My Support For Medical Professionals and Their Conscience Rights

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition's postcard from their postcard campaign, "I Support Caring Not Killing."

Today's post is an opportunity to put faith into action in support of Christian doctors, nurses, and all other medical professionals, whose conscience rights are being threatened by the recommendations of a recent parliamentary report, Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach, and the Carter vs. Canada ruling, in which the Supreme Court directed the federal government to legislate a new law by June 6, 2016, so as to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

If you unfamiliar with the Carter decision or new to the euthanasia and assisted suicide issue, please consider reading my post, Euthanasia - A False Mercy, for some background information as to 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.

In my previous post, The Negative Implications of Legalizing Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, under the subheading Time to Fight For Christian Doctors, I had wholeheartedly agreed with Larry Worthen, the executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society, when he stated that, "The time has come to fight to keep Christian doctors." In addition to my blogging, my agreement has translated into further action, the joining of a postcard campaign, I Support Caring Not Killing, from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC).

If you are somewhat new to getting involved with a campaign, the EPC's postcard campaign could not be an easier place to start. The postcards are free, and can be ordered by contacting the EPC by telephone at 1.877.439.3348 or by email at, info@epcc.ca. There is no postage required as it is free to send mail to federal politicians. The EPC is distributing three different bilingual postcards to be sent to Prime Minister Trudeau, or Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, or your Member of Parliament (MP).

Putting Faith Into Action

As to what impact these postcards may in fact have, no one really knows. One thing is for certain, if millions of these postcards were mailed to Ottawa, it would send a strong message to the federal government that: Canadians reject the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide; that no matter how it is packaged, explained or rationalized, there is no justification for euthanizing someone or assisting in their suicide, regardless of any request, level of pain, and duration of suffering; that the killing of a human being can never be considered morally licit; and that conscience rights for medical professionals must always be protected. 

Getting involved with the EPC's postcard campaign is but one way to put faith into action. To quote scripture, "My brothers, what good is it to profess faith without practicing it...So it is with the faith that does nothing in practice. It is thoroughly lifeless." (James 2:l4-l7)

Saint John Paul II

Saint John Paul II had written extensively about putting faith into action in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici (Christ's Faithful People), a document that explained the laity's vocation and mission in the Church and in the world. The laity have a very specific role in the Church's mission to evangelize, and this is accomplished by "labouring in the vineyard." You might be wondering, what exactly does labouring in the vineyard mean? It is a reference that St. John Paul II explained in the first paragraph:

The lay members of Christ's Faithful People (Christifideles Laici)...are those who form that part of the People of God which might be likened to the labourers in the vineyard mentioned in Matthew's Gospel: "For the Kingdom of heaven is like a householder who went out early in the morning to hire labourers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the labourers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard" (Matthew 20:1-2).

Our "vineyard" is the vast world we live in, one that is to be transformed according to God's plan, and in it, a multitude of men and women are called to labour in anticipation of the final coming of the Kingdom of God. The call to "labour" is for everyone; a call that is more urgent and necessary today than when Christifideles Laici was released on December 30, 1988.

Since Christifideles Laici release, Christian faith has waned considerably in Canada, coupled with a sharp rise in consumerism, both of which have contributed to the secularization of society. Saint John Paul II made an important point that was relevant for Canadian society back then, and is even more pertinent today, "A new state of affairs today both in the Church and in social, economic, political and cultural life, calls with a particular urgency for the action of the lay faithful. If lack of commitment is always unacceptable, the present time renders it even more so. It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle." (3)

God's Holy Law of "Thou shall not kill"

What the sending of these postcards also spotlights is the moral responsibility that Members of Parliament (MPs) should demonstrate to their respective constituencies, by rejecting the Supreme Court's Carter vs. Canada ruling; a ruling that was nothing but an exercise in judicial activism. If you are wondering by what rationale MPs should not abide by the Carter decision, the answer is to be found in God's Holy Law of "Thou shall not kill." Catholics, Christians alike, and all people of good will, can draw strength and clarity from the example of the Apostles: 

When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man's blood on us.' But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than any human authority." (Acts 5:27-29)

