Alberta doctors' group supports CMA's constitutional challenge of bill limiting access to medical care for trans youth
The Alberta Medical Association, which advocates on behalf of thousands of local doctors, says it strongly supports its national counterpart in taking the provincial government to court over its transgender legislation.
On Wednesday, the Canadian Medical Association filed a constitutional challenge in the Court of King's Bench of Alberta against Bill 26, which limits access to medical care for transgender youth. Three Alberta doctors, all of whom provide gender-affirming care, are co-applicants in the filing.
The CMA contends that Bill 26, which became law last December, violates physicians' freedom of conscience as guaranteed in Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The organization says the bill undermines the principle of clinical autonomy and 'cuts at the core' of a physician's professional identity.
'This profound violation cannot be justified in a free and democratic society,' the application states.
Shelley Duggan, president of the AMA, said in a statement released Wednesday that the provincial organization supports 'in the strongest terms' the legal action brought forward by the CMA.
'The CMA's review application addresses the moral distress of physicians who are being barred from delivering the evidence-based care that they are called to provide under both their code of ethics and the standard of care,' Dr. Duggan said.
'That distress is real. I hear it every day in many places.'
The legislation bars doctors from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapies for people under 16 and prohibits any gender-reassignment surgeries on minors (those under 18) – which are already performed rarely in Alberta.
Heather Jenkins, press secretary to Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery, said in a statement Wednesday that the Alberta government will 'vigorously' defend its position in court.
'Bill 26 was introduced to protect and preserve children and youth from potentially irreversible decisions,' she said.
This is the second legal action that has been taken against the Alberta government for Bill 26.
Advocacy groups Egale Canada and Skipping Stone Foundation, together with families with gender-diverse children, filed a legal challenge last December that alleges the law violates several Charter-protected rights and contradicts Alberta's own Bill of Rights.
Premier Danielle Smith has defended Bill 26 as necessary to protect children from making life-altering decisions that they could later regret. She has argued that the legislation strikes a balance between protecting children and upholding the rights of transgender people.
Children's Healthcare Canada, in a statement Wednesday, also voiced support for the CMA's constitutional challenge.
Jillian Demontigny, Jake Donaldson and Joseph Raiche, the Alberta doctors who are co-applicants with the CMA, said in their individual affidavits that this legislation has put them in an impossible position. They argue that they must now choose between compromising their ethical standards or breaking the law.
Dr. Demontigny, in her affidavit, said restricting gender-affirming care for youth can cause suffering, including from gender dysphoria and gender incongruence. She said this type of care is vital and only provided after meaningful consultation.
'I cannot in good conscience abandon these patients,' she said.
Dr. Raiche, in his affidavit, said he is 'profoundly troubled by the grave human cost' that the prohibitions will bring.
'Denying treatment and telling physicians that they are powerless to act is not a neutral posture,' he said. 'It is an affront to the dignity of patients whose dignity is already under daily attack by our society, and to the professional and ethical agency of doctors who care for them.'
