Deadly
prescription for Canadian doctors
By Paul Schratz
U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower once observed that in free
countries, "the agent may never become the master." If human rights
and freedoms are to flourish, he said, "government must operate with
its powers sharply defined and limited by the governed."
Presumably that would apply to the Canadian Medical Association as
well, which, as an agent for Canada's physicians, is now under
pressure to remove doctors' freedom of conscience on abortion.
How often have we seen this type of coercion before:
- Homosexual "rights," for instance, quickly evolve into an
obligation for others, in schools, employment, and even in the home.
- Euthanasia, where it has become a right, turns into societal and
economic pressure on patients and doctors to go along with it.
- Pharmacists who object to dispensing pills that cause death are
constantly struggling not to be compelled to comply with patients'
wishes.
Now Canada's doctors are being pressured to put the interests of
women who want abortions ahead of their own religious and moral
convictions.
The furor began about a year ago when the Canadian Medical
Association Journal published a guest editorial from two lawyers.
They criticized pro-life doctors who refuse to refer women to
abortionists, accusing them of "malpractice," a word guaranteed to
make many doctors sit up and think twice about their position.
The editorial generated a barrage of letters on the topic, until the
April 24, 2007, issue of the magazine, in which the CMA's director
of ethics made clear what the CMA's position is: doctors are under
no obligation either to perform an abortion or to refer patients to
an abortionist.
Now the National Abortion Federation, a U.S. lobby group, is
pressuring the CMA to change its policy and remove the freedom of
doctors to follow their religious and moral beliefs. In short, they
would be required to refer to abortionists.
Dr. Colin McMillan, the president of the CMA, has responded to the
abortion federation, saying the CMA policy on "induced abortion does
not violate our Code of Ethics ... nor does it treat women unfairly
or impede their access to critical health care," (which may be the
first time ending a baby's life has been termed "critical health
care").
Canadian Physicians for Life also wants none of the abortion
lobbyists' objectives. Considering what's likely coming down the
road with respect to reproductive technologies and euthanasia, now
is certainly not the time to weaken conscience protection for health
care workers, says Dr. Will Johnston, a Vancouver family physician
and president of the Canadian Physicians for Life.
Far from being content with the present policy, Physicians for Life
wants the CMA to actually strengthen protections for doctors who
don't want to be implicated in any way with abortion.
So all's well that ends well? Not necessarily. Dr. Jeff Blackmer,
the CMA's ethics officer, told the National Post that the CMA's
policy could be re-evaluated if there was a groundswell from the
membership one way or another, a legislative review of the issue by
government, or a significant decrease in abortion access.
That should prove disconcerting to pro-life doctors and Canadians
who want a doctor who isn't involved in abortion.
So here we have a U.S.-based abortion lobby organization trying to
further liberalize Canada's abortion lawlessness. Canada's medical
body deserves to hear from Canadians, who every poll shows are
opposed to unrestricted abortion on demand. Conscience protection is
too important an issue, especially on an issue as significant as
abortion.
Long before Eisenhower commented on rights and freedoms, Pope Leo
XIII noted that "man precedes the State." Presumably he precedes the
Canadian Medical Association too.
Following is contact information on this issue:
Physicians for Life:
info@physiciansforlife.ca.
|
Comment on the article above using this form...
|
