Category: Commentary

Letter to the Telegraph Journal

New Brunswick, Canada
14 February, 2002

J. Edward Troy,
Bishop Emeritus of  Saint John Rothesay

[Comments in the December, 2001, Bulletin of the College of Physicians and Surgeons  came to media attention in February, 2002, generating pressure on conscientious objectors in New Brunswick.  Catholic Bishop J.  Edward Troy responded to the news reports in this letter, reproduced with permission of the author.  – Administrator-]

The headline on the front page, “MDs’ morals restricting birth control access” (Telegraph-Journal, Feb. 9) was eye-catching. Upon reading the piece, I learned the reporter was culling from the Bulletin of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick (CPSNB) in which it was recorded that at its meeting of Nov. 23, 2001, its council discussed the implications of the right of physicians not to participate in a treatment or process to which they morally object.

In other words, the Code of Ethics of the College quite properly permits physicians to practice their profession in accordance with their conscience. The discussion, as recorded in the bulletin, is repeated  almost in its entirety in the Telegraph-Journal. It was particularly noted that some patients are not referred for an abortion or do not receive advice on contraception from their doctors. This is followed by  comments (not contained in the bulletin) from one physician in Saint John who doesn’t have the same moral qualms, and by some remarks from  the administrator of the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton.

There is an underlying indignation present in the article more suitable to an opinion piece than to a news report. The writer goes back to Nov. 23 for this information which is given headline treatment on Feb. 9,  breathlessly zeroing in on the roughly eight per cent of the text in the college bulletin that considers the case of patients whose doctors refuse to counsel abortion or contraception because of their moral  principles.

Nothing about the other important matters the council deliberated upon  and which were reported in the pages of the same bulletin. Nothing about  the patient who died from a heart attack after being refused treatment for heart disease. Nothing about the instances where allegations of  malpractice were lodged against doctors for a variety of reasons that  resulted in loss of life or serious illness. Nothing about the extremely difficult choices physicians are faced with every day and the honest  efforts the vast majority of them make to serve their patients with  integrity and skill, but also with fallibility and occasional failure.

No, the focus, in a somewhat negative and disapproving fashion, on the  good news that physicians are acting conscientiously in their professional lives. Indeed I was impressed and heartened by all that I read in the bulletin precisely because it revealed the conscientious  manner in which the council of the CPSNB monitors and guides its members.

I doubt very much the CPSNB would wish to change its code of ethics so as to require physicians to disregard their consciences, especially today when there are factions promoting euthanasia and  physician-assisted suicide. While the code of ethics of the CPSNB does  not allow the doctor to impose his moral views on the patient, it would be equally objectionable to insist that the patient be authorized to  impose his or her moral outlook on the doctor. One hears of patients demanding a prescription for this or that drug; should the physician be  obliged to comply? There is reference in the newspaper piece to the  “morning after pill” that is not really a contraceptive but rather an abortifacient.

Pro-life doctors do not perform or cause abortions nor do they  co-operate with others in procuring an abortion. They rightly consider that abortion is the taking of a human life at an early stage in its  development.

In today’s social and cultural climate, the opposition to contraception is not easily understood, let alone accepted. This is not surprising  since the whole idea of any binding moral principles in the area of  sexuality is widely rejected. According to the lax standards prevalent in our culture, no sexual behaviour is morally wrong – fornication, promiscuity, adultery, masturbation, homosexuality, bestiality, etc.

With the exception of child sexual abuse, the guiding rationale seems to be a light-hearted “different folks, different strokes!”

If a person adheres to this sexual libertinism, he or she is not likely to be persuaded by any amount of argumentation that artificial methods  of contraception are wrong, nor will he or she be able or willing to  grasp the distinction between them and natural family planning. He or she will not see that the warm embrace of contraception has led logically and historically to the widespread acceptance of abortion.

