Seventh Day Adventist president stresses importance of freedom of conscience

Seventh-day Adventist world church President Ted N. C. Wilson, speaking at the 7th World Congress for Religious Freedom in the Dominican Republic, distinguished between “radical” or anti-religious secularism—that would exclude religion from public life—and “secular governance,” which accommodates religious belief, protects the religious freedom rights of minorities but does not favour a particular religious tradition. Radical secularism, he said, must be opposed.  At the same time, religious believers must not attempt to establish a “religious state” as an alternative to secular regimes. [Adventist News Network]

Refusing to treat children whose parents won’t comply with vaccination regimes

An editorial in the Toronto Star notes that some physicians are refusing to continue with families when parents refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated.  In most cases the refusals are prompted by distrust of conventional medicine and fear of side effects.  The editorial supports those who recommend that physicians keep objecting families in their practices so that children can continue to get good medical care and to provide the opportunity to convince unwilling parents to consent to vaccination. [Toronto Star]

British General Medical Council proposes to force physicians to set aside “personal beliefs”

Britain’s General Medical Council has released a draft document for consultation that proposes to force physicians to facilitate practices to which they object for reasons of conscience by helping patients find someone who will provide the procedures.  The proposal would also prohibit physicians from explaining their beliefs to patients “in ways that. . . are likely to cause them distress”  – a subjective requirement open to abuse by disgruntled patients. Comments are sought from 18 April, 2012 to 13 June, 2012. [Document] [GMC] [Bioedge]

Prescribing drugs to secure religious conformity: question of conscience?

Haaretz reports that psychiatric drugs are being prescribed to members of the ultra-orthodox Jewish Haredi community to suppress sexual urges and help them to conform to religious prohibitions against masturbation, homosexual conduct and frequent sexual relations.  A posting on the Practical Ethics blog of Oxford University asks whether or not psychiatrists may, for reasons of conscience, refuse to prescribe drugs for this reason.  The writer, quoting Julian Salvulescu’s denunciation of freedom of conscience in health care, reasons “a psychiatrist has no ground for conscientious objection and should provide the treatment to Haredim,” but ultimately concludes that this seems “intuitively incorrect.”

Pharmaceutical Hippocratic Oath

The Pharmaceutical Hippocratic Oath has been prepared by Reprieve, an organization in the United Kingdom that works to ensure fair judicial processes around the world. The group places special emphasis on cases involving capital punishment.  The oath includes the following statement:

“We dedicate our work to developing and distributing pharmaceuticals to the service of humanity; we will practice our profession with conscience and dignity; the right to health of the patient will be our first consideration; we condemn the use of any of our pharmaceuticals in the execution of human beings.”

Some of the issues associated with the campaign it are relevant to freedom of conscience for health care workers, especially pharmacists.  They include the problem of complicity, degrees of participation and the apparent appeal to a de facto corporate conscience.