Religious doctors who don’t want to refer patients for assisted dying have launched a hopeless court case

Derek Smith
Special to National Post 
Originally posted June 12, 2017

In a case being heard this week in an Ontario divisional court, a group of Christian doctors have launched a constitutional challenge against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The college requires religious doctors who refuse to offer medical assistance in dying (MAID) to give an “effective referral” so that the patient can receive the procedure from a willing doctor nearby.

The doctors say that the college has limited their religious freedom under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms unjustifiably. They argue that a referral endorses the procedure and helps kill, breaking God’s commandment. In their view, patients should have to find willing doctors themselves and “self-refer,” sparing religious objectors from sin and a guilty conscience.

The college should certainly accommodate religious objectors more than it currently does, but the lawsuit will likely fail. It deserves to fail.

Religious freedom sometimes has to yield to laws that prevent religious people from harming others. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized this in limiting religious freedom on a wide range of topics, including denials of blood transfusions, witnesses wearing niqabs in criminal trials, child custody disputes, accountability for unaccredited church schools and bans on Sunday shopping.

The article is here.

Is Age a Determinant Variable in Forgoing Treatment Decisions at the End of Life?

Guest post by Sandra Martins Pereira, Roeline Pasman and Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen
Journal of Medical Ethics Blog
Originally posted May 14, 2015

Decisions to forgo treatment are embedded in clinical, socio-cultural, philosophical, religious, legal and ethical contexts and beliefs, and they cannot be considered as representing good or poor quality care. Particularly for older people, it is sometimes argued that treatment is aggressive, and that there may be a tendency to continue or start treatments in situations where a shift to a focus on quality of life in light of a limited life expectancy might be preferred. Others argue that an attitude of ageism might prevent older people from receiving treatments and care from which they could benefit, thus resulting in some type of harm and compromising the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.

When the need to make a decision about treatment concerns an older person at the end of life, physicians need to reflect on the following questions: In this situation, for this person, what is the best course of action? Is this person capable of assessing the situation and making a decision about it adequately herself? What are the preferences of the person? Who needs to be involved in the decision-making process? What will be the consequences of starting or withholding this treatment?

The blog post is here.

The paper is here.

This is your brain on religion: Uncovering the science of belief

From Pope Francis to Phil Robertson: Why are some people of faith generous — while others are nuts?

By D. F. Swaab
Salon
Originally posted on January 4, 2014

Here are some excerpts:

The Evolutionary Advantage of Religion

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

The evolution of modern man has given rise to five behavioral characteristics common to all cultures: language, toolmaking, music, art, and religion. Precursors of all these characteristics, with the exception of religion, can be found in the animal kingdom. However, the evolutionary advantage of religion to humankind is clear.

(1) First, religion binds groups. Jews have been kept together as a group by their faith, in spite of the Diaspora, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust. For leaders, belief is an excellent instrument. As Seneca said, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Religions use various mechanisms to keep the group together:

(cut)

Paul Verspeek, hosting a local Dutch radio show on Boxing Day 2005, asked psychiatrists how they would recognize Jesus Christ if he returned to Earth. How would they distinguish between him and mentally ill patients who claimed to be Christ? The psychiatrists were stumped for an answer.

The entire article is here.

Thanks to Tom Fink for this article.

Terri Schiavo's family joins family of teen Jahi McMath in fight over life support

By Josh Levs, Catherine E. Shoichet and Caleb Hellerman, CNN
Originally published January 2, 2014

(CNN) -- The family of Terri Schiavo has joined the battle over Jahi McMath, a 13-year-old girl on life support who has been declared dead by doctors.

"Together with our team of experts, Terri's Network believes Jahi's case is representative of a very deep problem within the U.S. healthcare system -- particularly those issues surrounding the deaths of patients within the confines of hospital corporations, which have a vested financial interest in discontinuing life," the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network said in a prepared statement.

The entire story is here


.

No Faith in Science

By Jerry A. Coyne
Slate.com
Originally published November 14, 2013

A common tactic of those who claim that science and religion are compatible is to argue that science, like religion, rests on faith: faith in the accuracy of what we observe, in the laws of nature, or in the value of reason. Daniel Sarewitz, director of a science policy center at Arizona State University and an occasional Slate contributor, wrote this about the Higgs boson in the pages of Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious science journals: “For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.”

Such statements imply that science and religion are not that different because both seek the truth and use faith to find it. Indeed, science is often described as a kind of religion.

But that’s wrong, for the “faith” we have in science is completely different from the faith believers have in God and the dogmas of their creed.

The entire article is here.

Moral Mondays

Religious and Ethics Weekly
August 23, 2013

Religious leaders in North Carolina are being arrested in growing numbers to protest new laws they say adversely affect the poor, the aging, and children.

Watch Moral Mondays on PBS. See more from Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.

Morality study finds conservatives show a ‘general insensitivity to consequences’

By Eric W. Dolan
The Raw Story
Originally published Sunday, June 23, 2013

When it comes to topics like abortion or assisted suicide, there seems to be no common ground between conservatives and liberals. Why is there such a noticeable rift between the two political orientations?

