The Negative Implications of Legalizing Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

The true definitions of euthanasia and assisted suicide versus the euphemisms used by proponents for both

With the recent release of the parliamentary report, Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach, from the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, it seemed only fitting that with today's post I return to the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Although an important read in of itself, that would help Canadians further understand how the "culture of death" is being ushered into Canada, today's post does not focus on the parliamentary report, but rather on a presentation, The Implications of Legalizing Assisted Suicide, made by Larry Worthen, executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS).

I was not at the presentation, but I did watch it in its entirety on YouTube. The presentation is thirty-one minutes long, and contains several thought provoking points that spotlight the negative implications of having euthanasia and assisted suicide legalized in Canada. If you are somewhat new to this issue, watching this video will certainly raise your awareness level, and provide you with a greater understanding of what is at stake. You may also want to consider reading my post, Euthanasia - A False Mercy, to bring you "up to speed," on how and why euthanasia and assisted suicide has become such an issue in Canada, and what the teachings of the Catholic Church have to say about it.

The remainder of this post does not summarize the entire video, but rather focuses on selected segments that I found particularly important.

War of Words

The publishing of the image associated with this post seems to have been a most appropriate choice considering how proponents for euthanasia and assisted suicide are making use of manipulative language, including euphemisms, to alter the thinking of Canadians on this issue. If you look to the actual definitions of euthanasia and assisted suicide, and compare them with the ever growing list of euphemisms used to replace them ("physician-assisted death or suicide," "hastening death," "end-of-life care or options,") to recall the Psalmist's admonition seems most fitting, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah 5:20)

The "War of Words" comes to us though a variety of sources in the media, and in great detail through policy development by professional medical associations such as the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) who I have written about in my post, Professional Obligations and Human Rights - An Anti-Life Policy From Ontario's College Of Physicians And Surgeons, and recommendations from the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying, whose Final Report, I also blogged about at my post, Ontario's End-of-Life Consultations: The Ushering in of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and the Increased Moral Disorder in Canada. The use of manipulative language and euphemisms is typically rampant in these types of documents, which have the potential to diminish, and perhaps even remove the truth about euthanasia and assisted suicide from the hearts and minds of those who read them, providing in the process, procedures and guidelines that all amount to one thing, the attempt to rationalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

At the fourth minute of the YouTube video, Larry Worthen begins to address the "War of Words" in the public square by stressing the importance of using the proper technical terms. Worthen stated how necessary this was because when people hear assisted suicide or physician assisted death, they tend to think that it means "pulling the plug," but this has nothing to do with it. To clarify further, he included the actual mechanisms that distinguish euthanasia from assisted suicide. Euthanasia normally means giving someone a lethal injection, whereas assisted suicide usually involves providing a lethal prescription that allows the patient to take that prescription at a later time.

Carter vs. Canada Supreme Court Ruling

The presentation actually began with a few points on the Carter vs. Canada ruling, in which the Supreme Court on February 6, 2015 struck down sections 241(b) and s.14 of the Criminal Code that dealt with euthanasia and assisted suicide. Worthen immediately spotlighted a very important point; the mistaken inclusion of "terminal illness" as one of the qualifying criteria for "physician-assisted death." The Supreme Court only mentioned that an illness or condition be "grievous and irremediable." In no way did the Supreme Court include or refer to "terminal illness," yet the opposite was reported by Peter Mansbridge at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

To be clear, here are the two aforementioned sections of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code, Part VIII Offences Against The Person And Reputation, under the heading of Suicide - 241. Counselling or aiding suicide states the following, "Every one who (a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or (b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years." In addition the Criminal Code, Part I, General - 14. Consent to death, states the following, "No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him." Together these two provisions do not permit for euthanasia or assisted suicide.

The Supreme Court's Carter decision changed all this when it stated that section 241(b), and s.14 of the Criminal Code has no force and effect to the extent that they prohibit PAD (physician assisted death) for a: competent adult person, who clearly consents, and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (includes illness, disease or disability), which causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual. 

