If there is one certainty, it is that there will be lawsuits. Within days of Bill C-14 being adopted, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association launched a constitutional challenge, saying the \u201creasonably foreseeable\u201d\u009d clause is discriminatory. A group of Christian doctors has challenged the requirement in Ontario that physicians who have a \u201cconscientious objection\u201d\u009d to providing assisted death themselves must, minimally, refer patients to another physician who will. (Quebec resolved this debate by allowing objecting physicians to refer to a neutral third party, to a hospital administrator who will, in turn, find a physician who will carry out a patient\u2019s final wishes.)<\/p>\n
Almost all of Canada\u2019s 110 Catholic hospitals have also indicated that they will refuse to provide assisted dying, something that will be particularly problematic in small centres with a single hospital.<\/p>\n
Quebec law \u201d\u201c like federal law \u201d\u201c requires a patient to be terminally ill to be eligible for assisted death. It also requires two physicians to sign off on the request, though at the Centre hospitalier de l\u2019Universit\u00c3\u00a9 de Montr\u00c3\u00a9al (CHUM), a nurse can provide the second signature. This rule change came because doctors appeared to be rejecting many legitimate requests.<\/p>\n
Read it all<\/a> and if necessary another link is there<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If there is one certainty, it is that there will be lawsuits. Within days of Bill C-14 being adopted, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association launched a constitutional challenge, saying the \u201creasonably foreseeable\u201d\u009d clause is discriminatory. A group of Christian doctors…<\/span><\/p>\n