Tag: Failure to protect Conscience Rights Bill C-14

MAiD – Failure to Protect Conscience Rights

In a deliberate ploy, on the part of the current federal government, Bill C14, the legislation to implement Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) across Canada failed to include protection of conscience rights for medical professionals who object to participation in MAiD based on their personal, deeply held faith and religious beliefs. (See: July 18 Blog Post below for more info.)

Already the fallout from the lack of legislative protection when the legislation was introduced is being seen across Canada. The very real danger is that this failure to guard and protect the conscience rights of those involved with MAiD will spread, jeopardizing the well being of those who wish to practice their medical professions in accordance with the dictates of their consciences.

While the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, in Section 2: (a), clearly delineates the freedom of conscience and religion as one of the four “Fundamental Freedom,” the Superior Court of Ontario recently ruled in favor of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to uphold the policy they have adopted that requires CPSO members to refer patients for MAiD, regardless of their personal beliefs. The Court decision says the individual right of the patient to medical care trumps the conscience rights of the attending medical personnel.

This erosion of conscience rights has widespread consequences on the professional practice of physicians and surgeons practicing in Ontario. It could cause them to leave their profession or leave the province of Ontario to practice elsewhere, as has happened in other jurisdictions where conscience rights have not been protected.

While in Alberta, AHS has adopted an ‘opt in’ policy that provides for those who are favor and support MAiD to elect to become practitioners. The ‘opt in’ policy serves to protect anyone who, in good conscience, does not want to become engaged in the practice. However, it is necessary to remain alert to what is happening here. Given the legal judgment in favor of the policy of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, it would not be outside the realm of possibility that the practice of requiring involvement could change in the future here in Alberta, as well.

To protect it’s medical practitioners, the Province of Manitoba has adopted specific legislation that protects their conscience rights, even if the professional body were to adopt a policy reflecting the one enacted by the CPSO. Other provincial jurisdictions should be lobbied to enact similar legislation to guard against medical professionals being forced into the untenable position they find themselves in in Ontario.

To be sure, I am certain that if the ‘death with dignity’ lobbyists who want widened access to MAiD have their way, they will put pressure on governments and healthcare systems its institutions to abandon the protection of conscience rights altogether in an effort to spread the practice of MAiD as far and wide as possible.

We live in perilous times when the aging, ill and dying are unprotected from pressure to end their lives, and our medical professionals are being equally pressured to assist in promoting the widening of this ‘culture of death’ activity, even at the expense of the protection of their own consciences.

How have we gotten so far off track as to believe no one has the right to guard and protect their personal beliefs if it interferes with another’s freedom to have what I want, regardless?

References:

 

MAiD: How did we get here….From no where?!?

How did we get here?

It was the not so innocent, or maybe rhetorical,  question, “How did we get here?” that turned into the catalyst for me to address the question, and, subsequently, re-engage in the political fray. It was posed by a fellow parishioner, after the federal government was instructed to draft legislation to legalize assisted death/suicide. To him it was a baffling development that made no sense.

In fact, as a nation, Canada didn’t get to the legalization of Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) from ‘no where.’ The legalization of euthanasia or ‘physician assisted suicide/death’ came out of an inexorable shift in moral values that can be traced through the political landscape of shifting values and ‘rights’.

Secular Humanism beginnings…

Though the history of sliding down the slippery slope of allowing one person to take the life of another goes much further back, the more modern beginning point could be delineated with the Humanist Manifesto I, which was drafted, and signed, in 1933.

In this document, the signatories dismissed the existence of any supernatural deity, and articulated the belief that the universe is self-existing, rather than created. Their claim was that man, in and of himself, was sufficient to contribute to greater progress and social evolution, without reference to a supernatural deity, in order to achieve the highest good for all. In this initial document, it was agreed that this was a new form of religion, terming it ‘Religious Humanism.’ [Subsequent Manifesto’s — II (1973) and III (2003)– would squelch calling this ‘new’ philosophy religious to avoid being categorized as a ‘religion’, and thus limited, in the impact — and the access to funding.]

As the forerunner to what is, now, popularly known as secular humanism, this is a significant document. It heralds an articulated, systematized, philosophical shift from believing in a creator God to trusting man as the be all and end all of society, and the purveyor of his own destiny, outside of answering to God. It was a major shift away from believing in the existence of a Creator God to totally dismissing the significance and importance of the influence of any belief in the supernatural on humanity and the institutions of society.

It doesn’t take a great leap of insight to realize this was foundational in dismissing God from the public square and for laying a broader foundation for the rise of atheistic social institutions and political systems. It was the beginning of challenging the moral foundation of our Western society, grounded and founded in a Christian belief in the supremacy of God, over all and in all.

