Category: Protection of Conscience Project

Project letter to the editor, The Standard

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

Faigheann coiste Ill-phairti Oireachtais run mar gheall ar saoirse choinsiasa

Tacaíocht choinsiasa

Fuáir an Coiste Ill-phairti Oireachtais ar an mBunreacht, pléadáil I scríbhinn on gComhairle Saoirse Choinsiasa, ar an nga oibrithe I gcúrsaí leighis agus daoine nach iad a bheith cosainte ó éigeantalacht agus di-mheas.

Chuir Riarthóir an Phróiseas, Sean ó Murchu, in úil go bhfuil béim an phléadáil o chuile éisteachtai eile an Choiste go dáta. “Ní faoi geinmhilleadh,@ adeir sé, “ach  faoi saoirse choinsiasa, chomh fada is a bhaineann sé le cursai leighis faoi lathair, ata  na smaointe seo.@

“Mo lean,” a mhinigh sé, “na h-argointi faoi chúrsai léighis go dtí seo-ni raibh siad riamh curtha, ionas     go mbeadh, mar deir diad (seal mhachnamh stuamtha), agus mar gheall air sin ni raibh aon mhachnamh deanta ar na rudai tharlaionn dóibh siud ata in aghaidh geinmhilleadh de réir  choinsiasa”.

Thagair an t-Uasal ó Murchu don staitistic a rinne iarracht soiléiriú, nuair nach raibh an cúrsa leighis seo sásúil do go leor daoine,nach raibh iachall ar na daoine sin páirt a ghlacadh ann. Rinne an pléadáil I scríbhinn an poinnte nach bhfuil sé sin fíor. Ní dheanann an pléadáil aon phoinnti faoi moltaí spesificiula-fagtar iad seo faoi chúraim an Choiste.

” Má tá nó má bhionn gá le tacaíocht choinsiasa a chur ins an dlí in Éirinn, is faoi Muinntear na H-Éireann a bheas an cúram sin, agus is in Éirinn a chaithfidh na dlíthe agus na polasaithe a bheith déanta-chomh fada is a bhaineann siad le saol na H-Éireann”.

Tá an pléadáil seo ar fáil on Website.

 

All-Party Committee receives plea for freedom of conscience

Protection of Conscience Project

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution has  received a written submission from Protection of Conscience Project on the need for laws to protect health care workers and others from coercion and discrimination.

Project Administrator Sean Murphy noted that the focus of the submission was different from that of the recent Committee hearings. “This submission is not about abortion,” he wrote, “but  about freedom of conscience in relation to morally controversial medical       procedures.”

“Unfortunately,” he  explained, “discussions about such procedures have not always been accompanied by sufficient reflection about their impact on those who object to them for reasons of conscience.”

Mr. Murphy observed that when the procedure in question is objectionable to large numbers of people, it is usually assumed that no one would be forced to participate in it. The submission cites a number of cases to make the point that, in the long run, this is not the case.

The Project does not recommend specific measures, leaving such questions for the consideration of the Committee: “If  there is or will be a need for protection of conscience legislation in Ireland, that need will have to be articulated by Irish citizens, and laws and policies framed according to the circumstances prevailing in Ireland.”

The submission to the Committee is available on-line through the Project Website.

 

Project Submission to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution

 Ireland

(19 June, 2000)

  • Background | In 2000, a parliamentary committee in Ireland held hearings into the possibilty of legalizing abortion in the country.  One of the physicians who testified stated that most obstetricians-gynaecologists would refuse to participate in the procedure. Project Submission

Project letter to the editor, The Winnipeg Sun

As submitted

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

As Published

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.