The Supreme Court's Carter decision is a deplorable anti-life decision. Worthen spotlighted this point perfectly when he expanded upon what exactly the Carter decision may actually mean and include, in terms of who would qualify for euthanasia and assisted suicide. He asked the audience to notice how all that is required from the Supreme Court, is that an individual's medical condition be "grievous and irremediable," which by this definition, would permit for a paraplegic or quadriplegic to be euthanized, as well as those with chronic illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis. In addition, the suffering is not meant to be understood as physical pain, but as a subjective test; that is, what is "intolerable to the individual." Worthen concluded this segment by stating that what we are witnessing with the Carter decision, is a failed public perception of what the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide may actually entail.

Seventy-Five Percent of Palliative Care Physicians Oppose Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Worthen began this segment of the presentation by listing the countries, and states that currently have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. There are five countries that have legalized euthanasia: Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Columbia. There are three American states that only have legalized assisted suicide: Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Worthen asked, what do the doctors feel about it. Before providing their answers, he noted that seventy-five percent of all palliative care physicians in Canada are opposed to the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, which only begged another question, what do doctors know that we don't. 

First, it is difficult to detect a cognitive impairment. What exactly does that mean. A cognitive impairment is when a person has trouble remembering, learning new things, concentrating, or making decisions that affect their everyday life. Worthen points to the example of a friend (Barb) who became depressed due to her lengthy stay in a hospital where she was being treated for arthritis. Was her depression sufficient to keep her from being able to provide consent if she had wanted to end her life. Worthen went on to state that the Canadian Medical Association has stated that it is very difficult to determine when someone is depressed whether or not they are actually able to consent to euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Second, there is a risk of coercion and undue influence. Worthen pointed out that people are vulnerable. Those who are sick, and in need of constant care sometimes succumb to a feeling of guilt; that is, of being a burden to family members. It wouldn't take much for an unscrupulous family member to work on that guilt to the point that, the sick family member may be coerced into consenting to euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Third, in all of the jurisdictions there is a non-compliance with protocol. So no matter what things are put in legislation those protocols are very often not followed.

Fourth, there is the fallibility of prognosis. For example, a doctor can tell you that you have only six months to live, but in reality you end up living for another five-to-ten years. The danger lies in acting upon an incorrect prognosis where the patient consents to euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Fifth, it has been documented in Belgium that life ending acts have been performed without specific requests from the patients. These findings were from a survey in Finders, Belgium were thirty-two percent of patient deaths were performed without a request.

Sixth, physicians have many concerns, one of which is the vulnerability patients experience at the end-of-life, after a traumatic injury or debilitating illness. Worthen provided the example of how anyone at the presentation upon returning to their homes, could experience a serious car accident, the result of which could be the amputation of limbs. Such a development could easily make anyone fall prey to discouragement and depression, such that even though we may be able to legally consent to euthanasia and assisted suicide, we might not recognize that if we could just get through that difficult period, we may be able to adjust, and live a healthy, happy and productive life. This is the problem with euthanasia and assisted suicide; there is a tremendous risk of wrongful death.

Adding to all this is the important point Worthen made with respect to the proper focus for end-of-life care; that is, it is not about pain, but about the lack of access to proper palliative care. Expanding on this, Worthen stated that palliative care physicians inform us that pain at the end-of-life can be dealt with with proper palliative care. In Canada today, the real problem facing Canadians is that only thirty percent have access to appropriate palliative care. Worthen concluded this point with a most noteworthy question, "Are we short-circuiting the need to provide proper palliative care by allowing people to end their lives with euthanasia." 

Canadian Medical Association Brief to the Carter Case

At this segment of the presentation, Worthen spotlights an important point regarding the Supreme Court; that is, its failure to understand the reality that doctors face in palliative care. He began by quoting a portion of the brief from the Canadian Medical Association:

The trial judge placed great reliance on the ability of physicians to access the competency of patients requesting medical aid in dying and the voluntariness of their wishes. The CMA submits that the challenges physicians will face in making these assessments have been understated, especially in the end of life care context where the consequences of decisions are particularly grave and in a public medical system in which resource constraints are a pressing issue.

Worthen began to translate this portion of the brief by stating that, it is a polite way of the CMA trying to indicate to the judges that decisions that are made within hospital and palliative care contexts are very dynamic, active and turbulent. To further spotlight the lack of understanding from the Supreme Court, Worthen explained that the judges seem to project the environment in which they make decisions on to the medical care system. He elaborated on this point by stating that it is their (Supreme Court) assumption that doctors are making these types of decisions with the same amount of time that judges have, and with both sides being articulated as is the case in a court room, but this is not the case. As Worthen noted, in actual fact doctors are under daily pressure to keep beds clear, and to move people out of hospitals. Worthen shared that doctors he had spoken to are very concerned about the capacity to be able spend the time required with patients to determine whether or not they are consenting to death.