The importance of God's Holy Law was addressed in Saint John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life), where he explained the truth, and shared his concerns about the threats to the value and inviolability of human life that included: abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and suicide. In addition, he wrote dedicated sections on conscience rights, and the civil and moral law, making this document an increasingly relevant read to understand the current euthanasia and assisted suicide issue we are facing here in Canada. The section dedicated to God's Holy Law is at Chapter III's - You Shall Not Kill, God's Holy Law, under the subheading, "We must obey God rather than men" Acts 5:29: civil law and the moral law (sections sixty-eight to seventy-four). In the preceding sections, he wrote about euthanasia (sections sixty-four and sixty-five "It is I who bring both death and life" Dt 32:39 - the tragedy of euthanasia), and suicide (sections sixty-six and sixty-seven).

Saint John Paul II made an important point regarding civil law, that perfectly addresses our current Canadian situation, and spotlights the failure of the Supreme Court's Carter decision, and the federal government's intention to legislate a new law based on it. Consider the following from Evangelium Vitae: 

Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But "in no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence", which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defence of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which-were it prohibited-would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom. (71)

Saint John Paul II also wrote about the doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law, and its application for society. This doctrine and its application serves as a key component in the rationale for MPs to reject the Carter decision.

To clarify this doctrine, Saint John Paul II made reference to Saint Pope John XXIII, and one of the great Doctors of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas. He first quoted Saint Pope John XXIII from his encyclical, Pacim in Terris, "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience..." (72) He then quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas, "...[H]uman law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence." (72)

The dreaded euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation will spotlight the failure of Canadian civil law to conform with the moral law (God's Holy Law). That failure would stem from the fact that the legalizing of euthanasia and assisted suicide will disregard the fundamental right and source of all other rights; that is, the right to life. Here is how St. John Paul II applied the references of Sts. John XXIII and Thomas Aquinas:

Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law. (72)

Conscience Rights

Saint John Paul II made some very important points that spotlight the moral courage and certitude that all Canadian medical professionals must demonstrate in the face of anti-life procedures and practices.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. As such, there is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; more to the point, there is a grave obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

From a moral standpoint it is never licit to cooperate with evil of any kind, which with respect to euthanasia and assisted suicide, would mean the direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. Saint John Paul II put a fine point on this when he wrote, "Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12)." (74)

Saint John Paul II also noted that refusing to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty, but a basic human right, which should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. He elaborated on this:

In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane. (74)

When Christian doctors, nurses, and all other medical professionals in health and palliative care, as a matter of conscience, refuse to provide euthanasia and assisted suicide, or refer ("effective referral" is the euphemism used by proponents for euthanasia and assisted suicide) "patients" to medical professionals, and facilities that will, they properly respond to what they are called to do; that is, not cooperative in any way with these anti-life practices, even if they are legally permitted by civil law.

Regardless of what issues, controversies and problems we are facing in Canada, Catholics and Christians alike, and all people of good will must never succumb to what St. John Paul II referred to as the "culture of death," and all that it seeks to implement in Canada.

I hope that today's post has encouraged you to join this postcard campaign, and that you unite it to prayer and fasting. Like all spiritual battles, it should begin with, and be sustained by time in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

May God have mercy on Canada.

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.

Ontario's End-of-Life Consultations: The Ushering in of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and the Increased Moral Disorder in Canada

Photo courtesy of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Today's post focusses on the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide and how the "culture of death" is working hard to usher in both, increasing Canada's moral disorder in the process.

If you are somewhat new to the euthanasia and assisted suicide issue, I would like to recommend you read my previous post, Euthanasia - A False Mercy. At that post, you will read about how euthanasia and assisted suicide have become an increasing reality since the Carter vs. Canada Supreme Court ruling. It also details Catholic teaching, drawing on two important sources, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Saint Pope John Paul II's, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life).

In addition, I would like to suggest, as a matter of becoming better informed of the current developments regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide, that you visit and bookmark the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition's (EPC) web site and blog. 