Research published June in Social Psychological and Personality Science suggests that religious individuals and political conservatives think about moral issues in a fundamentally different way than liberals.

The study by Jared Piazza of the University of Pennsylvania and Paulo Sousa of Queen’s University Belfast, which included a total of 688 participants, found religious individuals and political conservatives consistently invoked deontological ethics. In other words, they judged the morality of actions based on a universal rule such as, “You should not kill.” Political liberals, on the other hand, consistently invoked consequentialist ethics, meaning they judged the morality of actions based on their positive or negative outcomes.

“Does being religious or being conservative promote a rule-based ethic or does having a rule-based ethic promote religiosity and/or conservatism?” Piazza told PsyPost. “This question is difficult to answer definitively without running a longitudinal study, since you cannot really manipulate religious orientation, or being in possession of a deontological orientation, and then look at the consequences.”

The study’s cross-sectional methodology makes it impossible to say anything more than religion and conservativism are associated with deontological ethics. However, Piazza said prior research suggested that being religious underlies the adherence to deontological ethics,

The entire story is here.

Exodus International Shuts Down: Apologizes to LGBT Community

By Jade Walker
The Huffington Post
Originally posted June 20, 2013

Exodus International, a large Christian ministry that claimed to offer a "cure" for homosexuality, plans to shut down.

In a press release posted on the ministry's website Wednesday night, the board of directors announced the decision to close after nearly four decades.

“We’re not negating the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people, but a new generation of Christians is looking for change -- and they want to be heard,” Exodus board member Tony Moore said.

The closure comes less than a day after Exodus released a statement apologizing to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community for years of undue judgment, by the organization and from the Christian Church as a whole.

“Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we’ve ceased to be a living, breathing organism. For quite some time we’ve been imprisoned in a worldview that’s neither honoring toward our fellow human beings, nor biblical," said Alan Chambers, president of Exodus.

The entire story is here.

Legal showdown over gay conversion therapy waged in 2 states

At issue is whether states can ban the therapy on minors and whether counselors who conduct the therapy can be held liable for consumer fraud.

By ALICIA GALLEGOS
amednews.com
Posted Jan. 21, 2013

The patient’s anguish was clearly visible to psychiatrist Jack Drescher, MD, as the man spoke about his experience undergoing so-called gay conversion therapy.

Such therapy often is rooted in the claim that poor parenting is the cause of same-sex attractions, and that patients can change if they truly wish to be heterosexual. Methods of “repairing” patients can include instructing them to beat effigies of their mothers, touch themselves while naked in front of counselors and be subjected to mock locker room scenarios in which therapists scream anti-gay epithets at them.

After attending a religious-based therapy six times a week and experiencing no change in his sexuality, the patient was left feeling ashamed, depressed and suicidal, Dr. Drescher said.

“I felt sad[ness] and also anger, because sometimes a therapist would say things that were very hurtful to the patient,” said Dr. Drescher, an author and medical expert on gay conversion therapy. He also is president of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, a think tank that analyzes issues in the field of psychiatry. “It’s distressing when you see professionals, regardless if they are well-meaning or otherwise, deliver intentional or inadvertent harm to a patient.”

Physicians and health professionals across the country have reported treating patients for the problems they have after conversion therapy. In recent years, physician organizations including the American Medical Association have developed policy opposing the use of “reparative” or “conversion” therapy that the AMA describes as “based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or … that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.” The potential serious risks of reparative therapy include depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, said an American Psychiatric Assn. position statement.

The entire story is here.

Gay 'Conversion Therapy' Faces Test in Courts

by Erik Eckholm
The New York Times
Originally published November 27, 2012


Gay "conversion therapy," which claims to help men overcome unwanted same-sex attractions but has been widely attacked as unscientific and harmful, is facing its first tests in the courtroom.

In New Jersey on Tuesday, four gay men who tried the therapy filed a civil suit against a prominent counseling group, charging it with deceptive practices under the state's Consumer Fraud Act.

The former clients said they were emotionally scarred by false promises of inner transformation and humiliating techniques that included stripping naked in front of the counselor and beating effigies of their mothers.

They paid thousands of dollars in fees over time, they said, only to be told that the lack of change in their sexual feelings was their own fault.

In California, so-called ex-gay therapists have gone to court to argue for the other side.

They are seeking to block a new state law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in September and celebrated as a milestone by advocates for gay rights, that bans conversion therapy for minors.

In Sacramento on Friday, a federal judge will hear the first of two legal challenges brought by conservative law groups claiming that the ban is an unconstitutional infringement on speech, religion and privacy.

Since the 1970s, when mainstream mental health associations stopped branding homosexuality as a disorder, a small network of renegade therapists, conservative religious leaders and self-identified "life coaches" has continued to argue that it is not inborn, but an aberration rooted in childhood trauma.

The entire article is here.

