| This paper discusses ethical and legal arguments surrounding conscience-based objections and the corresponding refusal to treat in response to controversial medical procedures. The author unpacks the "right to conscientious refusal" into its component legal relationships and argues that proponents of conscientious objection in health care have inaccurately applied the freedom of conscience and religion. In this paper, the author canvasses various legal mechanisms for the protection of conscience in Canada. Opposed to the introduction of procedure-based "protection of conscience acts" and additional conscience clauses in Canadian legislation, the author argues that the exercise of conscience-based actions or more precisely, the refusal to act, is sufficiently and appropriately protected under the existing law in Canada. |
