According to the College, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal may take
action against a physician who refuses to provide or refer for procedures
that he finds morally objectionable. In addition to the possibility of
prosecution by the Tribunal, the College states that it will consider the
Human Rights Code in adjudicating complaints of professional misconduct. The
College's draft policy also suggests that the College plans to force
objecting physicians to actively assist patients to obtain morally
controversial services. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has since
commented further on the College's proposals, and the tenor of its
submission
makes clear that the OHRC and related agencies pose a significant threat to
the exercise of freedom of conscience by health care professionals. [For an
overview of Ontario's human rights regime, see
The New Inquisitors]
The existence of the draft College policy became generally known only on
14 August, 2008, the day before a deadline set for responses to the
document. The subsequent controversy caused the College to extend the
deadline for submissions to 12 September, 2008. The College was forced
to revise its proposal by numerous responses and submissions, links to some
of which follow.
Protection of Conscience Project
. . .Physicians who decline to do something they believe to be wrong are
not discriminating against individuals on grounds prohibited by the
Ontario Human Rights Code. Their concern is to avoid direct or indirect
complicity in wrongdoing, not with the personal characteristics, status or
inclinations of a patient. . .
continue reading
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform
. . .I recently read the CPSO's draft policy document, "Physicians and the
Ontario Human Rights Code." In reviewing the document I was struck by its
intolerance towards the deeply-held, truth-based beliefs of physicians. . .
continue reading
Canadian Family Physician
. . . Of course, it is essential that physicians treat patients with
respect and courtesy even if they have differences of opinion. And it is
possible to maintain healthy relationships in difficult situations without
physicians having to act against their conscience. . .
continue reading (Kelsall D. Whose right?
Can Fam Physician 2008;54:1353
Canadian Physicians for Life
. . . The College documents present an unseemly image of the
College preparing to shine its shoes before inspection by a higher
authority. And yet human rights commissions, as you are undoubtedly aware,
are increasingly scrutinized for various abuses which they themselves
engender. . .
continue reading interim response. . . It is not the responsibility of any physician to manage, promote, or enhance
access to a procedure which he or she finds medically harmful and morally
repugnant. The ethical bankruptcy of any society which would punish physicians
who object to abortion, and the imprudence of doctors sitting in regulatory
institutions who would threaten to punish their objecting colleagues, should be
obvious. . .
continue reading full submission
Catholic Archbishop of Toronto
. . .If a physician cannot in conscience perform or facilitate an action
that is requested, wil that physician face the threat of being sanctioned
for violating a patient's human rights and for professional misconduct?
Is that the cost of being true to one's conscience? . . .
continue reading
Catholic Civil Rights League
. . .Canada has an established custom of accommodating sincerely held
religious and conscientious convictions as much as possible. The expectation
that physicians must set aside their beliefs with regard to treatments or
referrals that violate their conscience is unreasonable . . .
continue reading
Catholic Organization for Life and Family
. . . COLF is concerned about the policy's implicit expectations upon
physicians with respect to engaging in a medical act to which they may have
a conscientious objection. Second, we are concerned about the policy's
seeming redefinition and narrowing of the role of the physician vis-à-vis
the patient and within society. . .
continue reading
Centre for Cultural Renewal
. . .Human Rights, it seems, now entails monitoring conflicting beliefs
in society, turning them into one half of a human rights issue, and then, by
eradicating the possibility of dissent (for that is what a physician's
ability to refuse to refer amounts to) forcing some citizens to effectively
implicate themselves in the beliefs of other citizens. . .
continue reading
Chalcedon Foundation
. . .Canada's human rights commissions and tribunals have become a law
unto themselves. They are not bound by rules of evidence, precedent, or
courtroom procedure. The state pays all the plaintiffs' legal costs, but
defendants must pay their own. "Feelings" are accepted as evidence, and the
"likelihood" of damages being incurred, at some indefinite time in the
future, substitutes for real damages that can be shown to have been
incurred. . .
continue reading
Christian Legal Fellowship
. . . As there is no basis in the law or in the established policies of
the OHRC, CMA, or CPSO for the draft policy, we respectfully request that
the policy be rejected. . .
continue reading
Ontario Medical Association
. . .It is the OMA's position that physicians maintain a right to
exercise their own moral judgment and freedom of choice in making decisions
regarding medical care and that the CPSO not insert itself into the
interpretation of human rights statutes. . .
(
OMA President's Update, Volume 13, No. 23, 11 September, 2008.
Removed from website.)
The Ontario Medical Association wants the provincial licensing body to
kill a proposal that would force physicians to put aside their religious
beliefs when making decisions in their medical practice.
"We will not defy our beliefs, doctors say" (
National
Post, 13 September, 2008)
Fr. Raymond De Souza
A timely intervention has prevented the cancer from metastasizing,
but aggressive treatment is still needed. . . There was a real danger of
metastasis, as the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) attempted to
spread its corruption to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Ontario (CPSO). The timely intervention came from the Ontario Medical
Association (OMA) and other public voices. . .continue reading
Dr. T.E. Lau
. . .Please reconsider forcing physicians to go against their
conscience. With the a new euthanasia bill on the horizon and the lack
of any limitation to abortion for any reason or at any stage, it is
clear to me that taking this stand will endanger the principled,
conscientious, and responsible care of our patients, not just now but in
the years to come.
continue reading
Dr. Margaret Somerville
. . .Unlike the mechanic, however, a physician who refuses to be involved,
for instance, in abortion, is not providing the service to one patient but
not another, or basing his refusal on any characteristic of the patient.
Rather, he is refusing the service to all patients and doing so because of
the nature of the procedure, which he believes is morally and ethically
wrong. . .
continue reading
John W. Veldkamp
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. . .
continue reading
Dr. Stephen Genuis
. . .the policy of coercing ethical doctors to do what they feel is
unethical-whether by threat of lawsuits or disciplinary action-displays
supreme intolerance of diverse views and choice precisely at a time in
Canada when human rights commissions are demanding more tolerance, heralding
choice, and proclaiming respect for diversity. . . . it seems physicians are
entitled to express their opinions to patients only as long as they say the
"right" things according to the OHRC grid. . .
continue reading
Rory Leishman
The Ontario Human Rights Commission is truly evil. By threatening to
prosecute physicians under the Ontario Human Rights Code for refusing to
participate in an abortion on demand, it has perpetrated one of the worst
attacks on the right to conscience of physicians since Arthur Seyss-Inquart,
Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherlands, tried to compel Dutch
physicians to take part in the Nazi euthanasia program for the "useless,
incurably sick." . . .
continue reading
Louis DeSerres
. . . Basing itself on the flawed policy of the Ontario Human Rights
Commission, the CPSO assumed that no moral ambiguity was possible and that,
therefore, none should be tolerated. . .
continue reading