Canada Court: Doctors Must Euthanize, Abort, or Refer

My experience with OHIP is, they will bureaucracy you to death (sometimes literally). It can be hard to find a regular doctor. Even harder to find a good doctor who is accepting new patients. If the doctor refuses to even refer you, that can quickly become part of the big bureaucracy machine, stonewalling you from getting treated. So in a way, I think doctors in the Canadian system should have to refer you. They are working within the provincial umbrella; not just for themselves.

If Canada wants to change their abortion policy, then that needs to go through the people, through the front door, openly and honestly--not by red taping people to death. Abortion is hardly the first healthcare need (or want) they have where they've done this red tape rubbish to people. Enough with the games.


Case in point: immigration. What if the doctor disagrees with immigration? Maybe they think Canada has too many Asians. Should he get to refuse treatment or referral to those immigrants whom he doesn't think should be there? Because that is by no means a hypothetical scenario: that is pretty much exactly what the driver's license office does whenever certain immigrants apply for an OHIP card.

Why is euthanasia of pets okay but euthanasia of humans is not?

usexpat97 said:

Why is euthanasia of pets okay but euthanasia of humans is not?

Click to expand...

The same reason the eating of animals is okay but the eating of humans is not.

grasping the after wind said:

The same reason the eating of animals is okay but the eating of humans is not.

Click to expand...

According to cannibals in the Pacific, we taste like pork.

There is nothing infringing about requiring a doctor who does not support abortion refer their patient to a doctor who will perform it or assist the patient in the abortion.

It's called a job. A person at Mcdonalds who sells 5 cheeseburgers to a 600lb customer might not support the idea of that person endangering their health, and might even be grieved at seeing it, but they sell them the food because it's their job.

I'm pro-life. I believe the doctors who are performing abortions in the majority of cases are doing something very immoral. But I do not believe in the slightest it's immoral to do your job and provide referrals.

And these snide remarks about Canada from people who do not live in Canada are quite amusing. Canada is one of the most free nations on the earth. Our free healthcare is genius and one of the greatest and most liberating things about our country... and I feel sorry for those who buy into the propaganda that it is socialist/communist in nature. It is humane in nature. But by all means, continue to buy into the propaganda and fear-mongering.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

Canada, last I heard, is one of the few places where private practice is outlawed. All doctors literally have the same employer, so it's not surprising that the state would exert such heavy control.

Click to expand...

I thought Canada did have private clinics and medical personnel? I think it horrible, a travesty even, for the government to order government doctors to kill or refer, but these are employees of the government and therefore subject to government rules for employment. But if the ruling applies to private clinics and doctors as well, then it is an evil thing.

grasping the after wind said:

The same reason the eating of animals is okay but the eating of humans is not.

Click to expand...

It's sad that there are people even asking such a question...

It's amazing how the pro-abortion crowd requires the other side to be complicit in their evil. Oh yes, you can refuse to perform an abortion, but you must recommend and refer to someone who will do the abortion.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

Canada, last I heard, is one of the few places where private practice is outlawed. All doctors literally have the same employer, so it's not surprising that the state would exert such heavy control.

Click to expand...

Was. It was outlawed in the past. There are private doctors now.

Sparagmos said:

What is the difference between options 2 & 3 in the poll?

I’m not seeing the problem with requiring the doctors to refer to another provider. It seems to preserve the religious right of the doctor and the medical right of the patient.

Click to expand...

So, some years back 60 minutes did a story on lawyers, where they sent in an fake foreign guy from an 'un-named small african country' who needed some help moving some money into off-shore bank accounts. They went a dozen lawyers, and some offered suggestions on who to contact, others explained how to do it without offering to help, and some openly offered to help move the money.

One guy, just one, said he was sorry, but this isn't something he would be willing to do. The fake undercover reporter, ask if he would recommend anyone. His response was amazing. It was that he wouldn't offer a referral for something this dirty, and the people he knew would be insult if he passed this on to them.

Well.... you need to see it from the perspective of the doctor who believes that those things above are murder.

If I asked you to murder someone, and you refused because obviously you consider murder to be disgustingly evil.... would you then give a referral? No you would not. You'd likely contact the police, but even if what I asked you to do was legal, you still wouldn't offer a referral would you?

Same thing.

Andrew77 said:

So, some years back 60 minutes did a story on lawyers, where they sent in an fake foreign guy from an 'un-named small african country' who needed some help moving some money into off-shore bank accounts. They went a dozen lawyers, and some offered suggestions on who to contact, others explained how to do it without offering to help, and some openly offered to help move the money.

One guy, just one, said he was sorry, but this isn't something he would be willing to do. The fake undercover reporter, ask if he would recommend anyone. His response was amazing. It was that he wouldn't offer a referral for something this dirty, and the people he knew would be insult if he passed this on to them.

Well.... you need to see it from the perspective of the doctor who believes that those things above are murder.

If I asked you to murder someone, and you refused because obviously you consider murder to be disgustingly evil.... would you then give a referral? No you would not. You'd likely contact the police, but even if what I asked you to do was legal, you still wouldn't offer a referral would you?

Same thing.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that was helpful.