Recently the Ontario government closed its Doctor-assisted dying and end-of-life decisions consultation which afforded the public an opportunity to share their thoughts and concerns regarding the implementation of euthanasia and assisted suicide (referred to by the government as "physician-assisted dying") here in Canada. Associated with this consultation was a Final Report submitted by the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying, dated November 15, 2015. It is sixty-one pages, and an appalling read of procedures and guidelines, detailed in their forty-three recommendations, of how to legally usher in and implement euthanasia and assisted suicide across the nation. It is a scandalous document that seeks to infringe upon conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals, and completely ignores the sacredness of human life, and the dignity of human person. This points to the fundamental problem with this report; that is, it ignores the truth of the human person, and in the process it promotes and rationalizes of the implementation of a false mercy.

There are many aspects of this report that are disturbing including: recommendations to amend the Criminal Code to "protect" health care professionals from liability; the use of manipulative language and euphemisms that diminish the gravity of euthanasia and assisted suicide; the pairing of "end-of-life practices" (physician-assisted dying) with palliative care as if to infer that the two are complimentary; the fact that this document and its recommendations even exists strongly suggests that proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide simply do not fully understand that the education, training and experience of medical professionals should always be placed at the service of life, not at the service of death.

The remainder of today's post includes information on: the teachings from the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life, and the dignity of human person, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and scandal; the Final Report's Foreword; a partial analysis of the Final Report that focusses on Recommendations Two, Seven, Eight and Nine, and two sections that deal with the Role of Conscientiously Objecting Health Care Provider and Roles of Institutions; and my concluding thoughts on the increasing moral disorder in Canada brought on by euthanasia and suicide.

The Teachings of the Catholic Church

No matter how it is packaged, explained or rationalized, there is no justification for euthanizing someone or assisting in their suicide, regardless of any requests, level of pain, and duration of suffering. Proponents for euthanasia and assisted suicide have failed to recognize this truth, a truth which is available in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states about the sacredness of human life, under Article 5: The Fifth Commandment "You Shall Not Kill":

Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being. (2258)

As to the Dignity of the Human Person, the catechism states the following:

The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity. (1700)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, under Article 5: The Fifth Commandment "You Shall Not Kill," also details why euthanasia and suicide are morally wrong and completely unacceptable. In addition, it includes a section on Respect for the souls of others: scandal, that will spotlight the true nature of the Final Report. Here is what the catechism states about euthanasia:

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. 

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. 

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded. 

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

As for suicide, below is what the catechism states regarding it:

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. 

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. 

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide. 

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

Here is what the catechism states about scandal, under Article 5, Section II. Respect For The Dignity of Persons:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing. 

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible." This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"

The Final Report's Foreword

As I read the Foreword, I could not help but get the impression that the Advisory Group was attempting to narrate the euthanasia and assisted suicide ("physician-assisted dying") issue here in Canada. The report includes a few selected references that seem to suggest to the reader that Canadians "need" access to euthanasia and assisted suicide (they never use these specific terms), and "want" control over their "end-of-life decisions." 

A prime example is the inference made with respect to the relevance and importance of the Supreme Court's 1993 Rodriguez decision; that it wrongly judged the "needs" and "wants" of Canadians, by quoting Sue Rodriguez who stated, "Whose body is this? and "Who owns my life?" That Supreme Court ruling in 1993 determined that the state’s obligation to “protect the vulnerable” outweighed the rights of the individual to self-determination. Even though this decision was overturned by the Carter vs. Canada ruling on February 6, 2015, it remains relevant and important in the hearts and minds of Canadians who have a respect for God and human life.

The Foreword includes a reference to polls that apparently have consistently demonstrated growing support for the option of "medically-assisted death," but neither in the Foreword or anywhere else in this document do the Advisory Group cite references for the reader to verify this information. 

Then we have the mention of three individuals: Gloria Taylor, Kay Carter and Dr. Donald Low all of whom sought to end their lives, challenging Canada's law in the process. The efforts of these three individuals are described as contributing to "...[A] seismic shift--both legal and social--in our country's approach to end-of-life decisions." (1) 

The Advisory Group also included the deplorable enacting of Bill 52 - An Act respecting end-of-life care in Quebec (Quebec's euthanasia law), which the Advisory Group considers to be an act of leadership on this issue. The Advisory Group was even audacious enough to state that the rest of Canada is behind, but not for long.

