January-March, 2001
March
The Project has released a
report concerning the conduct of the Ethics Advisory Committee of the
College of Pharmacists of BC. The report is critical of the committee for
having published unsubstantiated, prejudicial statements about conscientious
objectors in the College newsletter.
An important conference will be held in Rome between 17 and 20 June.
Speakers at The Future of Obstetrics and Gynaecology: The Fundamental
Right to Practice and be Trained According to Conscience will include
T. Everett Julyan, a General Practitioner from Glasgow, Scotland, who
reported that he had been denied employment due to his opposition to
abortion. The list of topics to be covered suggests that the conference will
be of great interest to conscientious objectors. Registration is not
restricted to Catholics, but it is limited.
A study to appear in the British Medical Journal is reported to include
findings to the effect that almost half of the University of Toronto medical
students surveyed had felt pressured to act unethically, and almost two
thirds had seen their professors acting unethically. Examples cited included
practising non-therapeutic procedures on dying patients.
Dr. Rick Frecker, associate dean of U of T's undergraduate medical
education, was approached some years ago by students about what the National
Post described as "the unethical activities and coercion that have long been
part of medical training." It appears that the study being published is a
result of his encouragement that they document what was going on. [National
Post]
Fulfilling a promise made in February, when he was appointed to the
College of Cardinals, Edward Cardinal Egan went to Albany, New York, to
argue against a proposed law that would force Catholic employers to give up
the practice of their faith and conform to state views on contraception,
something that the Catholic Church holds to be intrinsically evil. At issue
is a bill in the New York State Assembly that would force employers to
provide insurance coverage for contraception. A New York Senate bill
includes a conscience clause that would exempt religious institutions from
such a requirement. (See
Commentary)
The Kentucky Senate passed bill SB 160, a bill that will provide legal
protection of freedom of conscience for pharmacists who do not want to
dispense drugs that can cause abortions. The vote in favour of the bill was
35-1. An amendment to provide the same protection with respect to the
'morning after pill' was defeated 27-11. The bill must proceed to the
Kentucky House of Representatives, where
House Bill 106 is already pending.
February
In January, a bill was reintroduced in the Kentucky
legislature that would exempt a pharmacist who objects to dispensing
medications or devices that may terminate a pregnancy from liability; and
prohibit discrimination against a pharmacist who objects to dispensing
medications or devices that may terminate a pregnancy. (House Bill 106)
A bill introduced in Ohio would protect pharmacists who
refuse to dispense any drug for religious or ethical reasons, thus
preventing forced participation not only in abortion, but in euthanasia,
assisted suicide, and other controversial procedures. The bill would also
ensure that conscientious objection is not used as an excuse to cut off
public funds. (HB71) Similar protection is afforded pharmacists in a bill proposed
in the Indiana Senate (SB297), while a bill before the Indiana House of
Representatives would protect conscientious objectors to abortion.
(HB1631)
Pharmacists in British Columbia, Canada, who refuse to dispense the
'morning after pill' for reasons of conscience risk disciplinary proceedings
for violating 'professional ethics'. However, 'professional ethics' are not
violated for refusing to dispense the drug because the fees are not high
enough. (18 January, 2001)
In view of the imminent distribution of the morning after pill in Spain,
the President of the Spanish Association of Catholic Pharmacists, José
Carlos Areses, has reminded pharmacists that the right to conscientious
objection is protected by the country's constitution. He is suggesting that
pharmacists adopt a code of ethics in order to ensure protection for freedom
of conscience. [Zenit]
A Christian pharmacist in Belgium, Paul Vannes from Ruisbroek, has
stopped selling condoms or morning-after pills after spending retreats at
different abbeys and being convinced of the error of his ways. The Society
of the Belgian Pharmacists is concerned about the development. Belgian law
apparently provides for conscientious objection, but the extent of civil
liability is unclear.
Belgian pharmacist refuses to dispense MAP, condoms
A Christian pharmacist in Belgium, Paul Vannes from Ruisbroek, has
stopped selling condoms or morning-after pills after spending retreats at
different abbeys and being convinced of the error of his ways. The Society
of the Belgian Pharmacists is concerned about the development. Belgian law
apparently provides for conscientious objection, but the extent of civil
liability is unclear.
Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott re-introduced his protection of
conscience bill in the Canadian House of Commons. (text
of bill)
January
A court has ruled that a pharmacist who was fired by K-Mart for refusing
to dispense the 'morning after pill' may proceed with her suit. The judge
ruled that the
Ohio law that allows conscientious objection to abortion also applies to
pharmacists who refuse to dispense the 'morning after pill'. The
contra-implantation effect of the pill was acknowledged to be of fundamental
importance in determining the application of the law. (See ACLJ
news release)
In its first editorial of the new year, the Canadian Pharmaceutical
Journal appears to be taking a second and more considered look at the
possibility of accommodating conscientious objection within the profession.
Editor Andrew Reinboldt correctly identifies referral (or "pre-arranged
access") as a key issue in the controversy. Most promising is his suggestion
that regulatory authorities "may have to be more flexible and creative" on
this point, especially in larger centres, where the drug is widely
available. He also questions the claim that conscientious objection can't be
allowed in 'one pharmacist' communities. (See the Project
response to the editorial.)