Service, not Servitude
While Pharmacy Practice has not yet published the Project’s response, (e-mailed 13 July) an editorial against freedom of conscience in pharmacy appears in the July issue. It not only quotes Marianne Meed Ward’s accusation of selfishness with approval, but compares conscientious objectors in pharmacy to a ‘Deep South’ (USA) bigot who refused to serve blacks in his restaurant.
The Project submitted a response to the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal, directing attention to significant errors in Frank Archer’s legal analysis of human rights law on accommodation of religious or moral belief, and challenging prejudicial remarks made about conscientious objectors in his review. A second critical article by a constitutional lawyer was also submitted to the Journal.
NAPRA, the Canadian Pharmacy Association and New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Alberta colleges or associations of pharmacy have stonewalled efforts from outside the profession to discuss freedom of conscience in pharmacy. Gordon Stueck’s invitation to serious, open dialogue on the subject is welcome (“Here we go again…” Pharmacy Practice, May 2000). One hopes it will encourage a change of attitude among those governing the profession. This is particularly important if, as Mr. Stueck states, a significant number of pharmacists object to dispensing Preven for reasons of conscience.
Mr. Stueck suggests that the proper context for such discussion is “the role of the pharmacist in today’s society”, and puts forward an argument against freedom of conscience based on economic self-interest. His primary concern is that the monopoly that pharmacists now enjoy in dispensing prescription drugs will be endangered if too many pharmacists refuse to dispense certain drugs for moral or religious reasons. What this amounts to is an assertion that economic self-interest is a greater good that should be protected at the expense of lesser goods – like freedom of conscience and religion.
Is economic self-interest a greater good than freedom of conscience and religion? Perhaps, in Mr. Stueck’s view, it is, but his view has not been dominant in the histories of liberal democracies, and it is not reflected in the Charter of Rights. The Charter guarantees freedom of conscience and religion- not economic self-interest.
Mr. Strueck’s assertion notwithstanding, public policy in Canada is rarely, in practice, determined by everyone in society, but by those in power. The rejection of the Charlottetown Accord in the nationwide referendum was a singular exception to the general rule. The results of other referenda have been ignored when they have conflicted with the views of public policy makers.
Whatever ‘public policy’ might be with respect to this drug or that, suppression of freedom of conscience and religion is not acknowledged by any authority to be a matter of public policy in Canada.
It should not become the policy of a professional association.
Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
A number of health care professionals have moral or ethical objections to dispensing the ‘morning after pill’, so a recent article in The Standard (“Morning-after pill poses moral dilemma for some Mds”, 29 June 2000) is of interest beyond the community served by your paper. I would like to make two points.
First: though the drug in question was described as a ‘contraceptive’ that ‘prevents pregnancy’, many who are familiar with the action of the drug consider it an abortifacient, not a contraceptive, and object to dispensing it for that reason. Moreover, people attempting to understand the issues involved need to be aware that the words ‘abortion’, ‘pregnancy’, ‘conception’ and ‘contraception’ are often assigned completely different meanings by parties in the dispute about Preven.
Second: the good news in the story is almost too obvious for many to see. The woman obtained the drug that she wanted, and the physician was not forced to involve himself in something that he considered to be morally abhorrent. Arrangements at the hospital accommodated both her request for the drug, and his request not to have someone else’s morality imposed upon him.
This is the kind of common-sense accommodation that ought to be more widely practised.
Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
Representatives speaking up for freedom of conscience in pharmacy were told that they should leave the profession by more than one colleague at the Canadian Pharmacists Association Conference in Saskatoon. Frank Archer’s article was cited against them.