took the floor to share their thoughts, concerns and worries over what was morally acceptable and what to do if they had a conscientious objection.
The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the ban on assisted dying in February and gave the federal government one year to create a new law. It will technically be legal for a physician to be involved in assisted dying next year.
Dr. Douglas Maynes, a Halifax psychiatrist who has been practicing for 43 years, said he has concerns about those with mental illness. . . (Full text)
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]