Colson Foster

If the expected number of conscientious objectors is high enough that it threatens patient access to a certain highly controversial service and an update to the standard is needed to bypass a doctor’s conscience or remove conscientious doctors altogether, maybe there needs to be a reassessment of the ethical and moral basis for the services themselves. I’m sure the rate of conscientious objections was historically very low until death became a form of healthcare. If I was depressed and no longer valued my life, one doctor’s conscientious objection to killing me maybe enough to change my outlook. If no doctor objected, that would only reinforce that my life is worthless and expedite my death. Should we not target a reduction in abortion and MAID numbers in Canada, instead of finding more ways to facilitate an increase? Shouldn’t we focus on solving the issues that drive people to these terrible decisions? When someone’s about to jump off a bridge, do we try to talk them down or will we now simply push them? Leave the standard as it is, it’s a standard for a reason. A change like this is not progress, it’s regression and not helpful to patients or fair to the doctors.

Comments for this post are now closed. If you would like to share your feedback on this topic, please email

« Previous EntryNext Entry »