With a report from Kristy Kirkup in Ottawa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
18 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Too many disabled Canadians are quietly denied the right to make a will
Across the country, a basic legal right is being denied. People with autism, cerebral palsy or other cognitive and developmental disabilities are often unjustly presumed incapable of making a will. These assumptions don't come from the courts. They come from the professionals who are supposed to help: lawyers, advisers, institutions. And they're wrong. Because under Canadian law, a diagnosis is not disqualification. Some people are legally incapable of making a will. They include those with advanced dementia, severe brain injuries or other conditions that leave them unable to understand what a will is, what they own or who they might wish to provide for. Some individuals, with conditions such as autism or intellectual disabilities, for example, may not meet the test. In those cases, the law rightly steps in to protect them. But the fact that some individuals lack capacity doesn't justify assuming all people with disabilities do. Barriers to access: New Canada Disability Benefit will leave many people with disabilities behind The legal test for whether someone is mentally capable to make a valid will is rooted in the precedent of Banks v. Goodfellow, decided more than 150 years ago in the English High Court, and it affirms that understanding and intention matter more than labels. John Banks, the subject of that case, was a wealthy man with a history of mental illness. He believed he was pursued by evil spirits. In 1870, he wrote a will leaving his estate to his niece. A distant cousin challenged the will, arguing he lacked the mental capacity to make it. The court disagreed. It found that Mr. Banks, despite his illness, understood what a will was. He knew what he owned. He knew who might expect to inherit. And he made a conscious, rational choice. His delusions didn't affect that decision and so the will stood. That case still governs Canadian law on capacity today. A person is capable of making a will if, at the time of signing, they understand what a will is and what it does. They must also have a general understanding of what they own, who might reasonably expect to benefit from their estate, and they must not be under the influence of a delusion or mental illness that directly affects their decisions. Most importantly, they must not be under the influence of a delusion or mental illness that directly affects their decisions. It's a flexible, human test. It doesn't require legal fluency or mathematical precision. It requires comprehension and a free, rational intention. And yet many individuals with disabilities are denied the right to make a will before they even get the chance to demonstrate that understanding. 'We are not a priority': Disability advocates say lack of minister sends a message The problem lies not in the law, but in how it's applied. Too often, professionals mistake difference for deficiency. They see a diagnosis, or a non-traditional way of communicating, and assume the person isn't capable. That could be a non-speaking adult using a speech-generating device, or a person with cerebral palsy who communicates slowly, but thinks clearly. These are individuals who may meet all the legal requirements, but who are often excluded based on how they present. That's not caution. That's bias. The role of legal professionals isn't to screen people. It's to meet them where they are. That might mean slowing the pace, using visual explanations, involving trusted support people or arranging a formal capacity assessment. These aren't barriers – they're tools to ensure inclusion. It's also worth noting that not everyone with capacity needs a will. If a person holds all of their assets jointly, or utilizes beneficiary designations for assets such as RRSPs, pensions or life insurance policies, those assets may pass outside the will altogether. In some cases, letting the default rules of intestacy – the legal system that decides who inherits when someone dies without a will – apply may be entirely appropriate, so long as the person understands the implications and makes that choice freely. At its core, a will is about more than property. It's about autonomy. It's about being seen, being heard and leaving a mark. And that power belongs to anyone who meets the legal test, regardless of diagnosis, disability or how they communicate. In a country that prides itself on inclusion and human dignity, it's time we started acting on it. Max Shilleto is an estate planning lawyer and disability advocate in Vancouver.
CBC
20 minutes ago
- CBC
House unanimously adopts Liberals' promised income tax cut
The House of Commons unanimously voted in favour of the Liberals' promised income tax cut on Thursday. The Liberals promised to bring in a one percentage point reduction in the lowest marginal tax rate — taking it from 15 per cent to 14 per cent — during this spring's election campaign. The government introduced a "ways and means" motion to make the tax changes last week and all MPs voted in favour of the motion on Thursday. A ways and means motion allows the government to start making changes to the tax code before such changes are passed in legislation — but a bill will still need to be passed. Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne introduced legislation on Thursday morning that will formally adopt the tax cut into law. Prime Minister Mark Carney promised to implement the tax cut by Canada Day. The Liberals say it will save two-income families up to $840 a year in 2026. Prior to Thursday's vote, Conservatives had signalled that they would be willing to support the tax cut — even though they said it should go further. "We are the party of taxpayers. We will vote for every tax cut always and everywhere. We love taxpayers and we want taxpayers to be better off," Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said last week.
CTV News
23 minutes ago
- CTV News
Change to address Manitoba nursing shortage linked to rise in complaints, injuries: regulatory body
The group regulating nurses in Manitoba say a recent change to address the nursing shortage in the province is putting patients at risk. Jeff Keele reports.
