Extract Conscience clauses in this country are becoming dangerously broad and over-inclusive. What was once a protection for physicians who objected to performing abortions is now a tool for religious activists to obstruct a patient’s right to contraceptives, sterilization, and any other medical procedure that they feel is “morally” wrong. The Legislature must place limits on these clauses to protect patients’ rights. At the onset of new medical research on stem cells and infertility treatments, it is crucial that Congress enact legislation that will protect patients’ rights to these treatments. There needs to be a balance between the doctor’s right of conscience and the patient’s right to treatment.
Abstract The paper covers a wide scope in an attempt to examine, in the space available, some of the central cultural and constitutional facts that form the background to recent legal decisions that touch on “religious liberty” in Canada. Important, as well, are recent insights from political theorists, particularly those who examine the nature of liberalism. . . This Article will show that in the last decade the Canadian judicial system has heard a series of important cases in which principles were raised that give a truly Canadian perspective to the relationship between church and state, and the person and the community, in ways that are not developed elsewhere. These cases may provide useful grounding to the principles of accommodation of religion in the public sphere and inclusion of religion in the public sphere, and, further, may reduce the bifurcations that obscure issues where they should elucidate.
Extract Public health officials may have legitimate questions about the merits of HPV vaccine mandates, in light of the financial and logistic burdens these may impose on families and schools, and also may be uncertain about adverse-event rates in mass-scale programs. But given that the moral objections to requiring HPV vaccination are largely emotional, this source of resistance to mandates is difficult to justify.
Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman, Bernard M. Dickens
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Abstract National and international courts and tribunals are increasingly ruling that although states may aim to deter unlawful abortion by criminal penalties, they bear a parallel duty to inform physicians and patients of when abortion is lawful. The fear is that women are unjustly denied safe medical procedures to which they are legally entitled, because without such information physicians are deterred from involvement. With particular attention to the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, the Constitutional Court of Colombia, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, and the US Supreme Court, decisions are explained that show the responsibility of states to make rights to legal abortion transparent. Litigants are persuading judges to apply rights to reproductive health and human rights to require states’ explanations of when abortion is lawful, and governments are increasingly inspired to publicize regulations or guidelines on when abortion will attract neither police nor prosecutors’ scrutiny.
Extract Conscience is a tricky business. Some interpret its personal beacon as the guide to universal truth and undoubtedly many of the health care providers who refuse to treat or refer or inform their patients do so in the sincere belief that it is in the patients’ own interests, regardless of how those patients might view the matter themselves. But the assumption that one’s own conscience is the conscience of the world is fraught with dangers. As C.S. Lewis wrote, “of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Extract Conclusion Medical ethics and the practice of medicine as an act of conscience have become integral to this scientifically unsettled debate. Before medication is prescribed or dispensed, a prudent practitioner weighs carefully the risks of the medication with the potential benefits. 70 Laws that require a medical professional to perform an act against his or her best judgment violate the code of ethics of that profession to do no harm in the professional’s highest and best medical judgment. It ought to be alarming that a patient’s expectations may become the standard for professional action. Ought medical professionals prescribe and dispense what the patient wants even if it harms him or her, just because the patient’s autonomy allows a patient to live a risky life? 71 Family planning deserves a principled approach carried out with integrity that protects the parties, and that approach should be reflected in legal policy and lawmaking.
Should doctors and pharmacists be able to refuse to give out emergency contraceptives based on conscientious objections? Sexual freedom that was protected by the Supreme Court’s emancipation of sexuality from reproduction has allowed emergency contraceptives to be used for any purpose an individual desires, rather than for the best and most responsible medical purposes. Therefore, when a medical professional has concerns that an emergency contraceptive may harm the health of his or her patients or customers or their offspring, a conscientious objection provided by law seems more appropriate than a legal requirement to dispense despite objections, at least until a medical and legal consensus can be reached.
Extract The trend toward freedom of religion and conscience has been building over the past centuries. Certainly, the last hundred years have brought a greater tolerance of religious ideas in England, with restrictions on Catholic finally lifted in the early 19 th century, and the United States has, since the late 18th century enshrined religious freedom as a preeminent right. There is thus reason to hope that we may be moving toward a situation in which the precedent will be established that provides a greater understanding and accommodation of the conscience of the individual healthcare provider. However, there is not unanimity of opinion and contradictory decisions about the freedom of conscience in this area continue. “This issue is the San Andreas Fault of our culture,” said Gene Rudd of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. “How we decide this is going to have a long-lasting impact on our society.”
Challenges to the conscience of a health care professional certainly continue in common law countries, and the current system of dealing with such issues in these countries is far from adequate, or uniform. The problems will only grow as new unethical procedures become seen as “the norm” by some and as a “right” by others. . . . Common law countries certainly have much to do to develop more fully the ideal of a conscience clause for those in the medical field. However, the fact that in most common law countries some accommodation at least seems to be made for the conscience of those in the health care field provides hope.
Anderson C. Respect for Conscience in Common Law Countries. In: Sgreccia E, Laffitte J editors. Proceedings of the 13th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life. 2007;102-114.
Abstract The issue of pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control or emergency contraception recently has become a major debate in the battle over reproductive rights. Several states have enacted legislation to protect refusing pharmacists, and many more are considering such laws. I explore these new laws against the backdrop of the existing legal landscape governing the actions of pharmacists, including tort law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and free exercise jurisprudence. I then consider how courts might interpret refusal clauses upon which pharmacists may rely. I argue that courts should read pharmacist refusal statutes narrowly by limiting the protected act of conscience to the actual refusal to dispense medication, and not extending protection to behavior that could violate the pharmacist’s duty of care to patients. Such an approach will not only minimize the impact of refusals on the interests of patients and employers, but will meld these new statutes with the existing legal framework addressing religious objectors, which has consistently shown concern for third-party rights.
Extract I am deeply disturbed by the negative responses (posted as e-letters) to the guest editorial by Sanda Rogers and Jocelyn Downie. Most of the authors articulate an uncompromising ideological position in favour of the right to life of a fetus, while ignoring the basic human rights of women who, presumably, are their patients. . . . Why should an individual doctor’s personal beliefs trump the legal definition of “person” and of “human being,” violate the constitutionally entrenched rights of women to sexual and reproductive autonomy, and violate international human rights?
Extract Given that abortion and its regulation and restriction continue to be hotly debated in Canada, it is not simply “like any other medical procedure.” It is also inaccurate to portray a physician who exercises a right of conscientious objection to participating in abortion as violating CMA policy. The 1988 CMA Policy on Induced Abortion specifically allows for such a right of conscientious objection.
