APPENDIX "D"

Correspondence with Frank Archer

17 August, 2000

To: Mr. Frank Archer

From: Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project

Full Text

I understand that Ms. Lytle has given you my response to your column in the May issue of the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal. Enclosed is a copy of a self-explanatory letter to the CPJ.

I am making the same request of you that I have made to the editor of the CPJ: that you provide evidence to support the allegations you have made, or issue a retraction and apology.

8 September, 2000

To: Mr. Frank Archer

From: Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project

I await your reply to my letter of 17 August, 2000.

Unsubstantiated imputations of dishonesty made by persons in authority are likely to encourage bias against conscientious objectors, impose a strain on collegial relations, and adversely impact the workplace environment.

Accordingly, I request that you retract the offending passages in the your article in the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal and apologize for having made prejudicial statements.

15 November, 2000

To: Mr. Frank Archer

From: Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project

I await a reply to my letters of 17 August and 8 September, and reiterate my request that you retract the offending passages in the your article in the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal, and apologize for having made prejudicial statements.

20 February, 2001

To: Mr. Frank Archer

From: Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project

As a result of an access to information request, I am now aware that the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia has no evidence to support imputations of dishonesty directed at conscientious objectors. Almost identical statements appeared later in an article you wrote for the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal.

You have ignored my letters of 17 August, 8 September and 15 November, in which I asked you to provide evidence to support your allegations, or retract them and apologize. I do not anticipate the courtesy of a reply to this letter.

However, if your conduct in this matter exemplifies what you consider to be "the ethics of the profession", I question your continued involvement with the Ethics Advisory Committee of the College.