Tag: pharmacists

Italian pharmacists called upon to exercise conscientious objection

Pharmacists in Italy have been called upon by the Catholic church to be conscientious objectors against the ‘morning after pill’, since it sometimes acts as an abortifacient. The president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference suggested that pharmacists should be allowed to claim conscientious objector status, a protection afforded to doctors and nurses who do not wish to participate in abortion. Governors of northern Lombardy (around Milan) and Latium (around Rome) have affirmed that the rights of pharmacists to conscientious objection would be respected, despite the government’s position that pharmacists would be breaking the law if they refused to supply the drug.

 

B.C. Pharmacist representing “conscientious objectors” at AGM wins substantial support from colleagues

News Release

Concerned Pharmacists for  Conscience in BC

A resolution that would allow pharmacists to opt out of dispensing morally controversial products such as the Morning After Pill gained substantial support from pharmacists at the AGM of B.C. Pharmacists on October 12th.

A number of pharmacists took to the microphone to voice their strong support; only one pharmacist spoke in opposition. Although the preliminary show-of -hands vote was not won, supporters of the resolution do not see this as a defeat, but simply as a sign that more work needs to be done.

At best, the current Code of Ethics for pharmacists acknowledges that some members may run into moral dilemmas, but does not provide accommodation for conscientious objectors.

“It is ironic that the B.C. Health Minister wants to ban tobacco sales in pharmacies while our Premier wants pharmacists to give out the morning after pill like candy. Scientifically, this is an abortion causing drug developed primarily to act against implantation of a live human embryo in vivo. It is a product that professional pharmacists may refuse to dispense for medical, ethical reasons, or on moral or religious grounds, not to mention liability concerns and the possibility of having angry parents of teenagers coming after us. We still do not know long -term effects of repeated use of the morning after pill, but we do know that these high doses of hormones have been strongly linked to breast cancer. We will be using our young women as guinea pigs,” says Cristina Alarcon, British Columbia representative for a group called Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience.

” Regardless of where you stand on the moral issues surrounding abortifacient use, pharmacists who do not wish to participate must be respected and should not be FORCED to refer”, says Alarcon.

Miss Alarcon made the opening remarks at the AGM in support of the resolution that would recognize a pharmacist’s right to refuse a prescription on moral grounds.

” Conscientious objectors simply want to exercise the right to not participate in morally objectionable treatments and the right to freedom of conscience in matters that pertain to morals and religion in accordance with Canadian Human Rights jurisprudence. We do not claim to have a monopoly on the profession, and we are not blocking access nor infringing on a patient’s ” right to choose”. Furthermore, with the dawn of ever more controversial “treatments”, such as euthanasia,

RU-486, genetic manipulation , and execution (as referred to in our Mar/Apr College bulletin), health care workers are in greater need of Conscience Clause Legislation in this country. This is what I am fighting for,” she continues; “If we are to act in the public’s best interests, we must act freely and responsibly, and not as coerced automatons as our College currently mandates, nor as dispensing machines.

For further information, please call Miss Cristina Alarcon, at 604-222-8317 or at 604-974-0993 ext. 1232

Letter to the editor, Pharmacy Practice

Rosalyn Wosnick invites her readers to equate conscientious objection among pharmacists to the bigotry of a ‘deep south’ restauranteur, who argued that he had a right to deny service to blacks. (Editorial, Pharmacy Practice, July 2000) The analogy is misplaced, misrepresents the position of conscientious objectors, and is likely to engender prejudicial attitudes among their colleagues.

It would have been more accurate to compare pharmacists who have moral objections to dispensing a drug with a coffee shop owner who refuses to sell Brand X coffee to anyone, because it has been produced by child labour. The object, in both cases, is to avoid complicity in what the parties judge to be evil, regardless of the legalities involved.

However, Ms. Wosnick suggests that if a product is legal, and she wants it, other people should be made to give it to her, even if doing so would be contrary to their moral convictions. The product she is concerned about is Preven. Let’s consider a different product.

Ammunition, like Preven, is a legal product. Moreover, one has a legal right to defend one’s own home, even to the point of using deadly force, if need be. Suppose that a householder wants ammunition for defence against burglars, but a gun store clerk with moral objections to this type of crime prevention refuses to sell him ammunition. Applying Ms. Wosnick’s reasoning, the customer complains that the clerk is denying him his “right” to obtain a legal product. He demands that the clerk sell him the ammunition, or refer him to a more willing colleague, threatening to have him fired if he does not do so.

To say shotgun slugs are “legal”, however, means only that the customer is free to obtain and use them for legal purposes. It implies nothing about how gun store clerks should exercise their own freedom, even if licensed gun stores have a monopoly on the sale of ammunition as part of the state gun control system. Freedom to buy shotgun slugs – or drugs – does not mean that one is legally obliged to sell them, or to help others buy them.

If Ms. Wosnick asserts, instead, that there is a moral obligation to dispense a drug, and that this moral obligation is absolutely binding, she must identify the source of this morality. Moreover, since she would not dare to suppress the moral or ethical beliefs of others unless she was convinced that they were inferior to her own, she must explain why her moral views are superior to those that she seeks to suppress. Finally, in view of human rights jurisprudence that generally requires accommodation of belief rather than its suppression, she must explain why accommodation of those who disagree with her is impossible or undesirable.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Project letter to the editor, Pharmacy Practice

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

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.