Witness

One Case at a Time Blog

observations from an anesthesiologist and mother of two

Originally published January 2012

 

The anesthesia scheduling office accidentally placed me in an operating room tomorrow with a patient who is a Jehovah’s Witness. It was a paperwork slip-up; I am new and someone forgot to put my name on the “never” list. There are three options for anesthesiologists at my hospital: You will provide anesthesia for Jehovah’s Witnesses

1. For all operations
2. Only for operations that are not expected to involve great blood loss
3. Never

Of course, all anesthesiologists agree to care for Jehovah’s Witnesses who have a life-threatening emergency if we are the only one available.

I had chosen number three: never. I called the scheduling office and they apologized and switched me to a different operating room.

My lack of faith in any nameable higher being is so firm that I can not reconcile it with what Jehovah’s Witnesses would ask me to do. Their practice comes, of course, from the bible. According to watchtower.org, the official website of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the belief that “Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws” comes from three biblical passages: Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 17:14; Acts 15:28, 29.

 

(cut)

 

I am morally incapable of letting someone bleed to death. In my operating room, when I am delivering anesthesia, I am responsible completely for that person’s life. This responsibility weighs heavily on me until each patient is safely out of the operating room. I welcome the weight. I care for each person deeply.

 

The entire blog post is here.

 

Thanks to Ed Zuckerman for this information.

The only religion that my patients see me practice is medicine

By Jennifer Gunter
KevinMD.com - Social Media's Leading Physician Voice
Originally published November 1, 2012


When I was the director of undergraduate medical education for OB/GYN at a Midwestern university (a state school), it came to my attention that a medical student was refusing to have anything to do with contraception as it was against her religion.

So I spoke with her. I explained that over the course of her career she would undoubtedly see people from all walks of life with a myriad of religious and or personal practices. I explained that medical care is not about fulfilling any personal need beyond the need to help.

I gave the example of a doctor who is a Jehovah’s Witness. Refusing to order a blood transfusion would be both unethical and malpractice.

I had an OB/GYN who practiced the same religion discuss how he felt that he could prescribe contraception and still honor his Church.

None of this mattered. In her eyes prescribing contraception was an affront to her religion.

“What if you don’t council a patient about condoms and she gets HIV?” I asked.

No answer.

“Do you think it’s ethical for a woman to take time out of her day to come for a well-woman exam and not leave with the contraception that she wants and needs?”

Silence.

The entire blog post is here.

Thanks to Ed Zuckerman for this information.

Haidt on Colbert

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt discusses his book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion".

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Dr. Marjorie Cooper, Baylor University – Ethics and Religious Belief

By Bradley Cornelius
Northeast Public Radio - WAMC
Academic Minute

Dr. Cooper

In today’s Academic Minute, Dr. Marjorie Cooper of Baylor University explains research examining why religious belief doesn’t always translate into ethical behavior.

(cut)

Overall,  both Nominals and Devouts showed better ethical judgment than Skeptics.  However, the more narcissistic the subjects, the worse their ethical judgment became.  In fact, at higher levels of narcissism, the ethical judgment of Nominals and Devouts was no better than that of Skeptics.

The brief transcript and audio file is here.

The paper in the Journal of Business Ethics is here.

Anti-Gay Student's Suit Rejected

By Scott Jaschik
Inside Higer Ed

A federal appeals court has upheld the right of Augusta State University to enforce standards of its counseling graduate program -- even when a religious student objects to requirements to treat gay people in a nondiscriminatory manner.

While the ruling may be appealed, it represents a strong victory for advocates of counseling standards that require that students be trained to treat a range of clients in supportive, nonjudgmental ways. The student who sued Augusta State, and already lost in a lower court, maintained that her First Amendment rights were violated when the university required her to complete a "remediation plan" over her willingness to treat gay people.

She had stated her intent to recommend "conversion therapy" to gay clients and to tell them that they could choose to be straight. (A wide consensus among psychology and sexuality experts holds that people don't select their sexual orientation and that encouraging people to change their orientation can be seriously harmful to them.)

The student, Jennifer Keeton, argues that her religiously motivated beliefs are being challenged by Augusta State's policies -- and that a public university may not do so. Keeton was expelled when she declined to participate in the remediation plan, and she asked a federal district court and the appeals court to order her reinstatement in the program.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that Augusta State had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to enforce its rules. The counseling program's accreditation depended in part on adhering to a code of conduct, and faculty members believed it was their responsibility to train students to work with a wide range of clients, the court found. The decision placed the counseling department's actions at Augusta State in the broader context of faculty members training professionals who must pay attention to the ethics of various fields.

"Just as a medical school would be permitted to bar a student who refused to administer blood transfusions for religious reasons from participating in clinical rotations, so ASU may prohibit Keeton from participating in its clinical practicum if she refuses to administer the treatment it has deemed appropriate," says the decision.

"Every profession has its own ethical codes and dictates. When someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements. Lawyers must present legal arguments on behalf of their clients, notwithstanding their personal views.... So too, counselors must refrain from imposing their moral and religious views on their clients."

Read more here.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this article.