Then there is some detailed information on the Carter vs. Canada ruling, which in itself was nothing but an exercise in judicial activism, that "opened the door" for proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide to draft new policies at medical and related professional associations, and for others such as this Advisory Group to submit recommendations to the Ontario government. One gets the impression that the Carter vs. Canada ruling has placed Canada on a new moral ground with which to implement euthanasia and assisted suicide. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I continued to read the Foreword's Overview of Recommendations, I became increasingly disturbed and disappointed in what was to be detailed further on in the report. A prime example was the pairing of palliative care and "end-of-life care." Under normal circumstances, the two are often interchangeable, but this Advisory Group considers euthanasia and assisted suicide ("physician-assisted dying") as part of new "end-of-life care" options.

The beginning of the Advisory Group's "Recommendations" at page twenty

According to the Canadian Virtual Hospice web site, palliative care is defined as follows, "Palliative care is a type of health care for patients and families facing life-threatening illness. Palliative care helps patients to achieve the best possible quality of life right up until the end of life. Palliative care is also called end-of-life, or comfort care." The web site goes on to include other aspects that are an integral part of palliative care; that palliative care also:

• focuses on the concerns of patients and their families; 
• pays close attention to physical symptoms such as pain, nausea, loss of appetite and confusion; 
• considers the emotional and spiritual concerns of patients and families; 
• ensures that care is respectful and supportive of patient dignity; 
• respects the social and cultural needs of patients and families; 
• uses a team approach that may include volunteers, social workers and spiritual leaders in addition to medical staff.

It is abundantly clear that anyone viewing the above definition of palliative care through a moral lens, can not consider or associate euthanasia and assisted suicide in any way, as complimentary "end-of-life care" (physician-assisted dying) options, to what is proper to palliative care. Pairing the two together is a complete contradiction, and discards and diminishes the sacredness of human life, and dignity of the human person.

Proponents for euthanasia and assisted suicide completely ignore this all together, and offer false notions of mercy to those who are vulnerable due the level of pain, duration of suffering, and weakened psychological and emotional states. 

Pairing euthanasia and assisted suicide with palliative care, also appears to be an attempt to diminish the gravity of euthanasia and assisted suicide by including these unacceptable practices with acceptable medical practices in palliative care. One can only imagine if these "physician-assisted dying services" were to exist at dedicated facilities, similar to what we see with abortion "clinics." It certainly would make these "services" more readily identifiable for what they are, anti-life practices and elements of the culture of death.

In dealing with conscience rights, the Advisory Group contradicts itself. They first recognize and acknowledge conscience rights, but then completely ignore them, and seek to impose euthanasia and assisted suicide upon health care professionals, organization and institutions, including that at a very minimum, assistance must be provided in the procurement of these anti-life practices. Here is what they state regarding how conscience rights are to be handled: 

As we explain in this report, health care providers have the freedom to object to the provision of physician-assisted dying for reasons of conscience, but they are required to provide information about all end-of-life options, including physician-assisted dying. Conscientiously objecting health care providers are also required to either provide a referral, a direct transfer of care to another health care provider, or to contact and transfer the patient’s records through a third party, agency or service which would have a duty to ensure the safe and timely transfer of care of the patient to a non-objecting provider. (3)

The Advisory Group has also recommended the establishment of a "properly functioning regulatory framework" to provide "robust and independent oversight" whose function would be, "...[T]o monitor compliance with relevant laws, policies and standards; to inform continuing development of policies and practices; and to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the system." (4) They go on to recommend two levels of oversight, "...[A] Review Committee at the provincial/territorial level and a pan-Canadian Commission on End-of-Life Care at the national level." (4) Translation, there needs to be a framework to ensure forced compliance and monitor where there might be objections and refusals of any kind.

The last item in the Foreword is the inclusion of a so-called need to "...[B]uild and sustain effective capacity, including through research and continuing quality improvement, health professional education and training, and public education and engagement." (4) What this essentially amounts to is a continual injection of the culture of death into the public sphere, and health care professions.

Partial Analysis of the Final Report

Given that this report is sixty-one pages, I decided for the sake of brevity not to analyze the entire report, but rather to identify selected recommendations and sections that are, in my view, more disturbing than others.