My country, Canada, I'm ashamed to say, is run by a group of virtue-signaling, identitarian and increasingly fascist idiots. Simply consider our ridiculous Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. IMO, he is, by far, the worst Prime Minister in Canadian history. Inept, elitist, narcissistic, pandering, corrupt and as charismatic as a wet towel, he has led our country to repeated international humiliation and markedly closer to the darkness of radical neo-Marxism. The euthanasia thing is just another of his many progressivist initiatives designed to radically secularize Canada and dissolve the traditional pillars of a Judeo-Christian society: family, religion, individual responsibility, free speech, intrinsic human value, etc. I think many Canadians are beginning to revolt against these initiatives, however. There are at least five provinicial premiers who are opposing Trudeau's outrageous carbon tax. Alberta has ousted the NDP from power, electing a conservative provincial government. And the obscenely leftist premier in Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, was replaced recently by the Conservative, Doug Ford.

Hitler euthanized millions, it all started with indoctrination of the kids to think They where a super race.

redleghunter said:

The culture of death brooks no dissent. In Canada, doctors have been ordered to bend the knee.

Here’s the story: The Canadian Charter (Constitution) guarantees “freedom of conscience and religion”— a stronger and more explicit protection of religious liberty than our First Amendment. After the Supreme Court created a right to euthanasia, Ontario passed a law requiring doctors to kill legally eligible patients who want to die or provide an “effective referral” if they have moral objections — i.e., procure a doctor known by the dissenter to be willing to euthanize patients.

Catholic and other religious doctors sued to enforce their Charter liberties. Referring equals complicity, the doctors argued, and thus the law forces them to violate their religious beliefs and consciences.

In one of the world’s most important “medical conscience” rulings, a trial judge admitted the doctors’ Charter rights were indeed infringed. But he ruled that a right (nowhere mentioned in the Charter) to “equal and equitable access” to legal and government-funded medical interventions trumped doctors’ freedom of religion.

Now a Court of Appeals has affirmed, ruling that doctors must not only euthanize or refer, but also abort or refer, and provide any other controversial legal service that a patient might want or refer — their religious freedoms or moral consciences be damned. From, Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario:

The medical procedures to which the appellants object (an objection shared
to varying degrees by the individual appellants and members of the appellant
organizations) include: abortion, contraception (including emergency
contraception, tubal ligation, and vasectomies), infertility treatment for
heterosexual and homosexual patients, prescription of erectile dysfunction
medication, gender re-assignment surgery, and MAiD [medical aid in dying, i.e. lethal injection euthanasia]. It is impossible to conceive of more private, emotional or challenging issues for any patient.
​

When it comes to taking human life in abortion and euthanasia, it is impossible to conceive of a more private, emotional, or challenging issue for religiously and morally opposed doctors –particularly when the physician would consider it a grievous sin impacting her immortal soul to have any part in it. And those beliefs are supposed to be protected explicitly by the charter!

More at the link: Canada Court Doctors Must Euthanize Abort or Refer | National Review

A companion article which evokes the same questions here in the United States:

Opinion | Can Doctors Refuse to Treat a Patient?
​

Click to expand...

maybe they could refer to someone who could refer

DamianWarS said:

maybe they could refer to someone who could refer

Click to expand...

How about no? How about there are plenty of doctor's willing to perform the services so the patient just goes and finds one ?

grasping the after wind said:

How about no? How about there are plenty of doctor's willing to perform the services so the patient just goes and finds one ?

Click to expand...

I doubt much will happen if they refuse. The worst probably is get a fine, and if they wanted to take a stand they could refuse to pay the fine and if put in jail they could go on a hunger strike. However I doubt many are prepared to do that.

It doesn't just violate Christian or traditional values but the hippocratic oath too, at least some certainly will feel it does, even if they don't believe in God. I see it at one of those things not enforced.

redleghunter said:

Let's ask:

Any Canadians out there?

Click to expand...

government and laws don't have jurisdiction over my faith and I expect there to be a clash in values. If it comes to a point where I need to make a choice to follow the law or to follow Christ I will choose Christ and let the chips fall where they may. Americans seem to demand the law to mirror their values but Canadians just have a different expectation with those things. I would say the best thing for Doctors to do is not give out referrals if they are convicted to do so. Do you know what's going to happen? nothing at all.

DamianWarS said:

I doubt much will happen if they refuse. The worst probably is get a fine, and if they wanted to take a stand they could refuse to pay the fine and if put in jail they could go on a hunger strike. However I doubt many are prepared to do that.

It doesn't just violate Christian or traditional values but the hippocratic oath too, at least some certainly will feel it does, even if they don't believe in God. I see it at one of those things not enforced.

Click to expand...

If there is a law at some point there will be an authoritarian bureaucrat itching to enforce it.

grasping the after wind said:

If there is a law at some point there will be an authoritarian bureaucrat itching to enforce it.

Click to expand...

then those who don't agree with it will have to make a choice to serve the law or serve their higher standards. I think western Christians demand too many rights. If we do not have the right to do something this means we are not protected by the law but it in no way dictates what our faith may or may not be. if the law requires you to do something that violates your faith then it is quite simple, don't do it and your faith is preserved. if you are to be penalized by the law because of this then so be it.