Changing Canada’s Legislative Underpinnings…

The influence of the lack of belief in God, began to make moral values relative — one could believe, or not believe, in what was best, based on one’s own particular view of things. Fast forward to the rising star of the elder Trudeau, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, father of Canada’s current Prime Minister,  in our political realm. To say that he brought this into mainstream Canadian politics of the day would not be an overstatement. Here is a review of his ‘accomplishments’ that created his political legacy and shifted our Canadian values from seeing assisting another to take their own life as a criminal offense to legalizing MAiD.

1967: Omnibus Justice Bill introduced by then Minister of Justice, Pierre Trudeau.

1969: Omnibus Justice Bill passed under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Highlights: decriminalized homosexuality between consenting adults; allowed restricted abortion; allowed divorce on grounds other than adultery. In effect, this, more than any other legislation, effectively took Canada off the ‘Gold Standard’ of the Ten Commandments as the basis for legislative decisions. It was a first.

The introduction of restricted abortion began the erosion of the moral standard, “Thou shall not kill.” And, we know that the ‘restrictions’ were totally removed when the Supreme Court in 1988 in Morgentaler vs. R struck down the legislation, leaving a legislative void that has not, to date, been filled with any new laws to govern abortion. While this decision did not establish a ‘right’ to abortion, as has been claimed, there are no legislative restrictions on accessing the procedure.

1982: Repatriation of the Canadian Constitution & Adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms – piloted through the entire process by Prime Minister Trudeau. The significance of the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms is that, again, for the first time, it shifted Canada away from the standards established in the British Parliamentary system of Parliamentary supremacy and handed over the final say to the Courts.

According to Wikipedia, the Charter established a “generous interpretation” of rights, and introduced the courts (being)…used “to create new rights.” This led to governments drafting legislation in response to court rulings, rather than courts interpreting the laws passed by the government. As well, overall, rights began to be interpreted more expansively. This laid the foundation for the Court ruling that prohibiting physician assisted suicide infringed on the ‘rights’ of the person seeking to end their life, and ordering the Federal Government to draft legislation to allow physician assisted death.

The Road to MAiD…

Regarding the actual legislative journey to MAiD, here is the quick run down:

1993: Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously against the “right to die” in Rodriguez vs. British Columbia.

2005: Private Members Bill to legalize assisted suicide introduced — overwhelmingly rejected.

2009: Re-introduced the Private Members Bill — again, overwhelmingly rejected by Liberal, Progressive Conservative, and NDP MP’s.

2015: Supreme Court of Canada unanimously overturned the ban on euthanasia — Carter vs Canada — ruling “The prohibition of medical assistance in dying violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

2016, June: Parliament adopts Bill C-14 — an Act to establish and legalize Medical Aid in Dying — 190, for, 108, against.

Conscience Rights protection was not included in Bill C-14. A Motion to amend the Bill to include protection of conscience rights for doctors/medical staff involved was introduced by the Conservatives, but it was defeated. The motion was supported by all CPC MP’s, 5 NDP’s, and Elizabeth May, the Leader of the Green Party. The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who claims to be Roman Catholic, voted against the amendment.

This legislative exclusion leaves the fight for conscience rights in relation to the introduction of MAiD as the next frontier for activism, but more on that another time.

In my opinion…

MAiD marks a change in the moral fiber and fabric of our Canadian society. While we abhor capital punishment as barbaric, we have somehow made a mental shift to accept that allowing a physician to take the life of a patient in the sterile, medical setting is compassionate and caring. How do we make that paradigm shift in thinking that says, here it is not OK, but there, it is?

I think it goes back to saying ‘There is no God,’ and believing that we can do whatever we think is right in our own sight, without consequences. But, I believe we have put a huge, black blot on our Canadian culture by embracing the ‘right’ to have one person kill another. We have embraced a ‘Culture of death’ that will have far reaching consequences on our future as a nation, let alone on the eternal souls of those who are being put to death, and those engaging in killing someone who might be a neighbor or a friend.

I think we will live to regret this decision, as it plays out in generations to come. The impact, of what appears to be benign killing of one person by another, may damage our whole national psyche in ways we do not yet fathom or comprehend. It is not something that can readily be swept under the carpet as if it didn’t exist or doesn’t matter. It does matter if we can, with impunity, kill one another and embrace it as a ‘right’ and a ‘good.’

Lord have mercy on us all!

 

For MORE on Humanist Manifesto I: