Speak up on behalf of Christian doctors
The following is a guest post by Jonathan Van Dyken. Please read to the end for a step-by-step guide to speaking up very effectively on this particular issue.
Do you live in Ontario and have a pro-life family doctor? If you value his survival, then you need to speak out NOW! The ancient Hippocratic oath which essentially required that a doctor, first of all, do no harm has been transformed into his professional obligation to do harm in certain situations. For example, he must either perform abortions or refer to another doctor who will. My understanding is that this requirement will also be in place for prescription of contraceptives, mutilation for sex changes, and also death by euthanasia (which has increasing likelihood of being legalized by the Supreme Court of Canada).
The CPSO Policy
Who would be the author of such horrible confusion? The new policy comes from the regulating College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). The government of Ontario says the CPSO must do more to conform to the Ontario Human Rights Code, the root of the confusion. The Ontario government appoints to the CPSO’s governing council 13 to 15 of its 32 to 34 members. These appointees are not doctors and have their terms decided by the provincial government.
Why does the Ontario government want to make every doctor a partner in killing people? Long ago monks in monasteries cared for the sick because of love for neighbour. The Church started hospitals and universities in which the sanctity of human life was recognized. Today the civil government controls hospitals and universities, and secular humanists are the majority. They had the sexual revolution in the 1960s and don’t believe in God, but traditional morality still limits them. For example, after 1988 Canada no longer had any law restricting abortion, but there were still many doctors who refused to do it or refer for it. So although abortion is not illegal and we are taxed to pay for it, doing away with a pre-born child is not as easy as the secular humanists would like.
Our Freedoms and Liberties
But what about freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and association? These were our inheritance from England, meant to protect us from a capricious state, and originally useful to the secular humanists, too. For example, universities used to think freedom of speech was very important. My understanding is that once the secular humanists were a majority and their religion had evolved away from traditional morality, they found these freedoms to be more of an obstacle than a help. Or maybe increasing socialism, the attitude that “the government should do something about it” was the cause. Anyway, the secular humanist solution was the addition of new group rights that, intentionally or otherwise, will undermine and effectually do away with the old individual rights. Thus the Ontario Human Rights Code came into existence. Of course, the secular humanists say that the older rights still exist but they have to be “balanced” with the new rights which increase the power of the state and its potential for caprice.
In the case of freedom of religion, “balance” effectually means that the secular humanist judges will determine which Christian beliefs are trivial and which are significant. It means that the Christian doctor may not speak of his faith to his patients nor warn them against immoral living. It means that if he is unwilling to kill a pre-born child then he must recommend a doctor who will. Please read the second half of the draft policy. But be careful! Secular humanists make different meanings and emphases than we do when they choose such words as “rights”, “religion”, “health services”, “harm”, “dignity”, and “personal”.
Where can you read the draft policy? Can you protest it? Go to the CPSO consultation site. The CPSO that regulates Ontario’s medical profession has tentatively approved the policy but will accept public input until February 20. Take the survey, read comments of others, and write one or two yourself. I found survey questions 11, 13, and 15 to be the most important, chose “strongly oppose” for them, and expanded on my response to them. Survey results from a consultation in the summer of 2014 show that many Canadians appear to agree that a doctor should refer if he will not perform a procedure he thinks is wrong. But what does God require in the sixth commandment? I am not to dishonour, hate, injure, or kill my neighbour by thoughts, words, or gestures, and much less by deeds, whether personally OR THROUGH ANOTHER.
Here is a brief step-by-step guide to taking the survey:
- Have you read the 6-page draft policy? Survey question 4 asks whether you have read it. To read it, click on the blue “Professional Obligations and Human Rights” link on the Web page in step 2.
- Go to http://policyconsult.cpso.on.ca/?page_id=5165 This should be the “Professional Obligations and Human Rights” consultation page.
- There’s a headline “PROVIDE YOUR FEEDBACK” on the right side near the top. Click on “online survey“.
- Questions 1 to 4 are straightforward questions about you.
- Questions 5 to 10 are about the clarity and comprehensiveness of the survey and the meaning of discrimination. I would choose “Neither agree nor disagree” for all the statements in Questions 5, 7, 8, and 10. That’s eighteen clicks of your mouse button.
- Questions 11 to 16 are the reason you’re taking this survey. I’d advise choosing “Strongly Oppose” for each of the five expectations in Question 11. (Canada is a free country, but Ontario’s government appears to be attempting to convert everybody to secular humanism.) Again choose “Strongly Oppose” for each of the six expectations in Question 13. Referral for abortion or euthanasia is forbidden in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 105. Also choose “Strongly Oppose” for question 15. Its emergency situation requirement is “very broad and will be open to abuse” according to the Christian Medical Society. If you write comments for Questions 12 and 14, then I recommend you also e-mail them to [email protected] or post them yourself on the discussion forum
- Questions 17 to 23 are straightforward questions about your consultation experience.
ARPA Note: This draft policy is in response to Policy 5-08 from last summer. As we wrote about here, ARPA Canada provided a formal submission to the CPSO on August 5. Now is your turn to speak up against this policy, in defense of the rights and freedoms of Christian doctors.