Participants:
Series Code: IIWC
Program Code: IIWC201703A
|
01:20 ♪♪ ♪♪ >> It has stood the test of
01:33 time -- God's book, the Bible. Still relevant in today's complex world. 01:44 "It is Written," sharing messages of hope around the world. 01:50 ♪♪ ♪♪ 02:01 >> The freedom of choice, the freedom of religion, not just an 02:06 important topic for those of religious belief, but it is an 02:09 important topic -- a vital topic -- to anyone and everyone. Because society, any society, 02:17 that operates in an orderly way allows for the freedom of choice. 02:23 I've had the distinct privilege for two programs to share that time with Kevin Boonstra, 02:29 Mark Johnson, and Gerry Chipeur. Gentlemen, I'm so thankful that 02:33 each of you is able to join us once again. >> It's great to be with you. 02:36 >> Delighted. >> Now, when we talk about this freedom of choice, freedom of 02:40 religion, I just want to get right to a little bit of review, Gerry. 02:45 And that is, why is this topic even important? 02:50 >> Well, last time, we talked about accommodation in the area 02:53 of education. And accommodation applies across 02:58 the spectrum. It applies to every area of life. 03:02 Individuals need to have the ability to exercise their freedoms in a diverse, 03:10 pluralistic society in order to achieve everything that they can as individuals. 03:17 For example, in the healthcare field, if you want to be able to provide a service to the public 03:25 in the context of a religious healthcare provider, you may, in fact, run up against government 03:34 rules and regulations that say you must act in a certain way with respect to life issues, 03:41 whether it's the end of life or whether it's the beginning of life. 03:45 And those are issues where I think accommodation becomes the most important factor that we 03:52 take into account in order to ensure that individuals have the opportunity to participate in 04:00 society. >> And so, Mark, when we talk about this issue of 04:03 accommodation, we've talked a lot about individual rights, but there are institutional 04:09 right -- or we've talked both institutional and individual rights. 04:14 And we talk about this area of accommodation, the freedom to choose. 04:20 What are your thoughts on that? What are, maybe, some biblical perspectives on this freedom of 04:24 choice, and -- Gerry was talking about it -- in this area of medical and in healthcare? 04:30 >> Well, I think there's a biblical perspective which 04:34 assumes that the individual has to make the decision on the 04:39 basis of their faith experience. The Bible was not a sort of a monolithic thing in its own way, 04:47 because it captured the fact that the faith that is spoken of within the Bible context is a 04:55 faith that is lived in a very diverse community. That becomes obvious as you read 04:59 both Old Testament and New Testament. What becomes interesting is when 05:05 an institution or a provider is seeking on the basis of their faith experience and their 05:13 understanding of the expression of the value of life, for instance, or the level of 05:19 intervention, which they would feel comfortable with, they have a choice to make. 05:25 And that choice, sometimes, runs counter to the choices of other individuals. 05:31 So I think that the community of faith, who, likewise, was interested in the educational 05:41 community and the rights and freedoms of both scholars and professors, then comes to a 05:46 point where they look at the rights of both the patient and the provider. 05:52 How does that play out in a society like Canada? >> So, Kevin, last time, we 05:59 talked about this erosion of rights, the erosion of freedom of choice, as it related to 06:04 education. And as Gerry has alluded to, we're seeing some of those 06:08 erosions taking place in the public sector, in healthcare. What's happening? 06:15 Maybe, more specifically, in that arena of healthcare and the erosion of the freedom of 06:22 religion and the freedom of choice. 06:24 >> Right, so, maybe before I answer this specific question, 06:26 I'll just back up a little bit, because we're talking about 06:29 choice and freedom of religion, and I just want to make a 06:31 comment because a lot of times, people equate freedom of 06:34 religion with freedom of belief. And it has to be broader than that because the freedom to 06:39 believe isn't really a freedom at all. You're always free within the 06:42 confines of your own head. >> Yes. >> Even the worst dictatorships 06:46 in history allowed freedom to believe 'cause it can't be controlled. 06:49 You have to have the ability to act on your freedoms -- or act on your beliefs, rather. 06:53 You have to have the ability to actually take your conscience, take your desire to please God, 06:59 in however you construct that, and act it out. Otherwise, it's a sort of a 07:04 vacuous concept. It's not a concept that has a lot of meaning. 