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<\/i>).<\/p>\n
While the moral convictions of conscientious objectors are trivialized by describing them as \u2018personal\u2019 or \u2018private\u2019, 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 \u2018private\u2019, those of the College are not less so, even if dressed up as \u2018the ethics of the profession\u2019. 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Sean Murphy, Administrator
\nProtection of Conscience Project<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"