Tag: pharmacists

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

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.

Project letter to the editor, The Province

There is a whiff of arrogance, as well as intolerance, in the BC College of Pharmacists threat to discipline conscientious objectors (Pharmacists’ college warns renegades about not dispensing morning-after pill, The Province, 23 November, 2000).

While the moral convictions of conscientious objectors are trivialized by describing them as ‘personal’ or ‘private’, many of those convictions are, in fact, shared by millions in religious, philosophical and moral traditions that have existed for millennia. If such convictions are ‘private’, those of the College are not less so, even if dressed up as ‘the ethics of the profession’. Yet the College refuses to explain – or cannot explain – why its newly-minted code of ethics (1997) is morally superior to the moral or ethical systems that it threatens to suppress.

Moreover, it is unclear why the College demands blind faith in the dogmatic judgement of its Ethics Advisory Committee. Among other things, the College has no policy governing qualifications, selection and appointment of ethics committee members, nor does it appear that any of the current committee members have formal qualifications in ethics or related fields.

Finally, the College has not demonstrated that, with respect to a dissenting minority, it is necessary to pursue a policy of institutional aggression rather than accommodation.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

 

Pharmacists threatened with discipline

The deputy registrar of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia has warned that pharmacists who refuse to dispense the ‘morning after pill’ for reasons of conscience are in breach of the College’s code of ethics. She invited anyone refused the pill to report the dissenting pharmacist to the College, presumably with a view to prosecution for a breach of what the deputy registrar called “pharmacy legislation” (The Province). The Project Administrator responded to the article with a letter to the editor.