A group that represents the doctors of Canada is challenging the constitutionality of Alberta’s legislation that prohibits certain treatments that affirm the genre for children under 16, arguing that it violates their right to freedom of conscience.
The Canadian Medical Association says he presented the challenge on Wednesday at the Alberta Court of King bank. CMA says that the measure is intended to protect the relationship between patients and doctors when it comes to making treatment decisions.
“This is a historical and unprecedented government intrusion in the medical-patient relationship and requires doctors to follow the law instead of clinical guidelines, the needs of patients and their own consciousness,” said the association in a statement.
The legislation was part of a trio of bills that affect the transgender people that the Alberta Premier Danielle Smith government approved last year.
The association, which represents more than 75,000 doctors, is specifically challenging the bill that prevents doctors from prescribing hormonal therapy and puberty blockers to children under 16 and prohibit surgeries that affirm gender for children under 18.
The other law projects prohibit transgender women to compete in amateur women’s sports and make it a requirement for children under 16 to receive the consent of parents to change their names or pronouns at school.
Smith has said that medical treatment legislation is necessary to protect children and make sure they do not make important decisions before reaching adulthood.
Dr. Jake Donaldson, one of Alberta’s three doctors involved in the judicial challenge, said that the law has already put other doctors in a “state of moral crisis.”
“It is invading the autonomy of doctors and our ability to provide what we believe is the best and individualized care -based care for patients,” said Calgary’s family doctor in an interview.
“It forces me to be on the sidelines and refuse to provide care to patients who, in all likelihood, would benefit significantly from it.”
Donaldson said he has approximately 40 young patients who receive the types of treatment of the law, although an exemption clause in the legislation means that these patients are not being cut.
“From the point of view of the attention affirmed by gender, what we can do in the medical world is to help people,” said Donaldson.
“There is good evidence behind what we are doing, [and] There are guidelines that we follow. No one is making decisions so that it is, “.
The president of the association, Dr. Joss Reimer, said that Donaldson is not alone in a moral crisis as a result of the law.
She said the association does not want to see doctors “put in a position in which they have to choose between following their ethical guidelines … following what their university expects from them, what the guidelines say or follow the law.”
“It is not unprecedented that the CMA gets involved in legal matters, but it was not preceded that a bill in Canada restricted doctors’ ability to offer advice to patients,” Reimer said.
Alberta Justice Minister of Justice, Mickey Amery, Heather Jenkins, said in an email that the government believes that the bill will protect children from making “irreversible decisions.”
“Alberta’s government will strongly defend our position in court,” Jenkins said.
The association is not the first to challenge the constitutionality of Smith’s legislation.
In December, the Egale Canada Defense Groups and the Skiping Stone Foundation, as well as five Alberta families, launched a Charter challenge against the three bills. They also requested a court order.
The hearings for the court order request took place in Calgary in March, but a judge still does not have a decision.
An Egale spokesman said in a statement that he appreciates the challenge of the medical group.
“No one benefits when governments are inserted into the relationship between doctors and patients,” he said.
Smith has previously said that he believes that the three tickets achieve a fair balance and that the letter allows rights limits.
“We have all kinds of restrictions on the ability of minors to make decisions. And we do it because we want to ensure that they are at full capacity to make decisions that will be consistent for them,” said Prime Minister in December.
Smith later said that month that he would use the clause despite the letter “as a last resort” to cancel possible infractions to ensure that the legislation is implemented.
