YOU SHOULDN’T LOSE YOUR JOB BECAUSE OF YOUR MORALS... Neither Should Your Doctor! Everyone has the right to live their lives according to their moral convictions. This means doctors too. The possible legalization of euthanasia puts doctors in a difficult position. Many cannot assist in a patient’s death because of their professional, moral or ethical commitments. There are plans in place that would make it impossible for these doctors to maintain their integrity on this and other issues. To learn more about possible solutions and how you can help, go to http://www.moralconvictions.ca/ontario Transcript as featured on Information Morning (CBC) Nova Scotia September 17/2015: INTRO: "When the Canadian Medical Association met in Halifax recently, one of the issues on the agenda was physician-assisted death. Part of the discussion focused on whether doctors could be forced to participate in the procedure, against their moral convictions. Larry Worthen is executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada. He brings us this commentary:" The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada the Carter case on assisted death has significant implications for the practice of medicine in this country. Groups like the one I represent were pleased that an option was presented at the CMA meetings that respected the autonomy of the patient to choose assisted death while at the same time protecting the physician who has a conscientious objection to the procedure. In the Carter decision, the Supreme Court ruled that no health professional could be forced to participate in assisted death against their will. Unfortunately, there are those who would like the regulatory agencies and government to force doctors to refer for assisted death even when their conscience will not allow it. For these conscientious objectors a referral means approval, recommendation and facilitation by the referring physician. This amounts to participation, as it is a necessary step that brings the patient closer to a premature death. The Carter decision allows Canadian citizens to ask physicians to end their lives, but is it fair for the same citizens to require that an unwilling physician be forced to aid and abet them in this practice? This is what others have suggested, ironically under the banner of choice. Many doctors have moral convictions on assisted death that come from their professional judgment, the Hippocratic oath, or their religion or creed. Assisted death is not as clear-cut as people think. For example, the criteria laid out in the Carter decision allow people with disabilities and even people with mental health difficulties to access assisted death. This is of concern to members of these groups. Sometimes when patients ask to die, it is a cry for help and an indication that there is an underlying physical or psychological problem that needs to be resolved. This will be an ethical challenge for any doctor. For Christian doctors in particular, the stakes are very high: expert moral theologians have indicated that a referral for assisted death is formal cooperation in the death of the patient, and the moral equivalent of performing the act itself. From this perspective assisting in the patient’s death is not helping the patient, it is harming them. For the Christian it means breaking one of God’s ten commandments which is the fundamental duty owed to other human beings. As a minority, doctors who are in this position are protected by Charter of Rights and Freedoms – which says they cannot be discriminated against and that their freedom of conscience must be protected. It is not necessary that the majority of Canadians accepts or agrees with their position; this country is based on tolerance of minority perspectives and diverse viewpoints. The conscientious objectors view, which up until now was the Canadian consensus on assisted death, should be respected. The proposal that was supported by nearly two thirds of the voting delegates at the CMA’s General Council respected patient autonomy in this issue as well as conscience protection. When faced with a patient who requests assisted death, the physician with a conscience objection would first advise the patient of their objection. Next they would, like every other physician, probe to see if the patients desire is driven by some underlying problem. If the patient still wanted assisted death, the physician would explain clearly all of the options open to the patient (including assisted death) and advise how to access them. The objecting physician could still provide care to the patient unrelated to the assisted death until the death occurs. With this arrangement, it will be possible to maintain the physician patient relationship even though there is a fundamental difference of opinion on this basic choice. Let’s put the mechanisms in place to make this work so that we can get back to caring for patients. As Canadians we need to demonstrate both our tolerance and ingenuity to make such a system possible.
0 Comments
|
Father's Blog
Rev. Fr. Christopher Tracey
|