COMMENTARY
2008
A
Handmaid's Tale
The sheer arrogance of human rights commissions will be their downfall:
their conviction that they have a superior understanding of rights compared
to anyone else and that once they have pronounced how rights shall be
interpreted, the rest of us should fall in lockstep with smiles on our faces
and cheery tunes on our tongues, content that our intellectual betters have
shown us the error of our ways and revealed the path to true enlightenment.
. .
Doctors must always have right to follow
conscience
Some 2,500 years ago, doctors were both healers and killers. . . .That ended
in 400 BC, when a Greek physician named Hippocrates decided that patients
deserved better and wrote an oath to affirm the sanctity of life and the
doctor's duty to protect it. . . .
Letter to the Editor, National Post 16 August, 2008 (Not published)
. . . The crux of this question is clearly what we mean by a medical
treatment someone "requires", and who decides that the person "requires" it.
The doctor? The patient? The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario?
. . .
Forcing our doctors' hands
One of the best-known aid organizations in the world is Medecins Sans
Frontieres -- Doctors Without Borders. It may soon be joined by a similar
group operating within Canada's largest province -- Medecins Sans Conscience
-- Doctors Without Consciences. . .
Letter to the Editor, Seattle Post Intelligencer
Asserting
that his op-ed column will "bring down the wrath of those who see themselves as
ordained guardians of our morals," Dan Thomasson proceeds to angrily moralize
about pharmacists who withdraw from a prescription request in rare cases when
they deem the prescription harmful to patients or deadly to developing babies
. . .
Protecting the Consciences of OB/GYN’s
A recent issue of the Journal of Clinical Ethics
published a series of articles addressing the question, to what
extent should the consciences of obstetrician-gynecologists (ob/gyns)
be protected? The importance of the question lay in the fact
that ob/gyns may receive requests to perform controversial
sexual or reproductive procedures. . .
COMMENTARY
2007
Conscience, Plan B: More than a nicety
John Rinke, a doctor opposed to abortion, finds he must make an
unpopular argument if he wants to keep his job. This is unfortunate.
The argument is about a proposed state law saying that all hospitals must
immediately give any rape victim who asks for it emergency contraception -
in practice, the drug called Plan B. The law makes no exceptions for those
hospital employees who think this is wrong. . .
PRO-CON: Can pharmacists refuse to handle prescriptions for moral reasons?
YES
Freedom means freedom for everyone. In a free society, customers
shouldn’t be forbidden by law from purchasing products except in very
restricted circumstances. And in a free society, proprietors and employers
shouldn’t be forced to sell any particular product. . .
Deadly Prescription for Canadian Doctors
U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower once observed that in free countries, "the
agent may never become the master." If human rights and freedoms are to
flourish, he said, "government must operate with its powers sharply defined
and limited by the governed." Presumably that would apply to the
Canadian Medical Association as well, which, as an agent for Canada's
physicians, is now under pressure to remove doctors' freedom of conscience
on abortion . . .
Right to Refuse to Participate in Abortions:
Comment on the Weldon Amendment
If some have their way, you will either have to amputate your
conscience or get out of healthcare. They see doctors as vending machines for
every and all legal health interventions. Put in your money; get your therapy. .
. .
Doctors Sued for Refusing Insemination on
Conscience Grounds: Comment
on Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Med Grp
. . . If the plaintiff prevails, it will be a severe blow to the rights of
all physicians who seek to follow their conscience. . .
Jiminy Cricket Need Not Apply
Around the country, state legislatures are threatening to remove
conscience clauses that have allowed religious institutions as well as
individuals to be exempt from providing services they find objectionable on
religious and moral grounds. Conscientious objection to military service has a
long history in the United States and other countries. Lately, the debate has
heated up in the medical arena as well . . .
COMMENTARY
2006
Responses to "Abortion: Ensuring Access"
In July,2006, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a
guest editorial by Sanda Rodgers of the Faculty of Law, University of
Ottawa, and Jocelyn Downie, of the Health Law Institute, Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. The editorial appears to have been
an attempt to bully objecting physicians who refuse to refer patients for
abortion by menacing assertions about legal and ethical obligations.
The CMAJ is a publication of the Canadian Medical Association, which,
however, asserts that its contents do not necessarily represent the views of
the Association.
Free speech for pharmacists
The editorial, "Pushing back on 'morning-after' access" wrongly casts an
unconscionable decision by the Oregon Board of Pharmacy as a valiant attempt to
"push back against efforts to restrict access to the 'morning-after pill.'".