The last note from palliative care physicians that Worthen shared at the presentation was the following: 

Pain is rarely the reason patients ask for hastened death--it more often comes out of a desire to control the circumstances surrounding death. Palliative care physicians assure their patients that with current tools and resources, pain and other distressing symptoms can usually be controlled and support provided to ensure comfort and quality of life.

The Risk of Wrongful Death

Just after the fourteenth minute mark of the presentation, Worthen introduced to the audience a case of wrongful death. Amongst all the negative implications of having euthanasia and assisted suicide legalized in Canada, this is perhaps one of the worst.

The wrongful death case is about Dr. Tom Mortier, a chemistry professor in Belgium, whose mother, Lieve De Troyer, lived with chronic depression. She became widowed from the suicide of her husband, and whose condition worsened after a long term relationship ended, that only exacerbated her depression. On April 19, 2012, Lieve died by euthanasia with the recommendation of one psychiatrist.

An important point to note here is that in Belgium, a patient requires the recommendation of two psychiatrists, but that requirement was not fulfilled in this case. This fact alone tears down the so-called safeguards that one reads about in documents recommending euthanasia and assisted suicide. My recent post on the Final Report from the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying, as noted in the War of Words section of today's post, contains several references to "safeguards." 

What is even more troubling is the shocking circumstances in which her son, Dr. Tom Mortier, found out about his mother's death. One day Dr. Mortier received a phone call from the hospital asking him to come, and pick up his mother's things. He immediately inquired as to why that was necessary. The answer from the hospital, "Because she was euthanized this morning."

It is not a scenario that anyone in their right mind hopes to confront, but the sad reality is that if euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized, this is exactly what will happen in Canada. This holds true because of the privilege between a doctor and a patient, even though in Quebec, it is recommended that the family be consulted, there is no legal requirement in Canada to do so.

The Implications For Health Care Professionals

There are many doctors who are seriously considering leaving Canada if euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized, because they fear they would be forced to provide or procure both, in direct violation against their faith beliefs and conscience. Although the Carter vs. Canada decision did mention that, "The physician's decision to participate in assisted suicide is a matter of conscience and religious belief," (p.132) the problem of ensuring this rests with provincial colleges and legislatures to work out the details regarding: referral, performing, and discrimination for not performing.

Worthen stressed how important that last point is, because in essence what this entails is for organizations such as the CMDS to lobby every provincial college and legislature to ensure Christian doctors can continue to practice.

Time to Fight For Christian Doctors

Worthen's wife is a Christian doctor, and he shared with the audience that many patients have come up to him grateful that they have had the opportunity to be treated by a Christian doctor, after which, he boldly stated, "The time has come to fight to keep Christian doctors." I wholeheartedly agree.

Christian doctors potentially face discrimination with their refusal to perform and procure euthanasia and assisted suicide. Here is the scenario that Worthen presented spotlighting this very point. Once you consider euthanasia and assisted suicide as a "medical procedure," and physicians are being hired for palliative care, there is a very real possibility that the governments and departments of health will eventually be able to claim that if a physician is not prepared to provide all the "medical services," for end-of-life care, then he or she will not be hired for the job. Essentially people will be discriminated against because of their religion.

The reality is that Catholics and Christians alike will face incredible challenges to protect our doctors and their practices. If we value having Christian doctors in our communities, then the ushering in of euthanasia and assisted suicide is a clarion call to all Christians to do something about it.

Doing something about it must first begin with a recognition and understanding that this is primarily a spiritual battle, one that begins with, and is sustained by time spent (on our knees) in front of the Blessed Sacrament. In addition, we must also employ the spiritual weapons of prayer (Mass and the Rosary), and fasting. Last, putting faith into action is also a key component. We the laity, must not remain idle, but do our part with the gifts we have, and fulfill our vocation and mission in the Church and the world (Christifideles Laici), to effectively eradicate euthanasia and assisted suicide from our land.

May Saint Gianna Beretta Molla intercede for all doctors, nurses and medical staff in Canada so that conscience rights may always be protected, and that no one will be forced to perform or procure euthanasia, assisted suicide, and any other threats to the value and inviolability of human life.