I am going to begin with Recommendation 2 which states, "Provinces and territories should collaborate and coordinate with all relevant organizations and institutions as soon as possible to ensure the smooth and timely implementation of physician-assisted dying in Canada." (21) Part of this recommendation refers to Figure 1. Necessary Activities of Other Organizations and Institutions, on page 22 of the report that lists eleven organizations and institutions in which the provinces and territories should, "...[R]each out to these groups immediately to ensure that all policies and planned changes within each jurisdiction are well-aligned and understood and that gaps and challenges are identified as quickly as possible" (21) 

Recommendation Two's Figure 1 Listing of Organizations and Institutions 

It is clear that the Advisory Group wants everyone in the medical and related fields, as well as universities, colleges and insurers to be brought into the fold of this sad initiative to usher in euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Recommendations seven through nine are aimed at protecting health care professionals from liability, on a provincial and territorial level, and at the federal level with changes to the Criminal Code. Translation, this report recommends that the killing of a human being be given a new term, "physician-assisted dying" as part of new "end-of-life" options, and for all the killing that is to be done, all health care professionals responsible for the provision of euthanasia and assisted suicide should not be held accountable at law or be liable, insofar as they are "...[N]ot negligent and act in good faith within the rules set out to support the implementation of physician-assisted dying." (27) Brilliant! Below are recommendations seven to nine.

Recommendation 7 states that provinces and territories should request the federal government to make changes to change the Criminal Code, to "...[E]xplicitly protect those health care professionals who provide supporting services during the provision of physician-assisted dying." (25) The rationale for this apparently is a matter of clarity to "...[E]nsure the viability of a team-based approach to the provision of physician-assisted dying." (25)

Recommendation 8 states that the provinces and territories should request the federal government to make changes to change the Criminal Code, to "...[A]llow the provision of physician-assisted dying by a regulated health care professional (registered nurse or, if applicable, physician assistant) acting under the direction of a physician, or a nurse practitioner." (26) The rationale for this is to ensure that in situations where access to physicians and nurse practitioners is limited, other regulated health professionals (registered nurses or physician assistants) will be used to write a prescription or give the injection without exposure to criminal liability. 

Recommendation 9 continues the extension for the protection of health care professionals, "Provinces and territories should ensure that health professional are protected from liability for acts or omissions done in good faith and without negligence in providing or intending to provide physician-assisted dying." (26)

Role of Conscientiously Objecting Health Care Provider

This section of the report can be found on pages forty-three to forty-five and pertains to the subsections of the Duty to Inform, and the Duty to Care for the Patient. In addition there is introductory information that precedes the first three recommendations (Duty to inform) and further information that follows the last recommendation (Duty to Care for the Patient). Below are recommendations thirty-one to thirty-three from these two respective subsections:

Duty to Inform 

RECOMMENDATION 31: Conscientiously objecting health care providers should be required to inform patients of all end-of-life options, including physician-assisted dying, regardless of their personal beliefs.

RECOMMENDATION 32: Conscientiously objecting health care providers should be required to appropriately inform their patients of the fact and implications of their conscientious objection to physician-assisted dying. Any ongoing treatment of the patient must be provided in a nondiscriminatory manner. 

Duty to Care for the Patient 

RECOMMENDATION 33: Conscientiously objecting health care providers should be required to either provide a referral or a direct transfer of care to another health care provider or to contact a third party and transfer the patient’s records through the system described in Recommendation 4. (44)

The underlying failure of this section is the discarding of conscience rights, coupled with the insistence that conscientious health care providers must procure euthanasia and assisted suicide, by providing information about "end-of-life" options, and transfer patients to facilities that provide them. The report insists that both are "duties," and must care for patients in a manner that is described as both "non-discriminatory" and "non-abandonment." Such statements are prime examples of the euphemisms and manipulative language that is rampant throughout this entire report.