. .
Guided By Conscience
. . . Faith and values, and their implications, are factors in emergency
rooms, family practices, residency programs, hospital bioethics committees
and operating rooms in the Roanoke and New River valleys.
. .
Outlawing Conscience:
Why We Need a Conscience Clause
Heather
Williams spent five years working as a pharmacist at a Target store in
St. Louis. During that time, Target accommodated Williams’s desire not
to take part in dispensing the morning-after pill—the drug that causes
the abortion of an embryonic human being. But then Planned Parenthood
threatened to boycott the Target chain over Williams’s employment—so
Target fired her. . .
Project Letter to the Editor, Hartford Courant
Frances Kissling, who, for political purposes, purports to have
some association with the Catholic Church, poses the rhetorical question,
"Does Church doctrine trump rape victims’ needs?" (Hartford Courant,
19 March, 2006). The title of her column illustrates the old problem of
getting the wrong answers by asking the wrong questions. . .
Heavy-handed in Massachusetts
An imperious Massachusetts state pharmacy board dropped a bomb on
private enterprise and individuals rights this week, ordering Wal-Mart
to stock the controversial “morning-after pill” ("Wal-Mart to sell
morning-after pill," Nation/Politics, Tuesday) . . .
CMA in Washington Post on Conscience Rights
. . .
CMDA has spoken out concerning the right of conscience as Christian
healthcare professionals come under increasing attack from groups trying to
force them to violate their beliefs. It is ironic that those who march under
the banner of “choice” and “rights” are eager to trample on the civil
liberties of others. . .
COMMENTARY
2005
Rights of Conscience - Exactly Whose Conscience Wins?
If you were to listen to the liberal establishment, you would think there
was a terrible abuse of human rights happening here in the US . . .
Rights of Conscience
Have you noticed the progression of demands from groups that society accept
morally objectionable practices? Whether it is abortion on demand or the
church allowing homosexual marriage, first there is a demand for tolerance.
Once a practice is tolerated, the next demand is for acceptance without
reservation. . .
Rights of Conscience
Some pharmacists in Illinois may soon have to decide between their job and
their conscience. Recently, Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an executive
order requiring pharmacists to dispense all legally written prescriptions,
including those for the morning-after pill. . .
Protect pro-life druggists
Public policy debates ignited by special interest groups often lend
more heat than light to issues. So it is with "Pharmacists vs. the
Pill," a battle started by abortion-rights advocates. .
People without Conscience
. . .The Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment was approved as part
of Congress's final omnibus funding bill. It forbids federal agencies, and
state and local governments receiving federal funds, to discriminate
against health care providers who choose not to participate in abortions.
. .
Letter to the Editor, Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal (Alarcon)
. . . you write that tolerance
is a bedrock value of our democracy and that it goes both ways; yet in the
next paragraph you contradict yourself by stating that the onus is on the
health professional to respect the religious beliefs of the patient, and
not the other way around. . .
Letter to the Editor, Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal (Bizecki)
The editorial written in
October’s issue was an excellent demonstration of the discriminatory
harassment to which conscientious objectors are subjected . . .
COMMENTARY
2004
Project letter to the editor, Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal
Polly Thompson asserts that religious tolerance is "a
bedrock value of our democracy, and it goes both ways," but then claims
that "the onus is on the health professional to respect the religious
beliefs of the patient, not the other way around," a most peculiar form of
tolerant reciprocity. . .
Government still in hot pursuit of their conscience-crushing abortion
campaign
Health Committees of Provincial
Parliaments have been discussing the Abortion Amendment Bill this past
week, but the public have been refused the opportunity to make
submissions.
The Government is proceeding with the liberalisation of the abortion law
(final debate on the Amendment Bill scheduled for November 4th in the
National Assembly) in a manner which can only lead to the conclusion that
they are still in hot pursuit of their campaign to put increasing pressure
on pro-life health professionals to do their abortions for them . . .
Doctors, Medical
Professionals Deserve Conscience Protection on Abortion
The House of Representatives recently voted to prohibit
government authorities from requiring any health care professional or
institution to perform or pay for abortions. Our Founding Fathers obviously would applaud this
protection of individual liberties and conscience. Yet when D.C. officials faced
this hot brewing battle a few years ago, they pushed free speech and freedom of
religion aside and nearly plunged the capital into a health care crisis . . .
