conscience rights

DEATH REFERRALS AND CONSCIENCE RIGHTS

nancyvalko assisted suicide, conscience rights, medical ethics

In his September 23, 2015 article “Ontario doctors squeezed on conscientious objection to assisted suicide” ,  Michael Cook states that

“The legalisation of physician-assisted suicide in Canada after February’s decision by the Supreme Court is starting to affect doctors. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has quietly issued a directive that conscientious objectors must help them find someone willing to do so.”

Mr. Cook also writes that such a directive requires unwilling doctors to make

“an effective referral to another health-care provider” defined as ‘a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician, other health-care professional, or agency’.”

and

“It was approved by College Council in March despite overwhelming opposition to the demand for ‘effective referral’.”

Personally and as a nurse, I could not refer for either abortion or physician-assisted suicide. Not only do I oppose these actions but I also don’t know any ethical or scandal-free organizations or practitioners that perform death procedures.

And does “mandated referral” also mean that I am forbidden to give any accurate but negative information about these procedures? Probably.

Here is what happened to nurses in Oregon after the physician-assisted suicide law took effect and even though the Oregon Nurses Association (ONA) is part of the American Nurses Association which opposes against assisted suicide.

The ONA’s 1997 guidelines on the “Role of the Registered Nurse in Assisted Suicide” states that

“ONA supports the patient’s right to self-determination and believes that nurses will and must play a primary role in end-of-life decisions.”

And here are some excerpts from that paper concerning those “Nurses Who Choose Not To Be Involved”:

According to the ONA, such nurses may:

“Conscientiously object to being involved in delivering care. You are obliged to provide for the patient’s safety, to avoid abandonment and withdraw only when assured that alternative sources of care are available to the patient.” (Emphasis added)

I faced such a situation myself years ago when I was told that there was no other nurse available when I refused to comply with a death decision. I was almost fired.

Furthermore, according to the position paper, such objecting Oregon nurses may not:

“Subject your patients or their families to unwarranted, judgmental comments or actions because of the patient’s choice to explore or select the option of assisted suicide.” (Emphasis added)
Or
“Subject your peers or other health care team members to unwarranted, judgmental comments or actions because of their decision to continue to provide care to a patient who has chosen assisted suicide.
Abandon or refuse to provide comfort and safety measures to the patient.” (Emphasis added)

My point is that mandated referral must be opposed. It is just another kind of required participation and denial of conscience rights that is intended to silence the objections of doctors and nurses and even threaten their careers.

But above all, conscience rights protect patients and their right to safe health care.

DISASTER IN CANADA-THE BIGGEST UNDERREPORTED STORY IN US MEDIA

nancyvalko assisted suicide, conscience rights

This February, The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that  the Canadian law that makes it illegal for anyone to help people end their own lives should be amended to allow doctors to help in specific situations. The court gave federal and provincial governments 12 months to craft legislation to respond to the ruling. Until then; the ban on doctor-assisted suicide stands. If the government doesn’t write a new law, the court’s exemption for physicians will stand.

Against this ghastly situation, however, there are welcome voices of opposition.

In a September article in the Canadian press titled “Quebec’s split over euthanasia a warning for Canada”, reporter Allan Woods writes:

But with time running out before Dec. 10 — the date that patients can begin requesting the procedure — hospitals and health-care providers are scrambling to draw up policies and find the staff who will carry out those patients’ wishes.
If that wasn’t tough enough, some of those who might be expected to lead the change — palliative care physicians and hospice administrators — have let it be known that they are instead digging trenches for the battle.

“The vocation of a palliative care hospice is to provide care, and that doesn’t include medical aid in dying,” said Élise Rheault, director of Maison Albatros Trois-Rivières.

Mr. Woods goes on to write that:

Quebec Health Minister Gaétan Barrette, a doctor himself, says the refusal by the province’s hospices to provide the procedure amounts to “administrative fundamentalism” and he accused palliative care doctors — who have a right under the law to conscientious objection — of acting like hospital owners rather than service providers.
“The law was very much framed as being in a continuum, along the lines of (euthanasia) being the end part of palliative care, so it is a logistical problem if the significant majority of palliative-care professionals are saying we will invoke conscientious objection,” said Dr. Eugene Bereza, director of the Centre for Applied Ethics at the McGill University Health Centre.

This horrific development in our neighbor Canada is a warning to those in the US, especially with a California law rammed though the legislature and now sitting on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk awaiting either his signature or veto.