Draft bill lacks conscience protection, erodes trial by jury. (Canada).

Powell River, B.C.--he Canadian government's proposed Assisted Human Reproduction Act (see Michael Marwick, C.I., Jan/Feb 2002, pp.10-11) lacks protection for health care workers and others who do not want to participate in morally controversial procedures, says Sean Murphy. It also erodes the customary right to trial by jury--so says Murphy's letter sent to Allan Rock, the former Canadian Minister of Health, in December 2001. He notes that, beyond the procedures allowed in the draft text, the bill provides for ad hoc legalization of activities, or Orders in Council, which do not require parliamentary scrutiny or approval.

Murphy suggests that the bill would establish an expectation of entitlement to legalized procedures. He cautions that problems will arise for conscientious objectors, especially if provision of the "controlled activities" is made a condition for federal health care grants or transfer payments.

"Experience in Canada and elsewhere suggests that conscientious objectors will...be subjected to coercion and discrimination" or "forced into expensive litigation before human rights tribunals or courts...to buy the freedom that ought to have been their birthright." The letter of December 20, 2001, requests that the bill be amended to include protection of conscience provisions.

Murphy also expressed alarm that the bill erodes the right to trial by jury for serious offences. He argued that it would be more consistent with Canadian legal traditions to reduce the bill's summary conviction penalties to bring them into line with those now customary in criminal law.