Planned Parenthood and "Anti-Choice" Rhetoric
(Project response to "Planned Parenthood Targets 'Anti-choice' Docs"
[Calgary Herald] 30 August 2004)
In 1999, citing allegations by un-named "individuals," a
Councillor of the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons claimed that
some physicians who were not "supportive" of women seeking abortions were
"rude and bullying to patients." Canadian Physicians for Life rebuked the
Councillor for relying upon "polemical hearsay" and demanded that the
College substantiate the allegation . . .
Project Letter to the Editor, National Post (Canada) 22 May, 2004
Your report about plans to make the morning-after pill
available without prescription claimed that pharmacists who refuse to
dispense it for reasons of conscience are expected to refer for the drug
("'Abortion pill' rules loosened: Morning-after tablet to be available
without a prescription," National Post, 19 May 2004). This is an
oversimplification . . .
Project letter to the Editor, Western Standard Magazine (Alberta, Canada) 14 May, 2004
Should doctors be forced to abandon their faith? by Terry O’Neill
draws attention to the problem of freedom of conscience in health care. .
.
Project Letter to the Editor,
Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Canada) 5 April, 2004
Rebecca J. Cook and Bernard M. Dickens state, "Physicians who feel
entitled to subordinate their patient’s desire for well-being to
the service of their own personal morality or conscience should not
practise clinical medicine" (Emphasis added). The statement is
unsupported by their own legal references, and it has little to recommend
it as an ordering principle in the practice of medicine . . .
Project Letter to the Editor, Calgary Herald (Alberta, Canada) 12
February, 2004
While I am pleased to see that Laura Wershler is willing to accommodate
freedom of conscience among health care workers, I must correct some
misleading statements included in her article ("The morning after:
Pro-life agenda misrepresents the emergency contraceptive pill, or ECP",Calgary
Herald, 13 February, 2004) . . .
When Rights Collide
A few years ago, a customer asked Co-op pharmacist Maria Bizecki to fill a prescription for an abortion drug. For Bizecki, a Roman
Catholic and active pro-lifer, this was akin to being invited to become an accessory to murder. She declined.
It was a risky stand against the prevailing view of pharmaceutical professional associations, and employers retailing drugs. Yet, ultimately it led to a small step forward for Albertans' religious
freedom. . .
COMMENTARY
2003
Project Letter to the Editor, Cybercast News Service (USA) 5 March, 2003
Some opponents of freedom of conscience for Wisconsin
pharmacists justify their coercive views with the claim that rural
residents may be deprived of certain drugs if the only pharmacist in town
has moral objections to dispensing them. (Pharmacist Conscience Bill
Pushed in Wisconsin, February 28, 2003). . .
Project Letter to the Editor, The Medical Post (Canada) 24 January, 2003
I am writing to correct an error in a report published in July in The
Medical Post. ("Swiss vote in new law making abortion legal in first
trimester". 24 July, 2002, Vol. 28, No. 37). My response has been delayed
by the need to consult Swiss authorities and the Swiss Catholic Bishops’
Conference. . .
COMMENTARY
2002
Project Letter to the Editor, Daily News (Halifax, N.S.), 27 December,
2002
This response to your article Bacon, eggs and peace of mind:
Pharmacists, Planned Parenthood push for prescription-free morning-after
pill (17 November, 2002) has been delayed by the need to consult the
Nova Scotia College of Pharmacists.
With respect to the ‘morning-after-pill’, your article attributed the
following quote to Kelly Grover of Planned Parenthood: "Nobody is forcing
pharmacists to prescribe this. There is a code of ethics that requires them
to refer patients." . . .
Project
Letter to the Editor, New Brunswick/Saint John Telegraph Journal
12 November, 2002
Doctors at the hospital in Moncton have decided to perform only abortions
they believe necessary for maternal health, so that scarce health care
resources can be dedicated to reducing waiting lists for surgery. Dr.
Henry Morgentaler calls this "disgusting". He also accuses his colleagues
of unethical conduct because they appear to be imposing their religious or
moral views on patients. . .
The Unfree
It's still legal to oppose abortion, isn't it? You might think
that any piece of legislation with the word "non-discrimination" in it is
just about automatically headed for easy congressional passage. What
politician wants to be on record as being in favor of discrimination?
Well, it's just not so. At least if the issues involved are religion and
abortion . . .
A Doctor's Choice.
Dick Armey was the Majority Leader (Republican) in the
U.S. House of Representatives when the following opinion column was
written. Mr. Armey successfully argued for the passage of the
Abortion
Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA).
The column first appeared in the
Washington Times on 25 September, 2002.
