Pages

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Canadian Court Tells Doctors They Must Refer For Euthanasia

The case is sure to be appealed, but if the doctors championing conscientious objection fail, the consequences will be dire.



By Michael Cook
National Right to Life

For years bioethicists of a utilitarian cast have argued that conscientious objection has no place in medicine. Now Canadian courts are beginning to put their stamp of approval on the extinction of doctors’ right to refuse to kill their patients.

The Superior Court of Justice Division Court of Ontario ruled this week that if doctors are unwilling to perform legal actions, they should find another job.

A group of five doctors and three professional organizations were contesting a policy issued by Ontario’s medical regulator, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), arguing it infringed their right to freedom of religion and conscience under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, Justice Herman J. Wilton-Siegel wrote on behalf of a three-member panel:
"the applicants do not have a common law right or a property right to practise medicine, much less a constitutionally protected right."
“Those who enjoy the benefits of a licence to practice a regulated profession must expect to be subject to regulatory requirements that focus on the public interest, rather than the interests of the professionals themselves.”
At issue is the policy of “effective referral.” A doctor who objects to participating in euthanasia cannot be forced to do it. But he is expected to pass the patient to another doctor who will.

The CPSO argues that effective referral is necessary
“to protect the public, prevent harm to patients and facilitate access to care for patients in our multicultural, multifaith society, by guiding all physicians on how to uphold their professional and ethical obligations of non-abandonment and of patient-centered care within the context of Ontario’s public health-care system.”
Without the policy of effective referral, equitable access would be “compromised or sacrificed, in a variety of circumstances, more often than not involving vulnerable members of our society at the time of requesting services,” Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel wrote. People in remote communities might request euthanasia. If their doctor refused, they might suffer needlessly and taxpayers would have to foot the bill to subsidize the refusnik’s conscience.

It is remarkable how closely Justice Wilton-Siegel’s text hews to the arguments of bioethicists who have been chipping away at the right to conscientious objection for years.



No comments:

Post a Comment