The Christian Medical and Dental Society's Legal Challenge To The Professional Obligations and Human Rights Policy

If you have been following my blog of late, you may recall my posts on the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) policy, Professional Obligations and Human Rights. Today's post is an update on this policy and specifically focusses on the legal challenge brought forth by the Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS).

For those who are not aware of the controversy surrounding this anti-life policy, it infringes upon the rights of physicians and surgeons to freely treat patients according to their conscience, religious and moral beliefs. The fact that the CPSO seeks to impose "effective referrals" (lines 156-161 of the policy) upon physicians and surgeons spotlights one of the problems with this policy; that it attempts to provide solutions to nonexistent problems. Add to this, the policy's violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and today's post increasingly becomes a matter of grave concern.

The video published with this blog post is the CMDS press conference held on March 24, announcing the legal challenge during which they took the opportunity to explain their many concerns. I encourage anyone who cares about the future of the medical profession and the value and inviolability of human life to watch and share this video.

In early March of this year the CPSO Council approved the Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy. It was a rather hastily approved document considering that it came only two weeks after the closure of the CPSO's external consultation process; one that encouraged public feedback with an on line survey, discussion forum, email and regular mail. The overwhelming majority of the respondents' submissions at the discussion forum urged the CPSO to respect physicians' freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Sadly, that feedback seems to have been completely ignored. So overwhelming was the disapproval that two members of the CPSO Council recommended the vote on this policy be delayed in an effort to consider and analyze the submissions. It was a recommendation discarded by the council, who fourteen days after the external consultation deadline of February 20, voted and passed the Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy.

The CPSO's approval has disappointed many individuals and groups in Ontario, whose shared concerns with the CMDS, has prompted some to join the legal challenge, forming a group of "applicants," who filed a Notice of Application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In addition to the CMDS, this group is comprised of: the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians' Societies (CFCPS), Dr. Michelle Korvemaker, Dr. Betty-Ann Story, Dr. Isabel Nunes, Dr. Agnes Tanguay, and Dr. Donato Gugliotta.

According to the Notice of Application the applicants are seeking an interim and permanent injunction prohibiting the CPSO's enforcement of the Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy. Noteworthy are several declarations in which the applicants assert that the CPSO: is subject to and bound by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that the CPSO can not implement and enforce policies which violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that the Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy does in fact violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms right to freedom of religion, conscience, equal treatment and benefit under the law of the individual applicants and other physicians. There are other items in the application that I will leave to the visitor at my blog the option of further reading at the CMDS's web site. It is abundantly clear that the CPSO has not only contributed to Canada's moral disorder with its effort to entrench a "culture of death" in the medical profession, but has made a legal mistake in the process.

In addition to the policy's violation of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone freedom from state interference or compulsion with regard to their freedom of conscience and religion, this application commenced as a result of the CPSO's refusal to address the concerns of the applicants. Both the CMDS and the CFCPS submitted detailed and thorough submissions to the CPSO on how the Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy would result in the violation of the Charter rights to freedom of religion and conscience for physicians; to no avail. The CPSO has ignored their concerns and continues to do so.

The remainder of this post details much of what was expressed at the press conference including segments from the question period. I have made an effort to provide this as an accommodation to those who may not have thirty minutes so readily available for the video. The information below is noteworthy and I hope it will prompt you to eventually watch the video for further details.


Statements by CMDS Executive Director Larry Worthen and Drs. Diane Haak and Michelle Korvemaker

The CMDS press conference was led by Larry Worthen, Executive Director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society. Joining him were three other panel members: Dr. Diane Haak, President of CMDS Canada; Dr. Michelle Korvemaker, a family physician from Woodstock, Ontario and board member of the CMDS; and the applicants' legal representative, Albertos Polizogopoulos, a partner with the law firm Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP/s.r.l. in Ottawa.

Larry Worthen

Worthen began the conference by stating that although the CMDS supports much of what is included in the Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy, there are certain aspects that are cause for grave concern. He made it very clear that none of the CMDS members seek to any way discriminate against patients; that they have dedicated their lives to the well being of patients. However, many physicians have conscious objections to participating in certain procedures or prescribing certain pharmaceuticals.