While the views of the administrator of the Morgentaler facility were  completely predictable, she really demonstrates a lot of nerve in lecturing physicians about ethics. “I think it’s very irresponsible of doctors not to be meeting patients’ needs, regardless of their personal opinion or religious beliefs,” she is quoted as saying.  Now this judgment comes from someone who is managing a business devoted  to the destruction of babies in the womb!

Talk about the moral high ground! Also, please observe the mentality  revealed in this declaration. If the abortionists were in charge, they would require people to act against their conscience. These are the same  folks that are always whining about pro-life people who, they say, wish to impose their morality on them. However, it’s apparently all right for  the pro-abortion people to impose their morality on the rest of us.

She is also reported complaining that “many” women who had  been refused birth control pills by doctors were using other methods such as condoms and became pregnant. Was that a slip of the tongue?  Doesn’t she belong to the school that keeps insisting that condoms  should be made available to teens and others so that they won’t become  pregnant or contract AIDS? What about all that propaganda about  “safe sex?” It appears that she knows, as everyone should,  that condoms do fail with the result that the woman becomes pregnant or  the unaffected partner gets AIDS.

I salute physicians – no doubt the vast majority of practitioners – who refuse to ignore conscience and moral principle in the exercise of their  calling. I honour physicians who do not derive their notions of what is  right and wrong from popular magazines or from the superficial opinions of “celebrities” or from Hollywood script writers or from harangues by those who operate abortuaries.

Doctors have access to a long and solid tradition of medical ethics.  It’s encouraging to see that so many continue to draw on that wisdom in the practice of their profession and aren’t easily swayed by the fog of  moral indifference which covers so much of the world today.

Project letter to the editor, The Province

There is a whiff of arrogance, as well as intolerance, in the BC College of Pharmacists threat to discipline conscientious objectors (Pharmacists’ college warns renegades about not dispensing morning-after pill, The Province, 23 November, 2000).

While the moral convictions of conscientious objectors are trivialized by describing them as ‘personal’ or ‘private’, many of those convictions are, in fact, shared by millions in religious, philosophical and moral traditions that have existed for millennia. If such convictions are ‘private’, those of the College are not less so, even if dressed up as ‘the ethics of the profession’. Yet the College refuses to explain – or cannot explain – why its newly-minted code of ethics (1997) is morally superior to the moral or ethical systems that it threatens to suppress.

Moreover, it is unclear why the College demands blind faith in the dogmatic judgement of its Ethics Advisory Committee. Among other things, the College has no policy governing qualifications, selection and appointment of ethics committee members, nor does it appear that any of the current committee members have formal qualifications in ethics or related fields.

Finally, the College has not demonstrated that, with respect to a dissenting minority, it is necessary to pursue a policy of institutional aggression rather than accommodation.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

 

Letter to the editor, Pharmacy Practice

Rosalyn Wosnick invites her readers to equate conscientious objection among pharmacists to the bigotry of a ‘deep south’ restauranteur, who argued that he had a right to deny service to blacks. (Editorial, Pharmacy Practice, July 2000) The analogy is misplaced, misrepresents the position of conscientious objectors, and is likely to engender prejudicial attitudes among their colleagues.

It would have been more accurate to compare pharmacists who have moral objections to dispensing a drug with a coffee shop owner who refuses to sell Brand X coffee to anyone, because it has been produced by child labour. The object, in both cases, is to avoid complicity in what the parties judge to be evil, regardless of the legalities involved.

However, Ms. Wosnick suggests that if a product is legal, and she wants it, other people should be made to give it to her, even if doing so would be contrary to their moral convictions. The product she is concerned about is Preven. Let’s consider a different product.

Ammunition, like Preven, is a legal product. Moreover, one has a legal right to defend one’s own home, even to the point of using deadly force, if need be. Suppose that a householder wants ammunition for defence against burglars, but a gun store clerk with moral objections to this type of crime prevention refuses to sell him ammunition. Applying Ms. Wosnick’s reasoning, the customer complains that the clerk is denying him his “right” to obtain a legal product. He demands that the clerk sell him the ammunition, or refer him to a more willing colleague, threatening to have him fired if he does not do so.