07:08 In one of the prior shows, we talked a little bit about how in order to have order, there has 07:12 to be a consensus around morality and what standards are going to be applied across the 07:18 entire population. And over the last generation or two, we've seen a bit of 07:22 deconstruction around some of the things that -- in Canada, North American, Western 07:27 Europe -- some of the things that were taken as a given in terms of morality that are no 07:32 longer like that. And when it comes to issues of medical care, medical 07:37 institutions, medical professionals, we've seen some sea changes. 07:42 We've seen, you know, a couple generations ago, we saw a bit of a sea change when it came to 07:46 issues of abortion and ending pregnancies. In the last number of years, 07:50 we've seen a big sea change in Canada about physician-assisted suicide. 07:54 And those are large issues because they're issues on which religious groups have very -- 08:00 some religious groups have very firm moral beliefs around the dignity of human life... 08:06 >> Yes. >> ...and, you know, God's role in creating life and God's role 08:11 in governing when it might end for individuals. And that informs a lot of the 08:18 religious thinking. Now, to the secular mind, maybe those aren't issues that are 08:22 important, but to religious people, they're very important. >> Yes. 08:26 >> And so, we're seeing now, with, particularly, physician-assisted suicide in 08:30 Canada, we're seeing the rollout. So, a couple years ago, the 08:33 Supreme Court of Canada said that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't allow a 08:39 criminal rule against physician-assisted suicide in all circumstances. 08:44 And now our government and our population has had to confront that and how that's going to be 08:47 rolled out. And now we're seeing a bit of a conflict coming up between 08:52 religious institutions, religious professionals, and those who wish to end their own 08:57 lives. >> So, Mark, let's talk a little bit about the value of human 09:02 life. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, from a biblical 09:06 perspective, what is the value of a human life? >> Well, the value of the human 09:12 life is expressed in the Christian context, probably most eloquently, by the symbol of the 09:23 cross because the Christian context of the value of life is found in the willingness of 09:30 Christ, who is God Himself, to come into the human frame and accept the results of a world 09:41 that has become very sinful and very distanced from God, and pay the sacrifice so that 09:48 individuals could live, not only for the biblical three score years and 10, but through the 09:54 context of faith, we believe that a Christian has the capacity to live forever in the 10:00 kingdom that God creates. So in that context, life is huge. 10:05 And a Christian is an individual who has to value life and has to understand that 10:12 life, as we understand it today, is something that has a context that is different than eternal 10:19 life. It is something that has an end point and life can begin in 10:24 suffering and it can end in suffering. But the reality is, is that life 10:29 is seen by the Christian individual as a thing of great consequence and great treasure. 10:34 And so there is a reluctance on the part of some Christians, informed by their personal 10:40 belief, to intervene in a way that takes away life prematurely because they would 10:47 see that as, perhaps, contrary to God's plan for that person. >> And so, Gerry, how does that, 10:52 then, play out in the courts? How are we seeing that freedom -- that choice -- of, in 10:58 the context of value of life, what's playing out and has played out in the courts that is 11:04 demonstrating some of the erosions on the freedom to choose in that arena? 11:08 >> Well, two points. The first point is that the Supreme Court of Canada, in the 11:12 Carter case, the seminal case on this issue of whether or not there would be 11:16 medically assisted death in Canada, the Supreme Court has been very clear that there must 11:22 be an accommodation. In fact, the Supreme Court said there must be an accommodation 11:27 for healthcare providers, physicians, and others on the issue of abortion and that there 11:33 must be an accommodation for individuals on the issue of being forced to participate in 11:40 the act of killing one's patient through lethal injection. In both cases, accommodation is 11:48 mandated. What the Supreme Court didn't do, though, was tell us how. 11:52 And so that's where the rub comes in. That's the second point. 11:55 We are seeing lower courts - tribunals, human rights tribunals, and lower courts -- 12:01 wrestle with this issue. And unfortunately, they're coming down on the wrong side. 12:06 They're coming down on the side of "Let's force everyone to act the same. 12:12 And if you can't act like the government wants you to act, well, maybe you should just get 12:18 another profession." So it's a very hard message. Particularly, it's dissonant 12:24 with the pluralism and the diversity that has been celebrated in Canada over the 12:32 last 30, 40, 50 years. So I think that -- well, at least, I hope that our 12:38 Supreme Court will step back in and say, "Wait a minute. [ Chuckles ] 12:42 You weren't listening. We said, "Diversity." We said, "Accommodation." 