Beth Doherty*
Every now and again, stories hit the media about
pharmacists who refuse to stock condoms, dispense
the contraceptive pill and, more recently, the
morning-after pill. Contrary to what we are led to
believe, this is not an irregular occurrence, nor is
it a particularly surprising stance for a Christian
pharmacist.
The most recent example is of one such
pharmacist, Trevor Dal Broi of East Griffith, who,
in recent weeks, removed condoms from his shelves;
declared that he would no longer dispense
contraception; and would not provide emergency
contraception (the morning-after pill) to those who
came in requesting it. He is not the first Catholic
pharmacist to do so, and he will not be the last.
Across Australia, a significant number of Catholic
pharmacists have taken a similar stand.
Greg Turnbull of the Pharmacy Guild of
Australia's national secretariat told the
Sydney
Morning Herald that people were not forced to
go to Mr Dal Broi's pharmacy.
"As far as condoms are concerned, people can buy
them almost anywhere - in supermarkets, in hotel
rest rooms and in petrol stations - so, really, a
pharmacist choosing not to sell them is no big
deal."
Regardless of personal views on the use of
contraception, it is difficult to argue that
pharmacist Trevor Dal Broi was in breach of his role
as a pharmacist to refuse to sell certain products.
Though one might ask the question, why he has
removed contraceptives from his pharmacy only in
recent times, it is a courageous move.
The refusal of organisations such as the
well-known Body Shop to stock supplies tested on
animals is a widely accepted fact. People can choose
to shop there or they may prefer to purchase other
cosmetic brands. Some consumers refuse to purchase
sporting goods from companies such as Nike due to
accusations of the use of sweat-shop labour. Others
choose not to consume Nestle products because of
previous alleged unethical practices regarding
powdered milk. People vote with their feet, and act
on their conscience.
Catholic hospitals in Australia choose not to
provide abortions. This stance is consistent with
the teaching of the church. There is no secret about
this stance and there are plenty of publicly run
hospitals which provide this service.
In commentaries on a
Catholic News
website in response to an article about this
issue, one contributor defended the dignity and
right of Dal Broi to answer to his personal
conscience.
"The best part of Trevor Dal Broi's actions is
the way in which he respects the dignity of the
people who come to him as a client/customer. He very
graciously tells them why he has taken the action.
His actions have both religious and scientific
backing."
One could argue that pharmacists have a
responsibility to provide products which prevent the
spread of sexually transmitted disease. However,
John Wilks of Seven Hills in Sydney has taken the
stand not to provide condoms and contraceptives for
many years, and articulately explains his reasons
not by citing religious ideology, but by arguing the
scientific facts. In this way, Wilks is convincing:
The criticism of Mr Dal
Broi is based upon the assertion that condom and
pill availability reduces the incidence of sexually
transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, and
that therefore Mr Dal Broi's actions undermine this
health ideal.
In the USA, the Centre for
Disease Control reported that the cases of chlamydia
increased from 887,478 in 2003 to 1,108,374 in 2007.
Rates for gonorrhoea and syphilis have also
increased.
In the UK, the rates of
all sexually transmitted disease have increased
every year since at least 1998, with chlamydia
increasing by 150 per cent, and syphilis by 1,828
per cent, despite the widespread availability of
condoms and in-school education programs on their
use.
Also, the UK teenage
pregnancy rate is the highest in Western Europe and
has increased again in the last few years. In
Australia on 17 September, 2009 a newspaper ran the
following: "HIV, chlamydia and syphilis are cutting
a swathe across Australia according to new national
statistics which have disease experts calling for
more testing and reinvigorated public health
campaigns." Our teenage pregnancy rates are one of
the highest in the OECD.
John Wilks' argument is convincing, and it points
out the flaws in how this situation was reported by
the media. In reality, the less popular view is that
of Mr Dal Broi, but the way it has been reported
would suggest that he is personally responsible for
a lack of availability of contraception in the town
of Griffith. There are at least seven pharmacies in
Griffith, meaning that although this could cause
some personal inconvenience, it is certainly not
impossible to obtain contraceptives elsewhere.
Perhaps the story may be of more concern if it was a
one-chemist town - but the argument still stands.
New South Wales Health Minister and Deputy
Premier Carmel Tebbutt said, when interviewed by the
SMH, that there is no legal requirement for
pharmacists to stock any particular therapeutic
device or treatment. While she was arguing against
Trevor Dal Broi's stance, this assertion is correct.
People, if unable to access a particular medicine or
treatment at one pharmacy, can always access it
elsewhere. Not all pharmacies have access to
vaccinations required for overseas travellers. This
does not make them responsible if someone then
becomes ill overseas, certainly not if there are a
number of pharmacies in the area which could have
provided these vaccinations. Similarly, a
pharmacist's refusal to stock the morning-after pill
does not make him responsible for an unplanned
pregnancy.
It is often simply not possible to stock every
treatment available in every pharmacy. In the case
of Mr Dal Broi, it is unlikely that if he was unable
to stock some other variety of medication or
treatment that such a fuss would have been made. Mr
Dal Broi is not hiding his stance. It was reported
by the SMH on October 11 that he is handing
out a pamphlet to women with prescriptions for the
pill stating his reasons for not supplying it.
People have a choice. If this is not accordance with
their beliefs, they have every right to go to
another pharmacy.
The right to individual conscience seems to only
be respected when the widely held view is at stake.
Mr Dal Broi's views are consistent with Catholic
Church teaching and he makes no apology for that. He
is serving his conscience and, as a health
professional, he has as much right to live his moral
beliefs in a free and democratic society as do those
who choose to use contraception.