British pharmacy regulator plans to revisit freedom of conscience for pharmacists

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), the state regulator of the profession of pharmacy in the United Kingdom, will be reviewing its standards of conduct, ethics and performance, “including Standard 3.4 which sets out what pharmacy professionals must do if their religious or moral beliefs prevent them from providing a service.”

Preliminary work is to be done in 2013, and there will be public consultation and engagement in 2014/2015.  Those concerned about freedom of conscience among pharmacists in the United Kingdom should follow and participate in the review.

For further information:

Nursing school director opposes freedom of conscience

The Arkansas Legislature is considering HB 98, the Health Care Freedom of Conscience Act, which provides protection for freedom of conscience for individuals and institutions with respect to artificial birth control, assisted reproductive technologies, human embryonic stem-cell research; and contraceptive sterilization.  Meanwhile, Dr. Pegge Bell, Director of the Eleanor Mann School of Nursing at the University
of Arkansas, opposes the exercise of freedom of conscience as a violation of the principles of healthcare.  Dr. Bell suggests that objectors might be able to negotiate arrangements, but should otherwise change specialities, or, presumably, leave the profession. [NWA]

Confronting Conscientious Objection

Engaging Bioethics
The Hoya, 31 January, 2013
Reproduced with permission

Maggie Little*

Conscientious objection. . . is not something lightly invoked. Its legitimate exercise brings with it strong obligations. Objecting providers must disclose their limitations early and often to minimize patient burdens. And they must convey those restrictions with compassion and respect. . . . The very premise of protecting conscientious refusal, after all, is that deeply good and reasonable people disagree on the issue. . .  Full Text

Medicine, Strasbourg, and conscientious objection

European Court of Human Rights decision

Julian Sheather*

. . .Conscientious objection is a live issue in medicine. . . Given the prevailing political pluralism—given the co-existence in our culture of different value systems—to what extent should medicine accommodate such objections? Should those whose consciences differ be treated differently? What forms of conscientious objection should be tolerated and on the basis of what criteria?
[Full Text]

Conscientious Abortions?

  We Don’t Need New Laws Protecting Abortionists

  • Richard M. Doerflinger* |  If we legally protect a “right of conscience” to refuse to assist or perform abortions, shouldn’t we also protect “conscience-based” decisions to provide abortions? So asks Dr. Lisa Harris of the University of Michigan, in a recent commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine (further publicized at a Washington Post blog).
    Full Text