. . .Since a fair amount of their income was the result of contraception, and surgical sterilisation, I refused to join the pool . . . According to my conscience, I could not accept any part of that income. I soon was dismissed, losing hospitalisation and surgical privileges. The letter of dismissal was signed both by our Mother Superior . . . and . . . a Reverend Canon, who at the same time was one of the secretaries of our
Bishop. [Full text]
Category: Procedures & Services
Letter to the Editor,The Province
Sean Murphy
Readers might be confused by Susan Martinuk’s quote from the College of Pharmacists about what the future may hold for the profession: “preparation of drugs to assist voluntary or involuntary suicide, cloning, genetic manipulation or even suicide.” (Customer isn’t always right on issues of conscience, The Province, 13 June, 2001).
The College Registrar has explained that “involuntary suicide” should have read “involuntary euthanasia“, a clarification that hardly diminishes the moral issues that arise when people are killed without their consent. The second reference to suicide in the same quote is an error in Ms. Martinuk’s article. The sentence in the College statement ended, “…or even execution“. The reference is to the participation of pharmacists in execution by lethal injection, as in the case of Timothy McVeigh.
The paper quoted by Ms. Martinuk was written by the Ethics Advisory Committee of the College, and included imputations of dishonesty directed against conscientious objectors within the profession which the College is unable to substantiate, but which it refuses to withdraw. It is difficult to see how this is consistent with justice nor non-maleficence, two ethical principles that are supposed to be upheld by ethics committees.
Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
Canadian Physicians for Life corrects Planned Parenthood Alberta
News Release
CANADIAN PHYSICIANS FOR LIFE
RE: “Even doctors ethically must make referrals for abortion services, whether they morally support that or not.” Melanie Anderson – Planned Parenthood Alberta (CTV News and Current Affairs Sat 02 Jun 2001)
The erroneous allegation that physicians who object to abortion for reasons of conscience are obliged to refer patients for the procedure continues to be promulgated in Alberta.
Our correspondence with Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons registrar, Dr. Ohlhauser, states clearly that physicians do not have a professional obligation to refer a patient for an abortion. The College requires, as does the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association, that physicians “inform a patient when their personal morality would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants.”
A pro-life physician should declare her personal views to a pregnant patient considering an abortion, in order to place her subsequent discussion in context. The doctor then has every right, indeed, a responsibility, to outline the potential mental and physical risks of abortion just as she would before prescribing a drug or weighing the merits of surgery.
A number of studies report a close correlation between abortion, especially of a first pregnancy, and breast cancer. Are Alberta physicians telling abortion seekers of this threat to their health? Are women being informed of the risk of post-abortion emotional trauma? Are patients being warned that some physicians’ ardent pro-abortion beliefs bias the “counselling” process?
A physician’s duty of care extends to two patients in the case of a pregnant woman – the woman and her unborn child. For a woman to make a truly “informed decision” she must be presented with the facts of human embryology of her unborn child so that she will know that what she is aborting is a human being, not just a clump of cells or a piece of her own tissues. Withholding basic information shows disrespect for women and is both dishonest and patronizing, since it implies that women are too weak to know the truth.
The suggestion that morally troublesome issues need only be referred to a colleague is oblivious to the principled objections of pro-life physicians. Increasingly exotic reproductive technologies may eventually offend even the most laissez-faire physicians. There may come a day where no physician feels free from coercion to violate his or her conscience.
Will Johnston, MD
President – Canadian Physicians for LifeContact:
Canadian Physicians for Life
10150 Gillanders Road; Chilliwack, BC V2P 6H4
Phone: 604-794-3772 Fax: 604-794-3960
Email: info@physiciansforlife.ca
Visit us at: www.physiciansforlife.ca
Pharmacists Conscience Clause Given Stamp of Approval
News Release
Pro-life Wisconsin
HTML clipboard
Madison–A stamp of approval was given to Assembly Bill 307 (late Thursday),
legislation that will provide much needed job security for pharmacists who conscientiously object to dispensing drugs or devices that can cause death through abortion, euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.
In response to compelling testimony from several Wisconsin pharmacists, the Assembly Family Law Committee in a 4-2 vote sent this measure on for expected full approval of the Wisconsin Assembly. Pro-Life Wisconsin applauds the support of committee chair Rep. Carol Owens (R-Oshkosh), who authored the bill, as well as committee members Rep. Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake), Rep. Don Friske (R-Merrill) and Rep. Joan Wade (R-Montello). The dissenting votes came from pro-abortion legislative leader Rep. Terese Berceua (D-Madison) and Rep. Peggy Krusick (D-Milwaukee), who in the past has claimed to be pro-life.
“New abortion techniques focusing on chemical means to end the lives of a preborn babies have received FDA approval or have become more readily available,” explained Mary Matuska, Pro-Life Wisconsin legislative director.
“While abortion was formerly relegated to a clinical setting, it is now possible to receive life-ending drugs in a pharmacy, forcing pharmacists to be party to abortion.”
Opposing testimony used the scare tactic that this bill would ban birth control. “This is not true,” stated Mary Matuska. “This bill will not make drugs such as the morning-after pill and the birth control pill unavailable. It simply recognizes that employers cannot force pharmacists to be directly involved in abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia. It recognizes that pharmacists, like doctors and nurses, are valued health care professionals who should not be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods.”
AB 307 is modelled after legislation which was enacted into law in March, 1998, in the state of South Dakota. Legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and a few other states are currently considering legislation that would recognize the rights of pharmacists not to engage in procedures that violate their consciences.
“People who call themselves “pro-choice” should especially understand the intent of this bill,” stated Peggy Hamill, Pro-Life Wisconsin state director.
“Pharmacists should have the right to choose not to be complicit in the taking of innocent human life.”
Contact: Peggy Hamill, State Director, or Katherine Ribnek, Communications Director (262) 796-1111 (daytime phone) or (414) 416-0489 (cell phone)
Report Faults Pharmacists’ Ethics Committee
News Release
Protection of Conscience Project
A report released on Monday criticizes the Ethics Advisory Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia for publishing a prejudicial and unjustified attack on the integrity of conscientious objectors within the profession. The report identifies ‘ethical nepotism’ in the committee as a factor contributing to misunderstanding and intolerance.
At issue are statements made last year by the Ethics Advisory Committee in the College newsletter, the Bulletin, which were expanded upon and amplified in a later Journal article, written by a member of the Committee. Repeated requests that the allegations be substantiated or withdrawn were ignored.
An access to information request filed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act resulted in the production of over 240 pages of documents, but no evidence to support the claims made in the published statements. Despite this, the Registrar of the College of Pharmacists refused to withdraw the statements or apologize.
The report makes a number of recommendations to the Council of the College of Pharmacists, among them the formulation of a policy to govern the Committee. At present, there is no policy on the selection of its members, who lack formal qualifications in ethics, philosophy, or related disciplines.