12:47 That's the rule, and we want you to revisit this question and promote accommodation within our 12:54 society so that everybody's welcome and nobody's forced to choose between their career and 13:01 their faith. >> Kevin, do you have any thoughts on what Gerry just 13:04 commented on? >> Yeah, accommodation's really important. 13:07 And there's reason to be concerned because the courts and tribunals don't always come down 13:13 on the right -- from my perspective -- on the right side of this. 13:16 And here I'm thinking about not a case in the healthcare specifically, but a case dealing 13:22 with marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan. So, after same-sex marriage 13:27 became legal in Canada, there were certain marriage commissioners that said, "I'm 13:31 sorry, but" -- And so, marriage commissioners, just to be clear, these are 13:34 people that have the ability from the state to marry people. And some of the marriage 13:39 commissioners said, "Well, for reasons of my individual conscience, I can't participate 13:44 in the solemnization of a marriage that conflicts with my religious beliefs, and I won't 13:49 do that." And in Saskatchewan, they were told, "You can either continue 13:53 to be a marriage commissioner and do these marriages, or you have to cease being a --" 13:59 There was no accommodation for them. And the courts, in that case, it 14:03 didn't get all the way to the Supreme Court, but the courts in that case said, "There's no 14:07 accommodation." And so that give us some concern around -- as we're now 14:11 coming into the question of how robust will be the accommodation for medical institutions and 14:16 medical -- religious medical institutions, religious medical professionals that say, "We have 14:22 a conscience problem in participating in the premature ending of life." 14:27 And some of them go -- some people go further and they say, "We actually have an imperative 14:31 from the scriptures to tend to these people, to help to relieve their suffering, and not just 14:36 simply to end it prematurely." So it's both a question of Christian service for them as 14:41 well as a question of not prematurely ending life. And so there is some concern. 14:47 Gerry talked about how not everybody's, you know, making the right -- coming to the right 14:52 balance. And the case that was heard in June in Ontario about the 14:56 College of Physicians and Surgeons brought to task by the Christian Medical and Dental 15:03 Association for propagating ethical standards that these Christian professionals said 15:10 "require us to do more than we're comfortable with." And so there are going to be 15:14 some struggles coming up in the near future over this issue. >> Now, Gerry, I understand you 15:19 have given expert testimony in this area. But I want us to maybe 15:23 understand, because there may be some viewers, some listeners that are maybe a bit confused. 15:28 What exactly is the medical assistance in dying legislation? 15:34 What does that say? >> The current legislation provides a choice for a patient 15:42 who is facing both pain that is unremitting and a disease or a condition that makes death 15:54 imminent. Under those conditions, an individual can say to their 15:59 physician or to the hospital, if you will, even a pharmacist or a nurse practitioner, "I would 16:08 like to end my life with your assistance." And then, a lethal injection or 16:14 some other kind of death is then prescribed by the physician, the nurse 16:21 practitioner, or the pharmacist, and the individual, after waiting a prescribed number of 16:28 days -- 14 days -- they can, in fact, execute upon the decision that they've made. 16:34 That's an exception to the Criminal Code rule that otherwise says that anyone who 16:41 assists another in committing suicide is, in fact, committing a crime -- murder, under the 16:50 Criminal Code. >> Okay. And so you gave reli-- you gave 16:52 expert testimony, rather, in this arena. Talk a little bit about that 16:57 testimony in the context of this legislation. >> Well, there were three points 17:01 that we made. The first is that, in fact, in the Carter case, the 17:07 Supreme Court of Canada said that it is up to Parliament to create the legislation that will 17:14 allow this to occur and that if Parliament acts reasonably, the court will, in 17:19 fact, give deference to the regime that's established by Parliament. 17:26 The second is that life must be promoted and not denigrated, degraded by this legislation. 17:37 And Parliament did accept both of those points. The other important point was 17:42 there must be protection for individuals from intimidation or abuse by the institution itself, 17:50 by the healthcare providers, by family, by anyone who might have a conflicting interest in trying 17:57 to convince someone to take their own life. And that principle of safety for 18:04 the patient, the principle of promoting life -- and it's important to remember that in 18:08 the Carter decision, the Supreme Court said there is no right to death under the 18:12 Charter. There's only a right to life. And any legislation that is 18:16 created must, in fact, be created in the context of protecting life. 18:21 That's the goal. And only through the protection of life do we see the court 18:25 saying, "Well, but in some cases, the protection of life actually should allow for this 18:31 kind of exception." And so from that, the Minister of Justice was 18:38 successful in bringing through legislation that, unfortunately, is now being challenged again by 18:46 those who say there should be no limit on the individual to have assistance in death. 