I believe the ethos behind "Conscientious Objection" is to strongly encourage physicians to 'maintain neutrality' while providing care. However, in so doing, this Standard of Practice is no longer neutral. This standard is instructing physicians to set aside their own worldview in favour of the 'neutral world view'. This essentially mandates physicians (through Section 2) to do the following: 1) give information about procedures/treatments that conflict with worldview/beliefs 2) mitigate adverse clinical outcomes that are 'due to a delayed effective referral' 3) never promote or express morals or beliefs Yet this Standard of Practice begins with the explicit statement that "members have the right to limit the health services they provide for reasons of conscience cultural belief or religion" This review is directly tied to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), so to examine section 2 with the lends of MAiD: 1) How can I conscientiously object to the killing of another human being, when I must give information about MAiD if requested by the patient? 2) How can I conscientiously object to the killing of another human being, when I must 'mitigate adverse clinical outcomes' and refer to the MAiD program if requested by the patient? (previous CPSA recommendations regarding MAiD instruct physicians to refer "without delay") 3) By adopting the CPSA standard, I am asked to promote the CPSA moral and belief of neutrality/secular humanism and drop my deeply held convictions Another way to examine this "Conscientious Objection" - How does this standard apply to recent situations, where patients were mandated to take a medical treatment, forced to isolate or be locked down? If a patient was to decline a medical treatment or not comply with lockdowns - how did the CPSA respond to physicians who imposed their beliefs on the patients (that they should take a medical treatment and should stay locked down while asymptomatic)?