I have noticed that in the two months that Canadians call summer, everybody goes off somewhere else, including Anglicans, which makes Canadian Anglican news somewhat thin on the ground.
So, in lieu of relevant news, I thought the following that I picked up this morning might be of some interest – pro and con for pharmacists conscientious objections.
The pro arguer clearly lives in a big city where you can “walk a few blocks” and find another pharmacy open. The pro arguer also does not take into account that people on social assistance, for example, may not have choice on where to get a prescription filled.
Next question, where do we draw the line? We established some years ago that there is no right to descriminate based on the race or gender of the potential customer. Shall we now draw the line based on the number of micrograms of estrogen?
BTW, the city of Ottawa actually had one of those “thought experiment” cases this year – a woman was sexually assaulted, no trained nurse was available for the “rape kit” and counseling, so she didn’t receive the counseling – and became pregnant (typically, the counseling would advise “Plan B”, which is non-prescription and exactly the topic of the conscience clause.)
Further, what if the pharmacist’s conscience is offended by something more unusual (implicitly, it’s usually about sex)? Should a vegan pharmacist have the right to determine that medicine cultured in eggs will not be dispensed? Could a pharmacist refuse to fill rogaine because it is vain to attempt to grow hair?
The guy who used to write Action Line in the Ottawa Citizen has been undergoing treatment for prostate cancer – a drug used for erectile disfunction is part of his treatment. Would it be ethical for a pharmacist to decline to fill that prescription based on (some idea about) his marital status?
One could posit the hypothetical Christian Science pharmacist, who won’t fill any prescription and owns the only pharmacy in town. The town is CFB Alert, and the nearest other pharmacy is around 1000 km distant. It’s winter. Is his position a valid case of conscience?
Henry, I think that last paragraph is a bit of a stretch….
Whatever happened to the oath, “I will do no harm?” Hippocrates’ version of the oath specifically excluded abortion.
Personally I could never be a family physician (or pharmacist for that matter). There are far too many situations in which I would not be able to compromise my values for the sake of the “choice” of a patient.
I could never:
- refer a woman for an abortion
- write a perscription for the morning-after pill
- refer a patient for gender reassignment surgery
- disclose the gender of a fetus before twenty weeks
- encourage a couple to consider IVF
I could go on.
I suspect that more than a few here will disagree with my seemless vale approach to life. Life is so very sacred to me that no professional position is worth having that would risk compromising my values. I could not sleep at night if I thought that my decision impacted innocent life in a negative way.
I’m also horrified when I encounted clergy who are pro-choice. It makes me sick.
Full stop.
I agree with all of that except IVF. There are people in this world who would not be here if not for IVF, and there are ethical ways to do it.
Kate re IVF are we not messing with God’s creation process?
I’m almost with Kate, but I don’t understand why you wouldn’t disclose the gender of a foetus before twenty weeks. Could you explain, please?
If a man has a very low sperm count such that he was unable to father children, perhaps this may be due to a genetic anomaly, injury or side effects of a treatment for some other condition how are fertility treatments any different from any other medical treatments which might be offered to correct genetic anomalies, injuries or unrelated medical conditions?
Of course, as most fertility treatments are so expensive that many people can’t afford them, this becomes an academic exercise.
#7 For fear the parents will abort if the baby is the “wrong” gender.
#8 The issue is that many clinics will fertilize many more eggs than are absolutely necessary – then what do you do with the “leftovers”? I know that in the States it is possible for couples to adopt the unused fertilized eggs of another couple, have them implanted and give birth. I don’t know if that is legal in Canada.
Kate – “and there are ethical ways to do it.”
………..OH?
Kate @ #2-it’s the heuristic form of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
This has a formal statement, but is well-known to both mothers and children “what if everyone did that?”
If at statement is unsupportable in the extremes, then it’s unsupportable end-to-end.
No one’s engaged so far on the obligation to serve created by the pharmacist’s limited monopoly. If I must obtain certain goods or services through certain persons,
and those goods are legal in themselves, can the provider pick and choose what and to whom he provides?
#10 Yes – only create as many embryos as you are going to implant at one time. Provide means for any “extra” embryos to be adopted by other parents. The fact remains that there are many human beings on this earth today who would not have been conceived if not for IVF. The issue is not as cut and dried as all that.
Henry,
But if everyone did that… in this case was consistently pro-life in all circumstances… I’d be delighted.
I surmise that if Hitler had the technology of IVF we might all be speaking German. Thats hardly good argument, but the fact that the technology exists does not mean it is morally correct.
Can there be any rational argument for “waste not want not” in the area of abortion? I mean since we allow it in the millions why not harness this for the sake of good – stem cell research, organ trans-plant, cloning, medical experimentation, an involuntary slave cast of sub-human species of specialists in the area of warfare, dirty jobs, the sex trade, blood sports etc etc.
after all …… we have the technology! I am not at all in favour of this horrific scenario BUT …… how far away are we from such logic. At least I have found this to be handy in discussions with pro choice persons.
I see nothing inherently wrong with IVF. As with all technology, it can be misused.
Kate,
Except with IVF the “natural act” of pro-creation is removed and the “commodification” of the human is replaced. God’s will that a child be created is trumped by the deisre of the parent/s to create a child on their terms.
And then there is the whole problem of wastage. If you have multiple embyros not all are implanted. What do you do with those left over? And frequently more than one embyro is placed in the uterus with the hope that if one doesn’t “take” than another one will. Of course if there a multiple successful implantations than there is the “choice” of abortion for those that were “inconveniently” conceived.
Sadly, there are too many times where humans play with God’s will. This is just another one.
That happens naturally too, though. My doctor told me that 25% of pregnancies don’t make it to term, and most of those are early miscarriages. What you are describing is misuse of technology. It doesn’t mean that technology in and of itself is evil.
Technology becomes evil or potentially evil when it supercedes the will of the creator. But come to think of it, that could cover near every technical advance ever made. -particularly at the hands of the unscrupulous.
There’s always the Amish solution – draw a line and say “no further”. But it would cut into your blogging time.