Service, not Servitude
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.
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 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
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
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.
Canada
Pharmacists are said to be the most trusted professionals in medicine; they’re conscientious; we rely on their discretion and their judgment; they have our confidence; we respect them; but do pharmacists respect themselves, let alone one another?
It’s a good question, because in Canada, pharmacists, unlike doctors, find that conscientious objection is a bitter pill for their professional licensing organizations to swallow.
The pharmacists’ governors pay lip service to a pharmacist’s right to refuse to dispense products, but, in fact, a customer’s convenience trumps a pharmacist’s freedoms of conscience and religion: pharmacists are free to object but in the end they must refer or otherwise help customers get the objectionable product. [Full text]