Add to this the rationale that such "duties" must be fulfilled by a conscientious objecting health care provider as a matter of "communal responsibility," and that individual providers are not absolved of their personal/professional responsibilities, particularly in a publicly-funded system. Such an inclusion fails to recognize that Catholics have a moral responsibility to follow God's Holy Law ("Thou shall not kill"), which takes precedence over any civil law and so-called "communal responsibility." God's Holy Law does not permit for the provision or procurement of euthanasia and assisted suicide, irrespective of the fact of whether a health care system is publicly funded or not.

Catholics must avoid all instances in which they may be an accessory to someone's sins. To be clear, there are nine ways of being an accessory to someone else's sin: by counsel, by command, by consent, by provocation, by praise or flattery, by concealment, by partaking, by silence, and by defense of the ill done. 

Make no mistake, euthanasia and assisted suicide are considered sins, not venial sins, but mortal or deadly sins. In addition, the desire to end one's life, is one of six ways in which you can sin against the Holy Spirit; that is, the sin of despair. The other five are: presumption of God's mercy, impugning the known truth, envy at another's spiritual good, obstinacy in sin and final impenitence.

No matter what may be the outcome from this Advisory Group's recommendations in terms of what parliament may enact into law, all conscientious Catholics and Christians alike, must obey God's Holy law in which we can all draw from the example of the Apostles persecution:

When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man's blood on us.' But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than any human authority." (Acts 5:27-29)

Roles of Institutions

This section of the Final Report is broken down into three subsections: Duties of Institutions, Duties of Non Faith-Based Institutions, and Duties of Faith-Based Institutions. This section is somewhat of a continuation from the previous section noted above, but with added restrictions, detailed in recommendations thirty-four to thirty-six:

Duties of Institutions 

RECOMMENDATION 34: All institutions should be required to inform patients/residents of any institutional position on physician-assisted dying, including any and all limits on its provision. This recommendation will ensure that patients have clarity on what is permitted within the facility. They can then make informed decisions with respect to whether to enter or remain in the facility. 

RECOMMENDATION 35: Provinces and territories should prohibit any requirement by institutions that patients give up the right to access physician-assisted dying as a condition of admission. 

RECOMMENDATION 36: Provinces and territories should prohibit any requirement by institutions that physicians refrain from the provision of physician-assisted dying external to the non-participating institution. In addition, employment conditions or privileges should not be negatively impacted in any way. (46)

Recommendation 37, under the subsection on the Duties of Non-Faith Based Institutions, states the following, "Non faith-based institutions, whether publicly or privately-funded, must not prevent physician-assisted dying from being provided at their facilities." (46) The Advisory Group tries to rationalize this recommendation by pointing to the fact that such institutions may be in part or wholly publicly funded, so as to infer that the government (federal or provincial) has the moral authority to impose what it wants upon such institutions. Add to this the manipulative use of language, with wording such as, "a point of principle." Read the rationale for yourself:

Governments have significantly more levers to influence the policies and practices of institutions that are funded in whole or in part by public funds. However, as a point of principle, we believe that physician-assisted dying should be available wherever people are living and dying. This includes privately-funded institutions. Recognizing that not all institutions will feel capable of providing physician-assisted dying for a variety of reasons, including size, geography and mandate, we concluded that institutions should be permitted to offer a patient transfer to another institution, as long as the receiving institution can and will provide a health care provider who is willing and able to accept the person as a patient, to assess whether the criteria for access to physician-assisted dying have been met, and provide physician-assisted dying where the criteria for access have been met. (46-47)

Recommendation 38 under the subsection of Duties of Faith-Based Institutions, casts aside conscience rights, and insists that the anti-life practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide must be provided directly at the institution or arrange for it to be performed at another institution. Here is Recommendation 38:

Faith-based institutions must either allow physician-assisted dying within the institution or make arrangements for the safe and timely transfer of the patient to a non-objecting institution for assessment and, potentially, provision of physician-assisted dying. The duty of care must be continuous and non-discriminatory. (47)

Below is the Advisory Group's rationale for this:

