Category: Canada

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

Canadian Physicians for Life corrects Planned Parenthood Alberta

News Release

CANADIAN PHYSICIANS FOR LIFE

RE:  “Even doctors ethically must make referrals for abortion services, whether they morally support that or not.”  Melanie Anderson – Planned Parenthood Alberta  (CTV News and Current Affairs Sat 02 Jun 2001)

The erroneous allegation that physicians who object to abortion for reasons of conscience are obliged to refer patients for the procedure continues to be promulgated in Alberta.

Our correspondence with Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons registrar, Dr. Ohlhauser, states clearly that physicians do not have a professional obligation to refer a patient for an abortion.  The College requires, as does the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association, that physicians “inform a patient when their personal morality would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants.”

A pro-life physician should declare her personal views to a pregnant patient considering an abortion, in order to place her subsequent discussion in context.  The doctor then has every right, indeed, a responsibility, to outline the potential mental and physical risks of abortion just as she would before prescribing a drug or weighing the merits of surgery.

A number of studies report a close correlation between abortion, especially of a first pregnancy, and breast cancer. Are Alberta physicians telling abortion seekers of this threat to their health? Are women being informed of the risk of post-abortion emotional trauma? Are patients being warned that some physicians’ ardent pro-abortion beliefs bias the “counselling” process?

A physician’s duty of care extends to two patients in the case of a pregnant woman – the woman and her unborn child.  For a woman to make a truly “informed decision” she must be presented with the facts of human embryology of her unborn child so that she will know that what she is aborting is a human being, not just a clump of cells or a piece of her own tissues.  Withholding basic information shows disrespect for women and is both dishonest and patronizing, since it implies that women are too weak to know the truth.

The suggestion that morally troublesome issues need only be referred to a colleague is oblivious to the principled objections of pro-life physicians. Increasingly exotic reproductive technologies may eventually offend even the most laissez-faire physicians.  There may come a day where no physician feels free from coercion to violate his or her conscience.

Will Johnston, MD
President – Canadian Physicians for LifeContact: 
Canadian Physicians for Life
10150 Gillanders Road; Chilliwack, BC  V2P 6H4
Phone:  604-794-3772  Fax:  604-794-3960
Email:  info@physiciansforlife.ca
Visit us at:  www.physiciansforlife.ca

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.