Religious Control Has No Place in Public Healthcare
And Yes, That Includes Your Hospital
Disclosure: I serve as co-chair of the Palliser Friends of Medicare board. The views expressed in this column are my own; they do not represent the positions of that organization. Kelly Allard
Let's talk about religious control in healthcare. And no, I don't mean the fish on Fridays thing. That's harmless. I barely noticed it in Medicine Hat.
I'm talking about the part where a hospital takes your tax dollars and then tells you which legal medical services you're allowed to have.
Spoiler: that's not freedom of religion. That's freedom for the government to look the other way while one religion gets to play by different rules.
The Part Where I Almost Had to Fight
My third pregnancy had a dangerous complication - signs of pre-eclampsia which meant bed rest for three days. For those who don't know, pre-eclampsia can kill you. It can kill the baby.
Months later, that baby was born by emergency C-section because she tried to come out face first after over 24 hours of labour. She was in distress; they called surgical staff in early to save her life.
My husband Carl had survived testicular cancer a few years earlier. We'd decided after his cancer surgery (yes, he became a “one-ball” man) and chemo that our family was complete. Because fertility could possibly return, Carl was scheduled for a vasectomy.
He missed the appointment.
My birth control failed.
Next thing I knew, I was pregnant again.
My OB/GYN decided to let me try VBAC (vaginal birth after a C-section).
Once again, labour stopped progressing, baby was in distress.
Once again, they called surgical staff in early to save her life.
So before they wheeled me into the operating room for my second emergency C-section, I told my doctors: "Since you're in there anyway, tie them suckers up," (meaning my fallopian tubes).
They hesitated.
They wanted to make sure that this was not just an impulse after 29 hours of labour (reasonable).
I was able to convince them that we had thought this over before I even got pregnant.
They agreed.
I was lucky.
Sterilization for women is a major surgery (any time you go under general anaesthetic you’re taking a chance you might not survive). To me this was a win-win. I didn’t have to risk another pregnancy and it saved the medical system the cost of another surgery.
A Catholic hospital would have said no.
The Part Where My Husband Had the Freedom to Choose His Fate
Years later, Carl was diagnosed with stage 4 esophageal cancer. Nasty disease. He was going to die. The only question was how. He chose Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID). Legal. Clear. Supported by his family.
We knew he wouldn't make it to Christmas, so we planned an Early Christmas. Family flew in from Australia, from across Canada. Our daughter made a video tribute. Carl got to watch his own memorial while he was still alive to feel the love.
The doctors weren't sure he'd make it that long, they thought we should move the date up. Carl willed himself to stay alive. He held on, stubborn as ever, until that party was over. He died that night, before his scheduled MAID.
But the point is: he had control.
No one moved him.
No one denied him.
No one told him his legal choice was against their religion.
He got his perfect last day. That's how it should work.
The Part Where William Hume Wasn't So Lucky
William Hume was an Edmonton man with the same type of cancer as Carl. He made the same choice, he was approved for MAID. But when he needed hospital care in his final days, the only bed available was at the Grey Nuns Hospital, run by Covenant Health. That's a Catholic organization.
He didn't choose to be there.
He didn't share their beliefs.
It was just the only bed in town.
But because they take public money and the government lets them make their own rules, they don't allow MAID on site.
His family had to scramble to try to move him. The earliest transfer was three days away. He died before he could access MAID.
Carl had hope.
He knew that if the pain became too much, if the suffering became unbearable, there was a way out. That knowledge alone - that light at the end of the tunnel - gave him peace. He could focus on living, on that Early Christmas, on his family, because he knew he had control.
William Hume had despair.
He had no light.
No hope.
Just waiting for a transfer that never came.
That's the difference between a peaceful death and dying in agony. That's the difference between hope and despair. It exists because the government lets a religious group decide what care is available in a public hospital even for people who never asked to be there.
William Hume was dying anyway, the cancer was going to kill him. The only question was how - in agony, or peacefully, surrounded by family. He had found life unbearable. He just wanted a better ending. They didn't throw him out. They just refused to help. They let him suffer instead.
I’m pretty sure Jesus would have something to say about that.
Catholic Health Ethics Guide
Covenant Health's own website states:
The Health Ethics Guide is the foundational ethics resource used by Covenant Health. The guide:
informs our key policies,
ethics consultations and ethics education;
is referenced in our Cooperation and Service Agreement with Alberta Health Services;
helps healthcare professionals navigate complex ethical issues while providing care;
is key to board orientation, leadership development programs for staff and physician privileging;
is given to every director, manager and department at Covenant Health.
That's the contract that governs their public funding. The government knows exactly what rules they're following. They signed off on it.
About sterilization Page 46, Article 43: "Direct sterilization... may not be used for the regulation of conception." That's the rule. No exceptions.
About euthanasia Pg 60 says it's okay to sedate a dying person into unconsciousness to relieve suffering - even if it might shorten their life. But intentionally helping them die peacefully? That's where they draw the line. Apparently suffering is fine as long as you don't mean to end it. Our government lets Catholic hospitals make that call. They take public money, and then they get to decide which legal medical services they will or will not provide.
This document wasn't written 50 years ago. It was last updated in 2023.
I Was Lucky
My hospital wasn't Catholic. When I said "tie them suckers up," they listened; they tied my tubes. Apparently that is one of the procedures that is considered “immoral'“ in the Catholic Health Ethics Guide, they go on to use the word “evil” sixteen times in this guide (I'm not kidding, they actually use the word evil).
