He is one of many pro-life doctors deeply concerned about the college’s draft policy designed to bring the regulatory body in line with the Ontario Human Rights Code. The draft tells physicians they must at times “set aside their personal beliefs” in putting the needs of patients or potential patients first or face a charge of professional misconduct in addition to a human rights complaint.

“Physicians must comply with the code when making any decision relating to the provision of medical services,” the draft says. “This includes decisions to accept or refuse individuals as patients, decisions about providing treatment or granting referrals to existing patients, and decisions to end a physician-patient relationship.”

“It will be a totalitarian system and that’s really concerning,” said Leiva, a Catholic.

“Refusal on conscientious or religious grounds to refer a woman for an abortion could be deemed professional misconduct under this new policy,” Canadian Physicians for Life president Dr. Will Johnston wrote in a letter to the college, asking for more time to study the proposed policy.

“If doctors feel coerced into compromising their deepest convictions as a result of this policy, certainly that’s a problem — not only for the integrity of physicians, but also for the welfare of their patients.”

Leiva agreed. Palliative care forms a big part of his practice. He said he dreaded the possible legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia that might make his refusal to kill his patients the subject of a complaint.

He also wondered who would be the guardian of medical principles: regulatory bodies like the college or human rights commissions. If the latter, the college is “abdicating its responsibility to protect society,” he said.

“The college documents present an unseemly image of the college preparing to shine its shoes before inspection by a higher authority,” said Johnston in an Aug. 16 statement. “Yet human rights commissions . . . are increasingly scrutinized for various abuses which they themselves engender.”

“Perhaps we should not be surprised to see (rights commissions) now being used to suppress freedom of conscience and religion among medical professionals,” said Sean Murphy, administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project, who is based in Powell River, B.C.

Murphy said an Ontario physician “stumbled” upon the news of the draft document last June and contacted him. The college posted an announcement of the proposed changes in a newsletter in late June, with a response deadline of Aug. 15. The deadline has been extended to Sept. 12.

Murphy said the only defense a doctor will have for refusing treatment will be incompetence. He noted the draft policy uses as an example of a code violation a physician’s refusal on religious grounds to provide a referral to a homosexual couple seeking fertility treatment.

Since fertility treatments routinely involve referrals, almost all physicians could be affected, he said.

“The problem with the human rights code is that anyone can make a complaint,” Murphy said.

“It costs them nothing to do so, but the defendant, in responding to the complaint, faces thousands in legal fees.”

Leiva also worried about the college’s including “potential patients” because it could set up doctors for human rights complaints.

“Who is a potential patient? Anyone who walks in off the street?”

The policy could be preparing the ground for the elimination of pro-life doctors, Leiva said.

“Should doctors be forced to do things they believe will harm their patients?”