COLUMN: Think Again – Conscience rights must be upheld

Should a faith-based hospital be forced to allow assisted suicide in its building? That’s the question before the British Columbia Supreme Court right now.

The case involves a 34-year-old woman with terminal cancer who was admitted to St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver in March 2023. Because St. Paul’s is a Catholic institution, the woman had to be moved to a different institution before she could receive medical aid in dying (MAID).

Dying with Dignity, a well-known proponent of MAID, brought this case to court, arguing that conscience rights do not apply to institutions. In other words, Dying with Dignity believes that any health facility that receives public funds should be required to offer the full range of medical procedures, including MAID.

Every Canadian should watch this case closely, because its impact will be felt across the country. The fundamental question is whether faith-based organizations should have the right to operate their facilities within the parameters of their faith. If the answer ends up being “no,” we will see a dramatic reduction in religious freedom in this country.

The argument that publicly funded institutions should be required to park their faith at the door is deeply concerning. Religious organizations do not trade away their Charter rights just because they receive funding from the government. For example, a Jewish school should never be required to serve pork in its cafeteria, regardless of what percentage of its annual income comes from the government.

Similarly, it would be ridiculous to expect a Muslim homeless shelter to allow clients to display pictures of Mohammad on its walls, even if the shelter is government funded. Forcing a religious institution to violate its deeply held beliefs just because it receives money from the government makes a mockery of the Charter guarantee of religious freedom.

Dying with Dignity argues that conscience rights apply only to individuals, not to organizations. In other words, while individual doctors might have the right to refuse to kill their patients, faith-based hospitals should have no choice but to allow MAID in their facilities. According to Dying with Dignity, the individual’s right to access MAID trumps an institution’s right to operate within the parameters of its faith.

This is the kind of argument made by people who fail to understand just how important freedom of religion is in this country. Forcing faith-based hospitals to allow MAID in their buildings would be a surefire way to undermine the important role that churches play in our healthcare system. At a minimum, it would lead to a significant reduction in private donations to these hospitals.

Here in Manitoba, Steinbach MLA Kelvin Goertzen was serving as health minister when the federal government legalized MAID. Recognizing the importance of conscience rights, Goertzen ensured that Manitoba put in place some of the strongest conscience protections for faith-based institutions in Canada. These conscience protections struck an important balance between individual patient rights and religious freedom.

Sadly, these well-balanced protections could be thrown out the window if the current BC case eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. If the Supreme Court ultimately sides with those who think that conscience rights don’t matter, we will be faced with a serious problem.

Whether you agree with MAID or not, you should be able to acknowledge that many doctors and other healthcare professionals have serious moral concerns about killing their patients. If courts decide that faith-based institutions must allow MAID in their buildings, it will send a clear message that freedom of religion is of only secondary importance.

Conscience rights matter at both the individual and the institutional levels. They must be upheld.

Michael Zwaagstra is a teacher and deputy mayor of Steinbach. He can be reached at mzwaagstra@shaw.ca.