Worthen expanded upon the basis for these objections by stating that, "these objections are well reasoned and considered, firmly held and based on objective standards, like the Christian scriptures, Catechism of The Catholic Church and the traditional Hippocratic Oath. These standards are held by many people over time." Elaborating further, he stated that conscience objections come from a variety of sources including: the Christian, Jewish, Islamic faiths and even followers of secular creeds such as Humanism; all of whom may have objections to performing or participating in certain procedures.

Traditionally, conscience concern has always been respected in medicine. The CPSO's new policy changes that completely. In essence this policy forces doctors to refer patients to other doctors against their conscience. In addition, the policy requires that physicians actually provide certain procedures in an emergency to prevent imminent harm. There is much concern about the broad interpretation of the word "emergency," that it might completely erode conscience protection. 

As to the referral aspect of the policy, Worthen addressed why some have asked, "why is referral a problem?" His response to this was as follows, "The doctor who has conscientious objections considers the referral to mean they are facilitating a procedure that is contrary to their conscience. They perceive themselves to be aiding and abetting or an accomplice to an action that they know is morally wrong." He goes on to spotlight the paradoxical nature of the policy with respect to Canada's restriction on extraditing offenders to countries where capital punishment exists. So strong is Canada's objection to the death penalty, yet the CPSO's policy sets forth guidelines that potentially achieve the same immoral end; the death of a human being, be it while developing in the womb or in response to old age or ill health.

Particularly noteworthy was the part where Worthen explained how the changes in the policy are solutions to nonexistent problems. For example, the "need" to address conscientious objections. It is a need that simply does not exist because when it comes to certain procedures and pharmaceuticals, most doctors already inform their patients of their conscientious objections when they enter the practice.

Further clarifying the referral aspect of the policy, Worthen explained that in Ontario there is no requirement for doctors to refer patients for procedures such as an abortion, simply because patients can self refer. Elaborating on this, he provided an example that when a patient is confronted with an unwanted pregnancy, most doctors will discuss options and inform patients not only of their conscientious objections, but of the availability of self referral. Even after the occurrence of an abortion, the patient physician relationship is not ruptured at all; patients typically return to their physician for continued care. In keeping with the applicants' desire to serve their patients, Worthen explained that even though doctors have conscientious objections to certain procedures such as abortion, they in no way condemn patients for obtaining them; they are still willing and continue to be caring physicians for each individual patient. 

Doctor Diane Haak

Doctor Haak began her segment of the press conference by introducing herself as a family physician and president of CMDS Canada, representing approximately seventeen hundred kind and caring physicians who provide exemplary care to their patients. She then began to identify and elaborate on several significant concerns.

The first concern was with respect to the harm that this policy will cause most importantly to patients, but also doctors who serve them. Specifically, she mentioned how some doctors may feel compelled to leave their practice due to the policy's infringement upon freedom of conscience and the forced referral inclusion. 

Second, there is the physical, psychological and spiritual health of doctors to consider. Here is what Dr. Haak stated about this point, "Being forced to practice medicine in a way that conflicts with one's conscience creates an inner tension that is morally wounding, and can lead to physician burn out." 

Third, Doctor Haak also made it known that the Professional Obligations and Human Rights policy is contrary to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone to be free from state interference or compulsion with regard to their freedom of conscience and religion.

Fourth, she spotlighted the CPSO's continued rejection of public feedback; rejection that dated back to the college's external consultation on the previous policy, Physicians and The Ontario Human Rights Code. She clearly stated how the college ignored the results of that external consultation; results in which the overwhelmingly majority of respondents disapproved of the policy. Here is what she had to say about this:

The CPSO conducted a survey prior to adopting this policy asking the public whether a physician should be allowed to refuse to provide a patient with a treatment or procedure because it conflicts with the physicians religious or moral beliefs. More than thirty two thousand people responded with seventy seven percent in favour of physicians being allowed to continue to practice in accordance with their consciences. The CPSO also received sixteen thousand submissions, the overwhelming majority argued for physicians conscience rights. It puzzles me and concerns me then that the college could have passed a policy with clauses that take away this freedom.

Doctor Michelle Korvemaker

Doctor Korvemaker is a family physician from Woodstock, Ontario who works in the emergency department and in palliative care. She also works in Wingham, Ontario in the emergency department and fills in for doctors who are on leave. She stated that in the ten years of her practice, she always had the freedom practice medicine according to her conscience. 