18:52 But at this point in time, the government of Canada is strongly resisting that claim that's 18:59 being brought in a case called Lamb and Canada. >> And so, I don't want to 19:05 overstate the facts here, but just to summarize what you have said. 19:07 The legislation in Canada allows someone the right -- the right to die in a circumstance of a 19:15 terminal situation or a very painful situation, "unremitting pain," I believe -- 19:20 >> Both of those conditions have to be present. >> Both of those conditions have 19:24 to be present, where someone has the right to choose to take their life, essentially. 19:30 While, at the same time, not enforcing that upon a physician who may have a religious belief 19:38 that does not allow them to assist a patient in going that direction. 19:43 The legislation, as it sits, is where that is at, but the practice is that, actually, we 19:49 see physicians being forced in this area or being -- having things brought up against them 19:57 because they've not chosen that. Have I overstated that? >> Well, the Parliament received 20:02 counsel from their own legal advisors, suggesting that Parliament should not deal with 20:09 the issue of the accommodation. They were told that the accommodation provision must be 20:16 instituted by provincial legislation because of the difference between federal and 20:21 provincial jurisdiction under our Constitution. >> Okay. 20:24 >> So the provinces have that duty. And unfortunately, while some 20:28 provinces have gone out of their way to accommodate -- and they should be praised for 20:34 that -- some provinces have gone out of their way the other way, to, basically, say, "We're going 20:41 to be in your face and we're going to say to you, even though there's many physicians and many 20:47 hospitals out there that are prepared to provide a medical assistance in death, we want to 20:52 force everyone to bow to this common requirement of participation in the provision 21:02 of medical assistance in death. >> Chris, can I just correct one thing you said? 21:06 >> Please. >> You said it was the -- a right to commit suicide or a 21:09 right to end one's life. >> Yes. >> The right is actually to have 21:12 somebody else end your life... >> Okay. >> ...to be assisted by another 21:15 person. >> Okay. >> And that's where the right 21:18 has the potential to create a duty on the other person to participate. 21:23 And that's the conflict. >> Okay. >> It's the conflict between the 21:26 right of an individual now, under Canadian law, in circumstances of grievous and 21:30 irremediable suffering leading -- that will lead to death, to ask somebody else to 21:35 end their life for them, to assist them in that, and the extent to which that is going to 21:40 impose a duty, either on religious institutions that run hospitals or care homes or on 21:46 religious professionals who say, "I can't participate in that." That's the tension between the 21:51 right to ask somebody else for assistance and the right not to participate. 21:55 >> And I want to probe that a little more deeply because you were talking earlier about the 21:59 marriage issue. And so -- and I want to get back to this basis of why we are 22:05 where we are, and that is, there are physicians who are comfortable with this practice, 22:12 as there are those who are marrying that are comfortable in that situation. 22:18 Why do we see in society this idea of trying to force someone when there are many 22:24 options -- maybe the word "many" is an overstatement, but there are other options in which if my 22:30 physician will not assist me or an individual will not marry me, why are we at a place in society 22:38 where we want to try to enforce our particular belief on someone else? 22:44 >> Right, so, in some ways, it comes out of our commitment, our laudable commitment, in 22:50 this country to human rights, even in the private sphere. So, you know, we don't allow 22:55 restaurants to refuse entry to people because of their race, and rightly so, or because of 23:01 their religion. But what we haven't done, historically, a very good job of 23:06 is saying, "Well, what happens when the reason for the refusal isn't bigotry, but the reason 23:12 for a refusal to provide some service -- if it's a marriage ceremony or a wedding cake or 23:19 it's assistance in dying -- what if that comes out of a fundamental core religious 23:25 belief that is, in itself, worthy of protection? And that's the struggle we're 23:29 having now. It's this enforcement of anti-discrimination, which, in 23:34 and of itself, is a good thing, and individual rights and freedoms, which also need to be 23:38 robustly protected. And that's the conflict we're coming in -- coming into too 23:44 frequently now. And I think that with a lot of our society, with the ideas of 23:49 moral relativism playing in, the idea is, "Well, if the service provider is refusing, they're 23:54 enforcing their morality on somebody else." When, in reality, all they're 23:58 doing is saying, "This is what I feel that God -- my relationship with God -- is calling me to 24:04 do." And that's a very different question. 