To say shotgun slugs are “legal”, however, means only that the customer is free to obtain and use them for legal purposes. It implies nothing about how gun store clerks should exercise their own freedom, even if licensed gun stores have a monopoly on the sale of ammunition as part of the state gun control system. Freedom to buy shotgun slugs – or drugs – does not mean that one is legally obliged to sell them, or to help others buy them.

If Ms. Wosnick asserts, instead, that there is a moral obligation to dispense a drug, and that this moral obligation is absolutely binding, she must identify the source of this morality. Moreover, since she would not dare to suppress the moral or ethical beliefs of others unless she was convinced that they were inferior to her own, she must explain why her moral views are superior to those that she seeks to suppress. Finally, in view of human rights jurisprudence that generally requires accommodation of belief rather than its suppression, she must explain why accommodation of those who disagree with her is impossible or undesirable.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Project letter to the editor, Pharmacy Practice

NAPRA, the Canadian Pharmacy Association and New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Alberta colleges or associations of pharmacy have stonewalled efforts from outside the profession to discuss freedom of conscience in pharmacy. Gordon Stueck’s invitation to serious, open dialogue on the subject is welcome (“Here we go again…” Pharmacy Practice, May 2000). One hopes it will encourage a change of attitude among those governing the profession. This is particularly important if, as Mr. Stueck states, a significant number of pharmacists object to dispensing Preven for reasons of conscience.

Mr. Stueck suggests that the proper context for such discussion is “the role of the pharmacist in today’s society”, and puts forward an argument against freedom of conscience based on economic self-interest. His primary concern is that the monopoly that pharmacists now enjoy in dispensing prescription drugs will be endangered if too many pharmacists refuse to dispense certain drugs for moral or religious reasons. What this amounts to is an assertion that economic self-interest is a greater good that should be protected at the expense of lesser goods – like freedom of conscience and religion.

Is economic self-interest a greater good than freedom of conscience and religion? Perhaps, in Mr. Stueck’s view, it is, but his view has not been dominant in the histories of liberal democracies, and it is not reflected in the Charter of Rights. The Charter guarantees freedom of conscience and religion- not economic self-interest.

Mr. Strueck’s assertion notwithstanding, public policy in Canada is rarely, in practice, determined by everyone in society, but by those in power. The rejection of the Charlottetown Accord in the nationwide referendum was a singular exception to the general rule. The results of other referenda have been ignored when they have conflicted with the views of public policy makers.

Whatever ‘public policy’ might be with respect to this drug or that, suppression of freedom of conscience and religion is not acknowledged by any authority to be a matter of public policy in Canada.

It should not become the policy of a professional association.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Project letter to the editor, The Standard

A number of health care professionals have moral or ethical objections to dispensing the ‘morning after pill’, so a recent article in The Standard (“Morning-after pill poses moral dilemma for some Mds”, 29 June 2000) is of interest beyond the community served by your paper. I would like to make two points.

First: though the drug in question was described as a ‘contraceptive’ that ‘prevents pregnancy’, many who are familiar with the action of the drug consider it an abortifacient, not a contraceptive, and object to dispensing it for that reason. Moreover, people attempting to understand the issues involved need to be aware that the words ‘abortion’, ‘pregnancy’, ‘conception’ and ‘contraception’ are often assigned completely different meanings by parties in the dispute about Preven.

Second: the good news in the story is almost too obvious for many to see. The woman obtained the drug that she wanted, and the physician was not forced to involve himself in something that he considered to be morally abhorrent. Arrangements at the hospital accommodated both her request for the drug, and his request not to have someone else’s morality imposed upon him.

This is the kind of common-sense accommodation that ought to be more widely practised.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project