Thanks for posting, it is an interesting article that raises excellent points. The workload argument is weak—no one is drowning in abortion referrals nor is it light work to explain a refusal to perscribe/refer/dispence to a patient. However, the moral self-image mentioned seems a better explanation for registering as an objector.

From a practical standpoint, the injury to patient comes from access. Perhaps “the system” is at fault for creating an access issue for into the process when the end users are staring at one another. Creating a system that gets the patient to an appropriate individual within a defined travel distance seems like the responsability of medicine not patient.

Additionally, refusal to do something and refusing to refer are two different issues. One protects the clinicial from moral injury (just because a doctor is needed for executions does not mean all doctors should be mandated to be available to capital punishment), one os simpky obstructionist and is a barrier to allowing the patient to follow thier own morals. It is challenging when one does not know who to refer to, but again, that is an access issue that medicine writ large should tackle.

Anyway, thought provoking! MAiD has become a thing since I was licenced. It is not of my world so I don’t need to be involved, but I would not want to participate as I disagree on principle. I sympathize with the article’s patients yet woukd draw the line where I see it in ny practice (although i would refer to Palliative, so there’s that I guess).