Particular noteworthy was her mention and reference to the Canadian Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics, which requires doctors to inform patients when they don't perform certain procedures or prescribe medication for ethical or moral reasons. The fact that such a code of ethics exists further spotlights the CPSO's effort to provide solutions to nonexistent problems. Citing the example of an abortion, Dr. Korvemaker reiterated what Larry Worthen stated, that when CMDS doctors are confronted by patients with an unwanted pregnancy, doctors typically discuss the options and make it clear that they can not refer for abortion, but patients do have the option of self referral.

The CPSO's policy would force doctors to engage in and facilitate an abortion, which as Dr. Korvemaker stated would be against her conscience and religious beliefs. She raised particular concerns over the recent Supreme Court of Canada Carter vs. Canada euthanasia decision, in light of the CPSO's policy. As a palliative care physician, she could be faced with "physician assisted death," which the newly approved policy would require her to be involved in and facilitate such a procedure. She stated quite clearly that under such circumstances, her conscience and religious beliefs would preclude her from engaging in procedures to which she has a moral, ethical and religious objection. 

Doctor Korvemaker reinforced the point that she and all doctors in Ontario have the right to practice medicine according to their consciences free from state compulsion. Based on this right, the CMDS has launched this challenge.


Question Period 

As a courtesy to all who attended the press conference, the CMDS had provided copies of the legal application and invited Albertos Polizogopoulos to address any legal questions. Below are details of several of the questions that were presented to the panel.

Government Funded Care And Accessibility In Small Towns 

I was particularly concerned with two questions. The first was rather general, but it was followed up by a more specific question that immediately spotlighted the moral disorder in Canada. Here is the first part of the question, "Some people might say that because doctors are funded by the government, by the state, they should therefore provide services that are available or that are offered by the government or the state." Larry Worthen responded by saying that the state should be impartial and not impose its values on individuals.

The follow up question specifically addressed the concern regarding the so called "need" for women to access abortion in small towns in Canada, where such "care" may not be so readily available due to physicians' conscientious objections to provide or procure such a procedure. Worthen stated that with such a scenario, patients are able to self refer in seeking an abortion. Albertos then interjected to point out that the concern for the potential lack of availability for an abortion is a false one because such a scenario does not currently exist; nor has it ever been a problem.

It was a disturbing question to listen to in that it was stated in such a nonchalant manner. The fact that such a question could be asked in public without absolutely no regard for the life of a developing human being in the womb, is a telling sign of deep moral crisis in Canada.

The CPSO's Sudden Change In Policy

When asked about the CPSO's sudden change in policy, Worthen provided a brief background to the CPSO's policy development. It was interesting to discover that the Human Rights Commission approached the CPSO and informed them that from their perspective, the human rights code applied to physician behaviour. The CPSO was "told" that their policy needs to be adjusted accordingly.

The CMDS did not express any concern with respect to the human rights code because its members have not and do not want to discriminate against patients; it has never been a problem with any of its members. The CPSO policy goes beyond the issue of discrimination and attacks the freedom of conscience. This is completely unacceptable because such freedoms are protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 2008, there was some thought given by the CPSO to remove conscience rights with respect to referral and decided to defer that. It was in 2014 during the CPSO's regular policy review cycle that they decided to challenge the freedom of conscience with reference to referrals.

The Definition Of Emergency

The CMDS was asked to elaborate on their concerns regarding an "emergency" specifically within the context of a life threatening situation. The inclusion of an emergency clause or "urgent care" is located in the Protecting Patient Safety section at the last page of the policy (lines 166-169). Worthen explained that it is a concern in that an "emergency" is difficult to define. In life threatening situations, CMDS members would certainly assist patients, but the concern is with respect to the lack of specificity as to what exactly constitutes an emergency; whose definition would it reflect. 

Euthanasia is a prime example of how the issue of emergency becomes a very realistic concern. Given the recent Carter vs. Canada euthanasia decision, some members of the CMDS who are in palliative care might be placed into scenarios where requests for euthanasia are made under so called "emergency" situations. Worthen provided the example of a patient that has already requested euthanasia yet to be performed, who at some point becomes agitated and requests it immediately. Would such an agitated state be considered an "emergency?"

