Conscience Legislation Needed to Stop Abuse of Authority Ottawa, 12 May, 2004 Canadian Physicians for Life
The recent near-failing of a medical student at a Canadian university, solely because the student has pro-life convictions, shows how intolerant some people have become about choices they dislike. For years, Canadian Physicians for Life has received anecdotal complaints from students who suspect that their medical school admission interview went badly after they truthfully answered questions which probed for pro-life beliefs. This recent case was blatant and completely documented, created undue anxiety for the student, and only ended after many months of unsuccessful appeals of the teachers' intolerant actions. A modern democracy should have a keen interest in protecting vulnerable students from coercion by preceptors and professors who are unaware of, or insensitive to, the concept of freedom of conscience.
We don't screen immigrants to Canada on the basis of race or religion. Why should such litmus tests be applied to citizens applying to enter key professions? Ethics profiling is no less objectionable than racial profiling.
Freedom of conscience, it seems, is now granted freely only to those whose views are acceptable to an authoritarian, secularist establishment. Others must endure the enormous costs and stress of legal challenges or implore sympathetic fellow citizens to petition those in power on their behalf. Until this situation is corrected, the Canadian experiment in pluralism will remain in a delayed adolescence.
Sincere proponents of multiculturalism and pluralism understand the importance of protection of conscience. But they must come to recognize that too many in positions of power need statutory reminders to treat fairly those who disagree with them about the damage abortion does to women and children.
Basic conscience protection such as that provided in Bill C-276 begins to address the problems of abuse of authority and ethics profiling which lead to the kind of injustice seen in the recent case of the medical student. Such abuses must be explicitly treated in law, not left to an ad-hoc scramble by the victim and his or her friends.
The time is long overdue for the Parliament of Canada to follow the lead of countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, and 46 American states to protect and clarify freedom of conscience for Canadian health care workers. In addition to necessary employment protection, the proposed Canadian legislation corrects deficiencies found in many such laws by explicitly protecting persons of conscience from exclusion from health sciences education and from discrimination by professional licensing bodies.
Will Johnston, MD President, Canadian Physicians for Life
Canadian Physicians for Life 29 Moore Street, R.R. # 2 Richmond ON K0A 2Z0 ph/fax: 613-728-LIFE (5433) info@physiciansforlife.ca
What the NASW (National Association of Social Workers) says:
On August 21, the Bush Administration released a draft regulation that would limit the rights of patients to receive complete reproductive health information. There is a 30 day comment period. It ends on September 20.
Action Requested Send your comments to Secretary Mike Leavitt at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Background The new rule expands the universe of providers that can refuse contraception and other health services, including abortion based on their conscience. This means that women may be denied access to birth control options if their provider is morally opposed to that option.
The rule leaves open the possibility that -- based on religious beliefs -- institutions and individuals can deny women access to birth control. It also permits individuals to refuse to provide information and counseling about basic heath care services. Additionally, it expands existing laws by permitting a wider range of health care professionals to refuse to provide even referral information for abortions.
The regulation puts other federal and state laws and policies that protect women's access to birth control in serious jeopardy, including state laws that require hospitals to provide sexual-assault survivors with access to emergency contraception.
Currently, there are "crisis pregnancy centers" that look like health centers, but offer woefully limited services and only provide the reproductive healthcare options that fit their agenda: NO birth control, NO abortion, and NO choice for women and families who need it.
At a time when 17 million women are in need of publicly-supported reproductive health care services, this regulation has a disparate impact on the low-income, uninsured and under-insured women who rely on these programs for their health information and services.
What I wrote to Leavitt:
The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt Secretary of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Ave., S.W. Rm. 615-F Washington, DC 20201
Re: SUPPORT "Conscience" Regulation
Dear Secretary Leavitt:
As a professional social worker and member of the National Association of Social Workers, I write to ask that you DO issue the rule allowing medical and health care providers to deny services based on their moral beliefs.
This rule ensures that the rights of all involved in the professional health care field are being advocated for, and does not place a woman's health or desires above that of the practitioners. If we are to extend equal rights to women regarding health care, then we all need to extend it to the practitioners and not cause them undue anxiety about their professional standing and the violation of their spiritual beliefs.
The revised regulation would allow institutions and individuals, based solely on religious beliefs, to provide alternative information and counseling about basic health care services that many women do not know exist. In addition, the proposed regulation would expand a wider range of health care professionals who can refuse to provide information and referrals for abortions.
The proposed regulations will maximize the amount of information available to patients about their health needs, as currently alternative or natural methods are presumed to be of little interest to female patients.
I think it is perfectly all right to be skeptical about the news and the information we get through various forms of media (Jon Stewart, LA Times, YouTube, etc). There are many people out there who are informed, and many more out there who are misinformed through mediums such as the Jon Stewart show or only look at once source or paradigm. Looking at the socioenvironmental influences that are related to homosexuality, or sexuality in general, or even in a general identity formation process is a very tall order. One has to consider the impacts of the micro, meso, and macro systems: the way these impact the individual, intersystem interaction that in turn affects the individual, and I'm sure there are anomalies as well. (Sources to read on systems: Bronfenbrenner, Vygotsky, Roberta Greene, Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman).
However science is not clear-cut either, there are paradigms that create one method of viewing and approaching phenonmena and align all other possible explanations as preposterous. I believe there is a general consensus among the public that science is the one area of study that can offer precise answers to complex questions without there being any room for error. Yet, how many people do you think realize that mathematics is based on abstractions? Or that looking at the genetic similarity among a certain population may not be for sexuality, but how open they are regarding that sexual orientation? (remind me to find source for you at home) Just because six homosexual men share a genetic similarity does not mean that this is generalizable to the rest of the homosexual population. Perhaps it is only applicable to those who are openly homosexual, those who have a predisposition for disease or deviancy, or whatever else can be offered! Genetics does not tell us exactly what the similarity lies in, just to what it is correlated. There are genetics that predispose individuals to alcoholism, but it does not mean that these people will indefinitely become alcoholics. Again, in addressing predispositions we approach the topic of the socioenvironmental impact on the individual. If homosexuality were purely biological, there are plenty of people who have conquered it (ie, Exodus International) through willpower and self discipline.
Biases exist everywhere, from who practices the "right" religion (although you will find me in that camp) to those who want to find particular data and only looks for that "perfect" data set (again the issue of a highly selective paradigm). There are even biases in grants for research! It's all very political, which is contrary to what we hope science to be.
In regards to sexuality stemming from a choice, I can just hear the battle cry of the opposing camps! If you make the active choice to be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, (or plug in any other hot-button topic), then you are able to make the choice to not do that behavior. If abortion is a choice, then you also have the pre-emptive choice of keeping pants zipped and legs closed. If homosexuality is a choice, then you also have the option to revert back into heterosexuality. If you choose to be homosexual, then you choose to align yourself with like-minded people, if you choose homosexuality, you choose that lifestyle, you choose that stereotype, you actively and consciously decide it.
