Freedom for conscientious objectors needs protection
Last week five doctors and several rights groups were in Ontario’s Divisional Court challenging rules imposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to punish doctors who refuse to help arrange assisted suicide. The Court reserved its ruling, which will be released at a later date.
Ontario’s new assisted suicide law amended various Acts in response to the federal legislation on assisted suicide. Pleas to guarantee freedom of conscientious objection for doctors who defy orders to provide “effective referral” were ignored by the legislature, so penalties imposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario against conscientious objectors remain in force.
Remarkably, in just two short years Canadians have gone from punishing those who helped arrange assisted suicide to punishing those who refuse to arrange assisted suicide. More remarkably, authorities today are deliberately violating the Declaration of Human Rights guarantee which states “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, of conscience, and of religion….” This Declaration was not just empty words but a hard-won foundation for civilized democracy.
We all have lines we won’t cross, including people of all faiths and people of no faith. Until recently, no governing authority in Canada dared to force anyone to cross the lines laid down by their conscience.
Freedom to follow our own conscience was first officially recognized in Canada hundreds of years ago — in the Militia Act of 1793. In 1942 conscientious objector status was broadened to include non-religious but conscientiously held beliefs.
Even during the World Wars, a time of crisis when Canada’s very existence was at stake and the democratic majority authorized conscription and killing of enemy soldiers in defence, we still guaranteed freedom for citizens to conscientiously object to causing anyone’s death.
Today our government permits soldiers to leave the military before their service commitment expires if they experience a change of heart. And in the late 20th century, the term “conscientious objector” was extended to those objecting to working for the military-industrial complex due to a crisis of conscience.
This history shows Canadians have not tried to limit freedom to follow one’s conscience. Instead, Canadians adapted and broadened that freedom — until now.
Military service was previously one of very few occupations where we allowed anyone to deliberately cause someone’s death. Recently, however, the Supreme Court added medical professions to those where deliberately causing someone’s death is permissible. We can accept that court decision while still defending every citizens’ freedom to object to being forced, against their conscience, to help arrange someone’s suicide.
Past conscientious objectors weren’t even compelled to assist indirectly in causing anyone’s death. Not forced to make bombs or plan ambushes, they instead served in agriculture or planted trees. Neither should those who serve in medical professions today be ordered to indirectly contribute to anyone’s death by so-called “effective referral.”
During the World Wars conscientious objectors were often insulted and bullied — labelled as “yellow” or “cowards.” Religious motives are often met with bigotry and hatred. Some conscientious objectors were denied status and imprisoned or, like doctors in Ontario today, threatened with fines or loss of livelihood.
The progressive, liberal spirit of freedom our forebears fought to preserve demands more than mere court challenges to oppose authorities who dictate conformity and punish the diversity that we previously believed was a Canadian value. We must convince our elected representatives to defend our freedom, just as in ages past.
Can non-doctors, or people whose own conscience isn’t bothered by “effective referral,” simply stand by while others with a different approach are punished? If men and women in medical professions can be ordered to violate their conscience, how long will it be before we too are ordered to cross lines our conscience forbids us to cross?