"....74. The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions, which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust, but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive, can serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.

In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).

To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane. ..." (emphasis mine).

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE

Clementine Hall

Saturday, 24 February 2007

http://www.academiavita.org/template.jsp?sez=AssembleaGenerale&pag=2007/rel2007/benxvi/discbenxvi&lang=english

"Therefore, I ask the Lord to send among you, dear brothers and sisters, and among those dedicated to science, medicine, law and politics, witnesses endowed with true and upright consciences in order to defend and promote the "splendour of the truth" and to sustain the gift and mystery of life.

"I trust in your help dearest professionals, philosophers, theologians, scientists and doctors. In a society at times chaotic and violent, with your cultural qualifications, by teaching and by example, you can contribute to awakening in many hearts the eloquent and clear voice of conscience.

"The Second Vatican Council teaches us that "man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. His dignity lies in observing this law, and by it he will be judged" (Gaudium et Spes, n. 16). The Council has offered wise directives so that "the faithful should learn to distinguish carefully between the rights and the duties which they have as belonging to the Church and those which fall to them as members of the human society", and "they will strive to unite the two harmoniously, remembering that in every temporal affair they are to be guided by a Christian conscience, since not even in temporal business may any human activity be withdrawn from God's dominion" (Lumen Gentium, n. 36). "

Alberta College of Physicians: Human Rights Draft: See this 4mycanada link for info:http://www.4mycanada.ca/Emails/20080928.html

Ontario HRC and College of Physicians assault freedom of conscience: - Read: Speaking the power to truth

Draft policy articulates physicians’ obligations under Human Rights Code

Council has approved an external consultation of a draft policy entitled Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code. The policy is intended to assist the profession in understanding their legal obligations and provides guidance on how to comply with these obligations in everyday practice.

On June 30, 2008, changes will be introduced to the Ontario Human Rights system which will provide Ontarians with increased access to the Human Rights Tribunal. This new system is expected to result in a significant increase in the number of hearings on human rights complaints made to the Tribunal. As a result of these changes, Council recognized the importance of providing guidance to the profession at this time.

All services that physicians provide – including decisions to accept or refuse individuals as patients, decisions about providing treatment or granting referrals to existing patients, and decisions to end a doctor-patient relationship - are subject to the obligations of the Human Rights Code.

The draft policy points out that this does not prevent physicians from exercising professional judgement in relation to their own clinical competence. “Physicians are always expected to practise medicine in keeping with their level of clinical competence to ensure they provide patients with quality health care in a safe manner,” states the draft policy.

Please visit the website – www.cpso.on.ca – to review the complete draft and for more information about providing feedback

Key Sections of draft policy

ii) Moral or Religious Beliefs

Personal beliefs and values and cultural and religious practices are central to the lives of physicians and their patients. However, as a physician’s responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical treatment and services they require. Physicians should be aware that decisions to restrict medical services offered, to accept individuals as patients or to end physician-patient relationships that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the Code, and/or constitute professional misconduct.

Contravention of the Code

Within the Code, there is no defence for refusing to provide a service on the basis of one of the prohibited grounds. This means that a physician who refuses to provide a service or refuses to accept a patient on the basis of a prohibited ground such as sex or sexual orientation may be acting contrary to the Code, even if the refusal is based on the physician’s moral or religious belief.5

[ 5 This could occur if the physician’s decision to refuse to provide a service, though motivated by religious belief, has the effect of denying an individual access to medical services on one of the protected grounds. For example, a physician who is opposed to same sex procreation for religious reasons and therefore refuses to refer a homosexual couple for fertility treatment may be in breach of the Code.]

Professional Misconduct

Irrespective of whether a physician’s actions are found to have violated the Code, the physician’s conduct could constitute an act of professional misconduct. If physicians limit their practice, refuse to accept individuals as patients, or end a physician-patient relationship on the basis of moral or religious belief, the College expects physicians to do the following11: . . .

. . . Tell patients about their right to see another physician with whom they can discuss their situation and ensure they have sufficient information to exercise that right. If patients or potential patients cannot readily make their own arrangements to see another doctor or health care provider, physicians must ensure arrangements are made, without delay, for another doctor to take over their care. The College will consider the extent to which a physician has complied with this guidance, when evaluating whether the physician’s behaviour constitutes professional misconduct.