Skip to main content

Alberta United Conservative Party Leader Jason Kenney, seen here on March 5, 2018, promised abortion would not be on the agenda if the UCP formed government.

JONATHAN HAYWARD/The Canadian Press

A private member’s bill in Alberta that aims to protect the conscience rights of doctors has reignited the debate about how access to procedures such as abortion and assisted dying should be balanced with the moral beliefs of physicians.

The bill, introduced last week by a backbencher in the governing United Conservative Party, would ensure doctors cannot be compelled to participate in procedures that contravene their beliefs or to make “formal or informal” referrals in such cases or any statements to a patient that they would have moral objections to.

Alberta’s medical regulator says the bill appears to conform with rules already in place in the province, which require doctors to either make a direct referral or to point a patient toward a resource that could provide that information.

Story continues below advertisement

However, legal experts, including a former Supreme Court justice consulted by the MLA who tabled the bill, say the proposed legislation likely contradicts an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling from earlier this year, opening up the potential for a renewed legal battle.

The bill was tabled six months after a provincial election in which Jason Kenney, who is now Premier, promised abortion would not be on the agenda if the UCP formed government.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta’s standards of practice currently require doctors with moral objections to either refer a patient to a willing physician or direct them to a resource with that information. The college does not specify what that resource should be.

“CPSA believes the bill as drafted is broadly consistent with this standard and meets both the needs of physicians and Albertans,” Andrea Garland, a spokeswoman for the college, said in an e-mail.

Erin Nelson, who teaches health-care law at the University of Alberta, said she disagrees that the college’s current policy would survive if the bill passes as it is currently written. She said the bill’s wording is broad and would give doctors significant leeway to refuse to talk to patients about any procedure they object to.

“I think what we would see immediately if this bill passes is physicians claiming that the college policy needs revision so that it complies with the law,” she said.

“Ultimately, what will happen is that patients’ ability to access health care will be affected.”

Story continues below advertisement

The Ontario Court of Appeal released a decision earlier this year that upheld a rule that patients be given an “effective referral” to a willing physician. The case was not appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

While the decision is not binding outside Ontario, Prof. Nelson said it’s unlikely that a court in Alberta would reach a different conclusion if it was asked to balance the rights of doctors and patients.

Dan Williams, the MLA behind the bill, released a statement last week that quoted former Supreme Court of Canada justice John Major, who concluded the bill would be constitutional.

Mr. Major agreed that the Alberta bill would contradict the Ontario ruling, though he also argues that the Ontario court got it wrong.

“The compulsion that the Ontario Court of Appeal imposed struck me at the time as being in violation of freedom of religion,” he said in an interview.

“They’re not completely compatible,” he added, referring to the Ontario ruling and the Alberta bill. “ And probably one day, a court will decide.”

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Williams has not responded to interview requests.

Daphne Gilbert, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who has studied the debate about conscience rights, said she believes the bill is “totally unconstitutional.” She said the Ontario ruling struck the right balance between doctors’ and patients’ rights.

Prof Gilbert said the legalization of assisted dying, also through a court ruling, brought that debate to a head. Not only doctors but also entire medical facilities run by religious groups have asserted rights not to perform assisted dying or refer patients to physicians who will.

“We're at a crossroads right now, in terms of faith-influenced medical care,” she said.

“We are headed toward the need to have some clarity on what our publicly funded institutions can do.”

Larry Worthen of the Christian Medical and Dental Association, one of the plaintiffs in the Ontario case, argued that it’s not necessary to force doctors with moral objections to certain procedures to refer patients who will perform them.

Story continues below advertisement

“You just can’t ask people just to forget their moral, ethical convictions,” Mr. Worthen said.

“There are already excellent access routes for people to get those procedures, particularly in Alberta. We just don’t see that there’s a reason to force doctors to be complicit.”

We have a weekly Western Canada newsletter written by our B.C. and Alberta bureau chiefs, providing a comprehensive package of the news you need to know about the region and its place in the issues facing Canada. Sign up today.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies