Doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control pills have become the focus of a debate over physicians' rights to freedom of conscience and religion when practicing medicine.

An Alberta doctor faces a human rights complaint for posting a notice at the clinic where she works that she will not prescribe the pill. Earlier this year, three Ottawa doctors came under fire for similar reasons. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is doing a public consultation on its guidelines, which could be revamped to restrict doctors' rights to abstain from legal medical practices on religious or conscientious grounds.

For Dr. Howie Bright, past president of the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians' Societies, the attack on birth control is a "fairly discrete target because it sounds weird that a modern doctor" would not prescribe contraception and is likely to "generate reaction."

The much larger threat Bright sees looming for doctors is euthanasia, because when Quebec's new law comes into effect it will force doctors to refer patients for euthanasia, even if they will be legally able to opt out of performing the procedure.

"The day they tell me I have to be complicit in killing my patients is the day I quit practicing medicine," said Bright, a family physician in Chilliwack, British Columbia.

"When you start going through human rights commission to constrain doctors, basically we have a coercive state," he said. "Our society is big enough and broad enough we can tolerate each other. We don't need to be coercive toward each other."

In cases where the exercise of a religious belief is not life-threatening, there should be great care in "breaching such important and fundamental rights as freedom of conscience and freedom of religion," said McGill University bioethicist Margaret Somerville.

Though many Catholics ignore the church's teaching on artificial birth control, "one of the reasons some doctors won't prescribe it is that sometimes they act as abortifacients -- not just preventing conception but preventing the implantation of the embryo in the uterus," said the founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.

Bright noted the World Health Organization has classified birth control pills among the highest level of carcinogens. They also increase the risk of fatal blood clots, he said.

The doctor said he had environmental concerns as well, because of the documented effects of widespread estrogens found in drinking water and contaminating waterways, affecting fish, frogs and people.

Somerville expressed concern over the way the debate that involves religious beliefs is being handled.

"What they are doing here is a strategy of label-as-religious-and-dismiss," she said. "They are arguing religious beliefs have no valid role in the public square or in the exercise of a public profession paid for by taxpayers' money."

This tactic, she said, was "clearly used" in the Quebec government's special "dying with dignity" legislative committee report that led to the tabling of euthanasia Bill 52 that was passed into law in June. The report "dismissed religion" as something that "used to be important" but no longer has a role to play in the public square, Somerville said.

"If you want to get rid of views you don't like, label them religious, and you can then assume you can automatically dismiss them," she said.

Somerville also criticized the argument that since it is not illegal to have an abortion, or illegal to use contraception, "doctors have to do it."

She said many people "are tolerant until someone has a view they don't agree with," then their attitude is "we're going to force you to act way we want."

Bright said he feels great empathy for the doctors involved.

"I know how incredibly stressful this must be, to come into the public eye and be persecuted for your beliefs," he said.

"I have many other colleagues who practice according to their faith, and this is a big threat to them," he added.

Some doctors are preparing to pay the price of losing their licenses and their livelihoods rather than be coerced by the forces of political correctness to disobey their consciences, Bright said.

He said the medical ethicist Edmund Pellegrino described doctors as moral agents, just like patients.

"Both autonomies have to be respected, and there has to be a give and take and mutual respect for the doctor-patient relationship to be sustained," Bright said.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
elizbath james
7 years ago
Everyone have right to spend her life by her won way. So in my opinion doctors must consider thsi thing before denying the patients.
Louise Kaegi
7 years ago
Your "Doctor's Debate in Canada"makes good points, but like similar articles in the U.S., the missing ingredient is recognition of professional conscience per se NOT tied to a "certified religious belief". This failure to acknowledge non-affiliated even--or especially--atheists' conscience is a short-coming of our laws. In the U.S., our restoration of religious freedom law is the best we've got. I am a Catholic archdiocese of Chicago liaison-parish Respect Life Coordinator--and I strongly believe in freedom of exercise of conscience. But, as president of the non-sectrarian, non-partisan Hyde Park/Kenwood Pro-Life Association, I also stick up for atheists' conscience. A very helpful Website is the Canadian-headquartered Protection of Conscience Project, whose director Sean Murphy continues to point out "Referral: A False Compromise," title of an earlier essay (May 10, 2010), concluding " A false compromise--Activists and persons in positions of power or influence often argue that to require a conscientious objector to refer for a controversial procedure is a compromise that demonstrates respect for both the conscientious convictions of the objector and the autonomy of the patient. This simply raises, in a different form, the intractable problem of "striking a balance" between incommensurable goods. No better result is obtained if, seeking a common denominator, the problem is framed as an attempt to strike a balance between conflicting moral viewpoints. The objector refuses to refer because he believes X to be wrong, and he believes that referral makes him unacceptably complicit in X. His opponents dispute either his moral evaluation of X, or of referral, or both. They can insist on compulsory referral only if they deny the objector freedom of conscience altogether, or if they reject the objector's moral evaluation of X and/or referral in preference to their own, enforcing their (correct) views against his (erroneous) views with threats of discipline or dismissal. " Everyone engaged in protecting conscience should bookmark also, please, "Secular Pro-Life," which looks out for A-Z seculars (Atheists-Zoroastrians). We at HPKPLA also go to bat for atheists' conscience. There needs to be a law Louise Kaegi July 24, 2014 This is a blatant assertion of superior moral judgement and of a right to compel others to conform to it. Paternalistic it may be, but it is not a compromise."

The latest from america

Hidilyn Diaz became the Philippines’ first Olympic gold medal winner, set an Olympic record — and thanked her friends who prayed the Miraculous Medal novena.
Many Catholics are now devastated to lose access to a treasured rite that has nourished their spiritual lives for decades.
Jonathan CulbreathJuly 27, 2021
“As long as only the ministry, but not the heart and the spirit, speak in official church texts, the exodus from the world of faith will continue,” he wrote.
What makes Mary an appealing figure today is what has made her popular for 2,000 years: For all her connections to divine power, she has a lot in common with people who often get overlooked.