Wealthy western nations attacking protection of conscience at the UN

Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union are reported to be trying to make it illegal for health care workers to decline to perform abortions for reasons of conscience. The negotiations at the Beijing +5 conference are said to have broken down when Nicaragua proposed strong language to protect conscientious objectors. If accurate, these reports indicate that the US, Australia and New Zealand are attempting to impose on third world countries policies that are not acceptable in their own, since all three countries have enacted protection of conscience legislation for their own health care workers.

 

South Africa controversy

Reports from South Africa indicate that there is considerable controversy surrounding the operation of abortion facilities. It is said that some medical personnel are being forced to participate in abortions despite conscientious objection, while some medical personnel willingly involved in abortions have been subjected to harassment.

 

Manitoba pharmacists under attack for protection of conscience policy

The adoption of a protection of conscience policy not dissimilar to those existing in some pharmacy associations in the United States triggered an attack by the Winnipeg Sun in an editorial titled Pharmological farce. (See Project’s response) Coverage in the National Post and Winnipeg Free Press was more balanced. CBC Radio in Winnipeg hosted an open-line programme on 8 June concerning the issue.

 

Pharmacists for Life applaud Manitoba Colleagues for protection of conscience guideline

 News Release

Pharmacists for Life (Canada)

Pharmacists for Life Int’l/Canada (PFLI/Canada) is an educational group concerned with sanctity of human life issues affecting the profession.  We appreciate and applaud the noble decision of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association to include in their Standards of Practice a statement which allows the professionals that they regulate to follow their conscience in the practice of this health care profession.

Since the statement does not force a pharmacist to dispense or make referrals for products or services “in which they have a medical, ethical, moral or religious objection to, the Association shows its recognition of the pharmacist’s autonomy and integrity.  By allowing a freedom of conscience, pharmacists are not impaired in the proper exercise of professional judgment and skills”, said Mr. Michael Izzotti, coordinator of PFLI/Canada.

For many years the profession has been encouraging all pharmacists to become more involved in the practice of “pharmaceutical care”, in which pharmacists provide cognitive services to the public, as well as, supplying products which are intended to achieve specific “health outcomes” for the patient. Mr. Izzotti stated that in the provision of pharmaceutical care, “causing death of a human being is not included in the list of “health outcomes.”  He also stated, “that to many pharmacists, the practice of proper pharmaceutical care would exclude the provision of any products that are intended to cause death, including chemicals for assisted suicides, euthanasia and those which can cause abortions.”

Contact: Michael Izzotti, Coordinator PFLI/Canada Tel:  (905)528-4828    Fax: (905)528-5593

 

Project letter to the editor, The Winnipeg Sun

As submitted

I am pleased to see that the Winnipeg Sun supports the principle that people should not have to dispense products that they find morally offensive. Your editorial (Pharmacological farce, 6 June, 2000) makes clear that conscientious objectors who refuse to sell cigarettes can count on your support, even though cigarettes are legal in Canada.

What remains unclear are the reasons why you insist on a two-tiered system of civil rights with respect to freedom of conscience: full rights for people who agree with you, like those who would refuse to sell cigarettes, and none for those who do not agree with you, like Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience.

However, the fact that you support the principle with respect to like-minded individuals suggests that a more tolerant and liberal attitude toward others may eventually prevail.

Contrary to the dismissive comment in your editorial, concerns that pharmacists may be forced to dispense drugs for assisted suicide and euthanasia are not misplaced. The College of Pharmacists of BC has put its members on notice about such possibilities. Legalization of assisted suicide, as well as execution by lethal injection, have led some pharmacists’ associations in the United States to adopt policies to protect conscientious objectors.

An attempt to force moral beliefs upon the populace? While that may be a fitting description of the Sun’s editorial, it is not the position of conscientious objectors. They simply do not wish to have the private morality of drug companies and newspaper editors forced upon them.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

As Published

Objection sustained

I am pleased The Winnipeg Sun supports the principle that people should not have to dispense products they find morally offensive. Pharmacological Farce, June 6, makes clear that conscientious objectors who refuse to sell cigarettes can count on your support.

Why do you insist on full rights for people who agree with you, like those who won’t sell cigarettes, and none for those who do not agree with you, such as Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience.

The B.C. College of Pharmacists has warned members about the possibility of being forced to dispense drugs for assisted suicide and euthanasia. Legalizing assisted suicide and execution by lethal injection led U.S. pharmacist associations to protect conscientious objectors.

Conscientious objectors aren’t trying to force moral beliefs upon others. They simply do not wish to have the private morality of drug companies and newspaper editors forced upon them.