However, “Catholic health care organizations are not permitted to engage in immediate material cooperation in actions that are intrinsically immoral, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and direct sterilization.” In assessing other kinds of material cooperation, four factors must be considered:
i. The greater the good that is sought or evil avoided, the more likely it is that the cooperation is permissible.
ii. The greater the evil that is tolerated, the less likely it is that the cooperation is permissible.
iii. The more remote the cooperation, the more likely it is that it is permitted.
iv. If the good in question can be achieved in a way that avoids the evil produced by the cooperative act, the cooperation is to be avoided unless the alternative will cause a proportionate or greater evil.
Above from pg 118 of the Health Ethics Guide
They worry about the "evil" of cooperating with procedures they don't like.
They worry about the "evil effects" of allowing the wrong kind of care.
They worry about "scandal" and "public perception" and "the Church's influence."
The real evil isn't sterilizations or MAID. The real evil is to stand by and allow suffering when you have the power to stop it.
They use the word evil 16 times in their rulebook. Sixteen times. Not once do they call out the suffering they're causing. Not once do they mention the woman begging for a tubal ligation, or the dying man begging for peace, or the family watching someone they love writhe in pain that even a pump can't touch.
If Jesus showed up at that hospital today, I don't think he'd be flipping through some ethics guide counting how many times they used the word "evil." I think he'd be pissed. Pissed that they're using his name to deny people. Pissed that they're standing by while people suffer. Remember what he did to the moneychangers in the temple?
Public Money
A Catholic hospital won't perform a sterilization. A Catholic hospital won't provide MAID. Fine. That's their belief.
But when they take public money - tax dollars from all of us, of every faith and none - and then use that money to deny services to people who never asked for their religion? That's not freedom of religion. That's control.
The woman in the Catholic hospital begging for her tubes tied? She's not asking for a blessing. She's asking for medical care.
William Hume wasn't asking for a miracle. He was asking for a peaceful death.
And some rulebook with 16 references to "evil" gets to say no to both of them, while the real evil - the suffering they stand by and allow - gets a free pass.
The Question Nobody Asks
Here's the thing: if a publicly funded hospital was run by any other religion and started refusing services, people would lose their minds.
Photo - Kelly Allard, 2019
Imagine a hospital run by Jehovah's Witnesses that refused blood transfusions. A car accident victim bleeds out while waiting for a transfer. Can you imagine the outrage? The news coverage? The government would shut that down immediately.
Imagine a hospital run under Sharia law that refused to treat women without a male guardian present. There would be riots. Politicians would hold press conferences. The funding would be pulled so fast it would make your head spin.
But Catholic hospitals have been doing this for decades, and somehow they get a pass. Why? Because we're used to it? Because fish on Fridays seems harmless?
This isn't about attacking the Catholic Church. They have every right to believe what they believe. The problem is the government letting them run public hospitals and then allowing them to deny legal medical services to everyone who walks through the door.
The government is supposed to ensure we all get the same standard of care. Instead, they've handed that responsibility over to an institution with its own rules.
Quebec Figured It Out
In 2023, Quebec passed a law requiring all publicly funded hospitals to allow MAID on site. No transfers. No religious exceptions. Patients die in their own beds.
The Catholic Church is challenging it in court. They say it violates religious freedom. Maybe it does. But here's the question: if you want to run a hospital by religious rules, should you be taking public money?
Quebec says no. Alberta still says yes.
The Separatists Want to Make It Worse
Meanwhile, the Alberta Prosperity Project is out collecting signatures for an independent Alberta. Their proposed constitution begins with "The Supremacy of God."
“For prosperity and the protection of individual freedoms and rights for all Albertans, codified by a new ‘Constitution of Alberta’ that recognizes the Supremacy of God as foundational to Civil Society and the Rule of Law…”
Read that again. They want God at the foundation of our laws. If that happens, it won't just be Catholic hospitals denying services. It will be the government itself. The very institution that's supposed to guarantee your access to care will be the one blocking it.
Here's the thing: if you're a person of faith, that's your business. But your faith shouldn't become my healthcare just because the government decided to fund a hospital that shares your beliefs.
Public money shouldn't be used to promote private agendas. If a hospital takes tax dollars from all of us, it should serve all of us - not just the ones who pass someone's religious test.
The Bottom Line
I didn't want another pregnancy. Carl didn't want to suffer. Those were our choices, made with our doctors, within the law. No religion should get to override a patient's medical decisions. And no government should let them.
This isn't about criticizing the Catholic Church.
It's about criticizing a government that lets one religion set a lower standard of care in buildings paid for by taxpayers of all faiths and of no faith. If a hospital takes public money, it should provide public services. All of them. Not the ones a religious board picks and chooses. Not the ones that pass some ancient ethics test. All of them. Patients shouldn't have to fight for control of their own bodies. Not in 1992. Not in 2026. Not ever. And if a hospital wants to serve fish on Friday? Fine. Just don't let the government pretend that's the only issue.
For the nerds, the skeptics, and anyone who wants proof:
If you think I'm exaggerating or just telling sad stories, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has the receipts. They published a report in 2023 called "Regulation of Belief-Based Care Denial in Canada" that lays it all out: which provinces let doctors refuse care without even giving a referral, how many times Parliament has tried (and failed) to pass "conscience rights" laws, and how Canada stacks up against the rest of the world.
Spoiler: not great.
Read it for yourself at arcc-cdac.ca. Bring receipts.
