{"id":17359,"date":"2026-04-13T22:41:13","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T05:41:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/library.consciencelaws.org\/?p=17359"},"modified":"2026-04-13T22:41:16","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T05:41:16","slug":"submission-to-the-alberta-department-of-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/library.consciencelaws.org\/?p=17359","title":{"rendered":"Submission to the Alberta Department of Justice"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Re: 2026 Bill 18 (Alberta) Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Protection of Conscience Project<\/h4>\n\n\n
\n
\"Protection
Protection of Conscience Project<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The affirmation in Section 8 of the freedom of nurse and medical practitioners to refuse to provide EAS\/MAiD and related opinions is satisfactory. However, the section should be amended to include affirmation of their freedom to refuse to actively assist in or facilitate the provision of EAS\/MAiD, and to prohibit bullying or harassment of and discrimination against those who refuse to collaborate in the services. Further: these provisions should be applied to all regulated health professionals, since medical and nurse practitioners are not the only regulated health professionals likely to be called upon to collaborate in EAS\/MAiD.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Affirmation of the freedom of health facility operators to refuse to permit EAS\/MAiD on their premises is laudable and necessary from the perspective of freedom of conscience. However, the provision that affirms their freedom to refuse to permit the provision of opinions related to EAS\/MAiD on their premises invites confusion and conflict. Refusing to permit opinions about the foreseeability of natural death or \u201celigibility\u201d for EAS\/MAiD is not the same as refusal to permit evaluations or assessments that would form the basis for such opinions. Assuming that Bill 18 is intended to affirm the freedom of the operators of health care facilities to refuse to allow EAS\/MAiD assessments in their premises, that is what Section 8 should say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those refusing for reasons of conscience to preserve their moral\/professional integrity should be able to step aside to avoid complicity in EAS\/MAiD, and individuals refused should be able to to seek the services from willing practitioners and facilities. Bill 18 strikes this balance by requiring refusing practitioners or facilities to direct individuals to a resource that can reasonably be expected to provide accurate information about all available medical options, not to an EAS\/MAiD practitioner or a resource dedicated to EAS\/MAiD.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It does not appear that the establishment of exclusion zones contemplated in Bill 18 is essential to ensure the protection of freedom of conscience in the operation of a health care facility, though in some circumstances it may be desirable for the protection of patients, or from the perspective of the Alberta government or of a particular facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
Table of Contents<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

I.    Introduction<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 II.    Relevant considerations<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

III.    Section 8<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n