Tough Pill Bill to Swallow
Passage of New York's Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive
Coverage (EPICC) bill forces New York's fully insured health plans to
subsidize all FDA-approved contraceptive pills and devices. In addition to
violating religious liberty and an individual's right of conscience, this
law undermines parents by expanding government control of American
children's sexual and reproductive health . . .
Who is
"imposing morality" in Barrie? (Project response to CBC Op-Ed
piece, April, 2002)
In an editorial broadcast on CBC Radio on 7 March, 2002, Dr. Brian
Goldman criticized Dr. Frederick Ross of Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Dr.
Stephen Dawson of Barrie, Ontario. Dr. Ross had told his patients to
stop smoking or find another doctor, while Dr. Dawson had refused to
prescribe birth control pills or Viagra to single patients.
Emergency
contraception a flawed choice
Tomorrow,
the first day of spring, a coalition of American national, state and local
organizations will take Walt Disney's Bambi's notion of "being
twitter pated" to a new level . . .
No
Hospitality: The Unborn and the ACLU
Few, if any, organizations in the world promote abortion as zealously
as the American Civil Liberties Union. Now it's training its guns on
hospitals . . .
Project
Letter to the Editor, New Brunswick/Saint John Telegraph Journal
24
February, 2002
Dr. Monica Brewer’s characterization of physician referral for morally
controversial purposes as a "black and white" issue is the
result of inadequate reflection.("MD’s Morals Restricting Birth
Control Access," February 9, 2002) . . .
Project
Letter to the Editor, National Post, 23 February, 2002
A doctor caring for patients in four Ontario cities may be driven from the
profession, or from the country, because he refuses to practise medicine
in accordance with the policies of Planned Parenthood ("MD under fire
for denying birth control," National Post, 22 February, 2002).
Welcome to the world of single-issue ethics. . .
Project
Letter to the Editor, The Barrie Examiner, 22 February, 2002
Continuing attempts to suppress the freedom of conscience of health care
workers like Dr. Stephen Dawson ("Doctor’s Faith Under
Scrutiny," The Barrie Examiner February 21, 2002) give the lie
to the claim, oft repeated by Canadian politicians, that protection of
conscience legislation is unnecessary . . .
Project
Letter to the Editor (BC Medical Journal) 16 February, 2002
The cover of your January/February 2002 edition highlighting Dr. Roey M.
Malleson’s article on ‘emergency contraception’ was unexpected: a
brawny, half-naked, Aryan warrior, eyes glinting murderously from under
his horned helmet, wielding a copper IUD, crouched to spring and
slaughter. . .
COMMENTARY
2001
Project Letter
to the
Editor (Globe and Mail)
18 December, 2001
Michael Valpy quotes Janet
Cooper to the effect that 4,600 prescriptions for the ‘morning-after-pill’
in BC are believed to have prevented 300 pregnancies . . .Doing the math, one finds that only about 6% of these women might have
been pregnant . . .
Letter to the Editor (Pharmacy Practice)
Re: Ethics and Patient Care, in the June issue of Pharmacy Practice
22 July, 2001
I
fully agree with Frank Archer’s premise that “ a long time ago pharmacy
established itself as a patient-centred profession”.
. .
Project Letter
to the
Editor (Pharmacy Practice)
10 July, 2001
Far from illuminating fundamental ethical issues, Frank
Archer’s preference for mantras like "recognized pharmacy
services" casts a shadow over discussion. (Ethics
Project
Letter to the
Editor (The Ottawa Citizen)
4 July, 2001
It is both remarkable and
shameful that nurses like "Alice" must use pseudonyms when
commenting on freedom of conscience, something that the Canadian
Charter of Rights proclaims to be a "fundamental freedom" .
. .
Letter
to the Editor (MS. Magazine)
25 June, 2001
I
still don't get it. How can those who stand for the "right of
women to make their own decisions" at the same time argue that a
doctor, nurse, or pharmacist should be legally coerced into performing an
act that violates her most deeply-held beliefs? . . .
Project Letter to
the
Editor (Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal)
19 June, 2001
Further to our e-mail exchange of 24 May, 2001, I am writing to
thank you for your editorial response to my criticism of Frank Archer’s
opinion piece in the Journal last year.
Project Letter
to the Editor (The Province)
14
June, 2001
Readers might be confused by Susan Martinuk’s quote from the
College of Pharmacists about what the future may hold for the
profession: "preparation of drugs to assist voluntary or
involuntary suicide, cloning, genetic manipulation or even suicide"
. . .
