I recently read the comments that Joan Chand’oiseau made in response to the sign in Dr. Chantal Barry’s clinic that read: “Please be informed that the physician on duty today will not prescribe the birth control pill,”  in this article.

Then I read some of the comments at the bottom of the page.  Then I wrote this comment:

What is so concerning is the absolutism with which the likes of Joan Chand’oiseau approach the issue. “Dr. Barry’s religion has no place in my health or my reproductive health, period.”

In other words, only Joan Chand’oiseau’s religion of “reproductive rights” should be permitted, and not only permitted, but enforced by the state. And doctors who disagree with Ms. Chand’oiseau’s view of the world should be made to act against their consciences. Doctors should simply be unthinking dispensaries serving the demands of a public who, in Ms. Chand’oiseau’s eyes, could only have her worldview – none other could be possible.

And, there should be no doctors for those Canadians who align themselves with Dr. Chantal Barry’s belief that the BCP is both poor medicine and morally unacceptable.

And then I thought to myself, it’s a scary, scary world.

The Canadian Medical Association points out in their article entitled, “Canadians want end-of-life care brought out of the shadows – CMA seeks to bring finding of national dialogue to Supreme Court of Canada“ that:

— MPs from all three parties voted unanimously to pass a resolution urging creation of a panCanadian strategy on palliative care.

“This was a very positive development for palliative care,” Dr. Francescutti said.  “We had been concerned that assisted death was sucking up all the attention from the crying need for palliative care in this country, and we raised this concern with a lot of MPs.”

The national dialogue focused on three main issues: advance care directives, palliative care, and physician-assisted dying.

To the provocative title of this article, I say, if they want euthanasia “brought out of the shadows” why is it cloaked in euphemisms like “terminal palliative sedation” and “medical aid in dying”?  Has it occurred to them that crimes like homicide are usually performed “in the shadows” and ought not to be brought out except to prosecute the perpetrators?

It was a bit of an intense battle, and watching it again, I realize that I had been unable to make a point or two which happens in such debates.

One of the points I was trying to make before I was cut off, had to do with the nurses in Belgium who were acting outside of their legal boundaries. A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (June, 2010) indicated that the law was widely abused in that country. Almost one-third of euthanasia deaths were illegally performed without patient consent.

The researchers found that a fifth of nurses admitted being involved in the assisted suicide of a patient. But nearly half of these  –  120 of 248  –  also said there was no consent.

“The nurses in our study operated beyond the legal margins of their profession,” said the report’s authors. “It is likely many nurses ‘ under-reported’ their involvement for fear of admitting an illegal activity.”

The guidelines that Francois kept talking about will ultimately be seen as infringements on a perceived “right” to euthanasia. Much like the abortion issue now, where discussions on policy are virtually impossible, because any rational discourse is seen as an infringement on the so-called “constitutional right to abortion,” I think euthanasia will go the same way.  We will have little recourse when individuals who are not terminally ill or dying will claim their “right” and request death.

And I think that there will be serious issues with protection of conscience for physicians.

Moreover, “medical aid in dying “, as the law calls it, must be offered without exception by all public institutions in Quebec – hospitals, long-term care centres, CLSCs – regardless of the convictions of the management or staff of the institution.

I find that very troubling.

This is interesting, given that only a few weeks ago there was a bit of a kerfuffle over some doctors in Ottawa who were exercising their conscience rights and refusing to prescribe the Pill, both for medical and moral reasons.

Now the College of Physicians and Surgeons are reviewing their policy:

The College’s Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code policy is currently being reviewed. This policy sets out physicians’ legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) and the College’s expectations that physicians will respect the fundamental rights of those who seek their medical services. It aims to assist the profession in understanding its existing legal and professional obligations, and provide physicians with guidance about how to comply with these obligations in everyday practice.

They are also looking for input, for people to e-mail them with their comments, or fill out a brief on-line survey.  Given the importance of this issue, I think people should respond and protect our doctors.

As this CBC article notes: Harper won’t fund abortion globally because it’s ‘extremely divisive’.

“We’re trying to rally a broad public consensus behind what we’re doing, and you can’t rally a consensus on that issue, as you know well in this country,” he said.

“We have taxpayers’ money and we have great needs”

Exactly.  So then why on earth are we funding abortion at home, here in Canada?

I’ve posted before on Jackson Doughart.  He is an intelligent commentator and I often find his pieces in the National Post poignant and refreshing.

Well, in collaboration with several other writers, he’s started a blog.  The Hustings.

And as I suspected, it’s poignant, refreshing and intelligent.

You can sign up for a Friday “round-up” of the topics and arguments covered on the site from the past week, complete with direct links to the site for pieces that may interest you.

They have only been publishing for a bit more than a week, but they have already posted 25 articles.

Help promote the blog, read it, send feedback and boost their page views etc.  You can view it here.

And, of course, I especially liked this article that discusses

the issue of abortion policy in Canada, with Jackson Doughart seeing a bright spot for the pro-life cause in Justin Trudeau’s dark new mandate.

Grin.

Thankfully, the PEI government is resisting pressure to have abortions performed on the Island.  Make no mistake, the pressure is intense.

A press conference will held tomorrow by the US-based National Abortion Federation.  Their media advisory goes as follows:

On Wednesday, May 28 representatives from the National Abortion Federation, the University of Prince Edward Island and Dr. Robyn MacQuarrie, a gynecologist who is willing to provide abortion care in PEI, will discuss a proposal to bring abortion care to the province. This proposal has been presented to the PEI Medical Advisory Committee; however, it has not been moved forward even though it would promote women’s health and be cost‐positive for the province.

We therefore ask, on what basis is the project proposal for a Termination of Pregnancy Service not being approved?

On what basis is the province of PEI continuing to refuse to provide the women of PEI with access to a medically necessary service that it is their constitutionally protected right to access?

Really?  “Medically necessary” and “constitutionally protected right”.  Wow.  That rhetoric is really getting old. Certainly no one is buying that anymore.

Fortunately, the CBC actually gave airtime to the PEI Right Association.

P.E.I.  Right to Life president Holly Pierlot said she’s pleased government is not moving forward with a plan to have abortions performed in the province, but added the status quo isn’t where she wants the province to stay when it comes to abortion.

She wants government to take a stronger stand against the procedure.”We would like the government to base their decision on the science about the long-term impacts of abortion on women, and begin to create policy that reflect real health care, not health care put forward as a euphemism for abortion on demand,” said Pierlot.

We need to hear more about the long term health impacts on women and their families.

Despite public funding of abortion services that take place off Prince Edward Island, the National Abortion Federation is pushing to have the procedure take place on the Island.

Dawn Fowler, Canadian director of the National Abortion Federation, says her organization has presented a business case to the Robert Ghiz government with the aim to make abortion services available to women in P.E.I.

According to this article in the Guardian, Fowler has three abortionists willing to cross over to the Island to perform abortions in the hospital’s ambulatory care rooms.

Not surprisingly, the government is resisting this move.  But Fowler seems determined.

The federation is planning a news conference in Charlottetown next Wednesday that will include one of the physicians willing to offer abortion services in P.E.I.