The concern by CMDS members is so great that some are seriously considering leaving palliative care. Worthen clearly spotlighted how unnecessary it was for the CPSO to have included such a clause that attempts to provide a solution to a nonexistent problem.

The Problem With Referrals

A question was asked regarding the issue of referral and why would it be a problem. The scenario presented was one in which an individual with back pain was referred to another physician. In so doing, the original physician would not be implicated in what ever treatment was given at the referral; therefore, why would there be any issue regarding referral?

Worthen stated very clearly, that the foundation of such a statement is completely flawed simply because there is no conflict between doctors and patients. He went on to further point out that there is absolutely no reason why freedom of conscience and access to "care" can not both exist. In agreement with such a statement is the Canadian Medical Association, the Ontario Medical Association, and the American Medical Association.

In addition, he pointed out that there is no jurisdiction in the world that requires physicians to refer for "care" such as euthanasia. So it begs the questions, why does the CPSO claim that "effective referral" is essential and somehow patients' access to services will be affected. From the CMDS's perspective, this is a complete dichotomy. 

He went on further to state that in a tolerant country like Canada, the way to go about resolving issues is through dialogue. The failure to do so regarding this policy is not from a lack of effort on the part of the CMDS. It is a point that Worthen spotlighted with the fact that the CMDS made repeated attempts to enter into discussions with the CPSO, all of which were met with rejection. He concluded this point by stating that the CPSO is trampling on the conscience rights of physicians, who are trying to do their best in providing health care for patients.

Healing Patients

Segueing from his last point, Worthen made it very clear that the CMDS members became doctors to help people. Here is what he stated: 

Our members got into medicine because they were convinced they could help people; that they could help heal them, that they could serve them and meet their needs. They did not get into the practice of medicine participating in procedures that they know are going to harm human life. That is not healing, that's not healing to refer somebody for euthanasia. It is not healing to refer someone for abortion. That is actually hurting people. 

Worthen went on to elaborate that for the government to ask its members to participate in the providing or procuring of anti-life procedures, would constitute a facilitation of these procedures. This would be an inappropriate imposition by the government and the CPSO. Conscience is an attribute of a Christian physician. 

It was shortly after this point that the press conference was concluded. 


What You Can Do To Help

There are many ways you can help this legal challenge. I hope every reader of this post will seriously consider doing so because the matter is grave and we need to support, encourage and stand in solidarity with our doctors. These men and women of Ontario have placed their education, training and experience at the service of life and now, with the CPSO's policy, they are being asked to do a total reversal should it be thrust upon them by their patients' requests. This is totally unacceptable.

As was noted in my initial post, Professional Obligations and Human Rights - An Anti-Life Policy From Ontario's College Of Physicians And Surgeons, the fundamental problem with the CPSO's anti-life policy is that if fails to recognize the sacredness of human life, as well as the basic human right for doctors to refuse to take part in committing an injustice. I hope this fact alone will encourage everyone to take action and help in any way that you can. Below are my recommendations:

1. First and foremost, recognize the threat for what it is, a spiritual attack on God's plan for humanity. Abortion, euthanasia, contraception and every other threat to the value and inviolability of human life comes from the Evil One. Fight the good fight on a spiritual level; that is let prayer and fasting be at the root of all your efforts. Include in your intentions those who you intend to communicate to and come into contact with regarding this controversy. You may also be interested in reading the CMDS's prayer document.
2. Second, you may want to consider a donation to help with the legal costs. Should you decide to do this, you can do so at the CMDS web site.
3. Third, get informed. Bookmark the CMDS web site; add their blog to your reading list.  
4. Fourth, spread the word on your social media networks. Let others know of this very important controversy in the medical profession. Share this blog post with others.
5. Fifth, email everyone on your contacts list with a well written and thorough email that will be sure to inspire others into action.
6. Sixth, contact the CMDS and express your support for the legal challenge.

The controversy surrounding the CPSO's Professional Obligations and Human Rights is an extremely serious one. It spotlights how the "culture of death," ushered into Canada in a very identifiable way with abortion in 1969, by the passing of the infamous Omnibus Bill, has negatively impacted the formation of conscience for many people in the medical profession.

I hope this blog post has instilled in you a sense of urgency with which all concerned citizens of Ontario need to become informed and active on this controversy and help restore Ontario and Canada to a "culture of life." 


May Saint Gianna Beretta Molla intercede for the success of this legal challenge.