Project Letter to the
Editor (Post-Crescent)
3 May, 2001
An article about a bill in the Wisconsin legislature (Megan Mulholland, Conscience bill offers no easy answers,
30 April, 2001) concludes with the observation that it raises tough
questions but "no easy answers. . .
Editorial- (Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal)
April, 2001
Back
in August, in the thick of our series on emergency contraception, Sean
Murphy, administrator of a group called the Protection of Conscience
Project, sent us a letter criticizing a column we published by Frank Archer,
a member of the BC College of Pharmacists ethics committee . . .
Hold that conscience: Some health laws would force
churches to betray their beliefs.
26
March, 2001 John Leo: Outlook.
US
News and World Report
Project Letter to the Editor (Pharmacy Practice)
1 February, 2001
Freedom of conscience and religion enjoy privileged status
in Canada and are "fundamental" goods guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, but
the Charter does not similarly guarantee professional or economic
self-interest . . .
Project Letter
to the Editor (Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal)
29 January, 2001
The January editorial ("Compromise") in the Canadian
Pharmaceutical Journal is a welcome invitation to reflect more deeply on the serious
obligation to accommodate freedom of conscience within the profession . .
.
Project Letter
to the Editor (The London Free Press)
17 January, 2001
Sharon Osvald’s op/ed piece (Can Workplace,
Conscience, Co-exist? 16 January,
2001) refers to a difference in belief about
conception. The controversy about the ‘morning after pill’ actually begins to
swirl around the definition of conception . . .
Can
Workplace, Conscience Co-exist?
16 January, 2001
Sharon Osvald, (Editorial/Opinion) London Free Press
Project Letter to the Editor (The Star
Phoenix)
11 January, 2001
The Star Phoenix editorial in favour of pharmacists
dispensing the ‘morning after pill’ reflects some confusion about the
controversy surrounding the drug . . .
Update Report on Freedom of Conscience in Healthcare Delivery
10 January, 2001
Richard A. Watson, M.D. Co-Chairman, New Jersey Physicians' Resource Council;
Past President, Catholic Medical Association
COMMENTARY
2000
Project Letter
to the Editor (The Province)
24
November, 2000
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)
. . .
Project Letter to
the Editor (Pharmacy Practice)
10
August, 2000
Rosalyn Wosnick invites her readers to equate conscientious objection among pharmacists
to the bigotry of a ‘deep south’ restauranteur, who argued that he had a right
to deny service to blacks. (Editorial, Pharmacy Practice, July 2000) The analogy
is misplaced, misrepresents the position of conscientious objectors, and is likely to
engender prejudicial attitudes among their colleagues. . .
Project etter
to the Editor (Pharmacy Practice)
13
July, 2000
NAPRA, the Canadian Pharmacy Association and New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward
Island, Yukon and Alberta colleges or associations of pharmacy have stonewalled efforts
from outside the profession to discuss freedom of conscience in pharmacy. Gordon
Stueck’s invitation to serious, open dialogue on the subject is welcome
. . .
Project Letter
to the Editor (The Standard)
29
June, 2000
A number of health care professionals have moral or ethical objections to dispensing
the >morning after pill=, so a recent article in The Standard (AMorning-after pill poses moral dilemma for some Mds@, 29 June 2000) is of
interest beyond the community served by your paper. I would like to make two points.
. .
Project Letter
to the Editor (Winnipeg Sun)
6
June, 2000
I am pleased to see that the Winnipeg Sun supports the principle that
people should not have to dispense products that they find morally offensive. Your
editorial (Pharmacological farce, 6 June, 2000) makes clear that conscientious
objectors who refuse to sell cigarettes can count on your support, even though cigarettes
are legal in Canada. . .
Letter
to the Editor (Globe & Mail)
May 10, 2000
An "inability to distinguish between emergency contraception
and the abortion pill", and "irresponsible and blatantly uninformed"
actually describes Planned Parenthood, not educated pharmacists.
. .
Project Letter
to the Editor (Globe & Mail)
28 April, 2000
Joy Thompson and Hazelle Palmer betray a fundamental misunderstanding of conscientious
objection in their criticism of Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience (Don't let drug
stores become pulpits, Globe & Mail, 26 April 2000).
Project Letter
to the Editor (Edmonton Sun)
25 April, 2000
Mindelle Jacobs cites Arthur Schafer, director of the Centre for
Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba, to the effect
that conscientious objectors should be driven out of the medical profession
if they are unwilling to provide "perfectly legal services" to patients who
want the services but can’t go elsewhere to get them. . . |