Faith-based institutions have a duty to care for and not abandon the patients within their institution. While they should not be required to provide access to physician-assisted dying, they must still ensure access for patients who wish to seek it. When a patient makes a request for physician-assisted dying, faith-based institutions should be required to either allow for the assessment and provision of physician-assisted dying within the institution or make arrangements for an effective transfer of the patient to a non-objecting institution. This transfer must also include the transfer of all relevant records, and must be made to a non-objecting institution where the patient’s medical condition can be assessed and treated by a health care provider who is willing and able to assess whether the patient meets the eligibility criteria for physician-assisted dying and, if so, can provide assistance. If a safe and timely transfer to a non-objecting institution is not possible, the objecting institution must allow an outside health care provider to assess the patient and, if the eligibility criteria for physician-assisted dying are met, to provide assistance. The receiving outside health care provider would follow the pathway for physician-assisted dying as outlined previously in this report. (47)

Have you noticed the use of manipulative language; in particular, "Faith-based institutions have a duty to care for and not abandon the patients within their institutions." (47) This Advisory Group seems to equate the refusal to provide or procure euthanasia and assisted suicide, based on conscience rights, as potentially "abandoning" patients. 

Increased Moral Disorder in Canada

The moral disorder began in Canada in a very identifiable way with the passing of the infamous Omnibus Bill in 1969. That bill was passed by the federal government, under then Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Amongst many things, it ushered in "therapeutic abortions" which were to be performed in hospitals and approved by hospital committees. Once this evil was allowed to enter into Canadian hospitals, it was only a matter of time before the medical profession would experience the negative ramifications. Today's post on the Advisory Group's Final Report is proof that the negative ramifications continue. Abortion has paved the way for the introduction of euthanasia and assisted suicide, and attacks on conscience rights.

The fact that today in Canadian society we have abortion, contraception, in-vitro fertilization, and euthanasia in Quebec as part of "health care or services," is a telling sign of a deep moral crisis in the medical profession. It appears that sometime this year or the next, the Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Pierre Elliot Trudeau's son) will introduce and pass a new law officially ushering in euthanasia and assisted suicide across the land.

Of course, there are many medical professionals who do not accept the anti-life practices of the culture of death, including professional associations. One in particular that comes to mind is the Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS), which has not only upheld a proper moral standard for its members, but has battled against others in the medical field who have not done likewise. Here is the CMDS mission statement:

The Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS) of Canada is a national organization of Christian physicians, dentists and students, each holding an individual membership, who seek to honour God by integrating faith with professional practice. CMDS Canada places a high value on fellowship, prayer, mission work, advocacy and supporting medical and dental students.

It doesn't take much research to discover the moral disorder in Canada, and how it has increased over time within the medical profession. I have done this myself and published three blog posts that spotlight the attempts of some medical professionals to impose anti-life practices upon others. Here are three of my previous published posts:

• Professional Obligations and Human Rights - An Anti-Life Policy From Ontario's College of Physicians and Surgeons (December 28, 2014)
• The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons External Consultation - Inappropriate Forum Moderation (Februrary 13, 2015)
• The Christian Medical and Dental Society's Legal Challenge to the Professional Obligations and Human Rights Policy (April 12, 2015)

A more recent case from the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO), an external consultation (now closed) on their draft document, CPSO Interim Guidance on Physician-Assisted Death. That consultation resulted in the much needed response and submission by the Catholic Civil Rights League's to the CPSO, that the Interim Guidance on Physician-Assisted Death document violates a doctor’s Charter right to freedom of conscience and religion.

These types of consultations are happening across the country. To keep track of the consultations being held in your province, visit www.moralconvictions.ca.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide has increasingly becoming an important issue since the Carter vs. Canada Supreme Court case almost one year ago. What is becoming more disturbing as time goes on, is how this demonic attack to destroy God's plan for humanity, is being ushered in such a nonchalant manner, under the banner of recommendations, policy development, and the "need" to assess the "wants" of Canadians' end-of-life options. This is what is happening in Canada right now, and all Catholics, Christians alike, and all people of good will need to become better informed about this, spread awareness, and fight what is primarily a spiritual battle against unseen enemies.

As Catholics we can effectively fight this spiritual battle with the spiritual weapons of prayer and fasting. By prayer I refer to the two most powerful prayers: first the Holy Mass and second, the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Intentions to end euthanasia, assisted suicide and all threats to the value and inviolability of human life should be includes in your prayer and fasting intentions. Like all spiritual battles, the best place to begin is on your knees in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

May God have mercy on Canada.