24:07 >> And so, that leads me to ask you, Mark, in our last few minutes here, to just really 24:13 answer the question, then, what's at stake? What's at stake here when we 24:17 talk about this ability to choose? >> Well, the ability to choose 24:23 is fundamental to the whole relationship between God and people. 24:29 We as individuals who are part of the community of faith, if that's where we are at, have a 24:36 sense of a God who is bigger than we are. And if we respect the position 24:43 of God, His pronouncements through scripture, then the person who is an individual who 24:50 is trying to live faith between the weekends, if you please, is placed in a position where 24:57 they're trying to figure out "What does that look like? How do I do that Monday, 25:02 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday?" And the question then becomes, "Is it possible for me to 25:08 demonstrate faith in the decisions that I make with regard to what I do for others 25:14 and how I live my life?" >> And, Gerry, just one final thought. 25:20 When we talk about medical assistance in dying, the liberty of physicians and healthcare 25:26 facilities, what is the crux of what's at stake when we talk about these things? 25:31 >> Well, it's simply this, do we want to have a society where physicians, nurses, pharmacists, 25:40 hospitals are welcome, and the service that they provide are welcome, whether we're going to 25:47 have a society where we bring in rules that exclude others, not because of what they've done, 25:55 but rather, because of what they believe? And that's not a society that 26:00 I'd like us to become at the end of the day. >> And that the bottom line, as 26:06 we end our program here today, is, gentlemen, we want a society where there's freedom of 26:10 religion, freedom of choice, in which we grant -- and I like the word that you've used -- we 26:19 "carve out" an accommodation for those who do not want to participate because of their 26:27 religious belief, while protecting those who do participate. 26:32 It gives us that freedom of choice and a society built on a solid foundation of that 26:38 freedom. Mark, could I ask you to close us out with prayer today? 26:42 >> Of course. God, we thank you for the ability you've given to us to 26:48 reason, to consider what you have said, and to give us the opportunity to live in harmony 26:58 with a society of many people around us. Guide us as we live that, 27:03 that we will do it in a way that protects the freedom of all and brings us closer to you, if that 27:10 is our choice. In Christ's name. Amen. >> Amen. 27:16 The freedom of religion. The freedom to choose. Making accommodation. 27:21 Carving out a place that's safe for people who do not necessarily consent to the 27:27 majority beliefs is an essential component to a society -- a free society. 27:35 Today, friend, I'd like to offer you the DVD of this program. You can use it to share with 27:40 your friends, use it to help build your faith. Here's the information you need 27:45 to receive today's offer. >> To request today's offer, 27:49 just log on to www.ItIsWrittenCanada.ca. 27:54 That's www.ItIsWrittenCanada.ca. And select the TV program tab. 28:01 For Canadian viewers, the offer will be sent free and postage 28:04 paid. For viewers outside of Canada, 28:07 shipping charges will apply. If you prefer, you may call 28:11 toll-free at 1-888-CALLIIW. That's 1-888-CALLIIW. 28:18 Call anytime. Lines are open 24 hours daily. 28:22 That's 1-888-CALLIIW. Or, if you wish, you may write 28:27 to us at It Is Written, Box 2010, Oshawa, Ontario, 28:31 L1H 7V4. And thank you for your prayer 28:35 requests and your generous financial support. >> Today has been an exciting 28:39 conversation, where we've talked about the freedom for individuals to choose in various 28:44 capacities. I am so glad to have been joined by Kevin and Mark and Gerry. 28:50 Thank you so much, gentlemen, for helping me in this discussion. 28:53 >> It's great to be with you. >> Thank you for having me. >> You know, friend, God desires 28:59 that people have the freedom to choose. His greatest characteristic, 29:04 love, is defined by the ability to say "Yes" or to say "No." 29:09 If you would like to know more information, learn more about a 29:12 God who loves you so much that he gives you the right to say 29:15 "Yes" or "No," I invite you to go to ItIsWrittenCanada.ca. 29:19 There, you can find Bible studies to learn more about this 29:23 God. You can find resources and other 29:25 programs to help you in that journey. Friend, I'm so glad that you've 29:29 joined us. I pray and I ask that you join us again next week. 29:32 Until then, remember, it is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word 29:40 that proceeds from the mouth of God." ♪♪ 29:50 ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ 30:11 ♪♪ |
Revised 2018-03-20