Protection of Conscience Project One Year Old
 

Protection of Conscience Project
For immediate release
1 December, 2000

The Protection of Conscience Project was officially launched one year ago. The Project is a non-denominational, non-profit initiative that seeks laws to protect the freedom of conscience of health care workers and others, who have come under increasing pressure to participate in morally controversial procedures.

Over the first few months, the original board of advisors grew from three to seven; it now includes members from three continents, four countries. and a number of academic disciplines.

During the year, submissions on freedom of conscience were made to the All-Party Oireachtais Committee on the Constitution (Ireland), the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities (Canada). The potential impact of the Access to Abortion Services Act (British Columbia) was examined in the first Project report, and efforts have been made to support conscientious objectors by facilitating communication, and by referrals and correspondence.

The Project website has been used by some legislators and others advocating for protection of conscience. Entry level pages in English and French are now available on the site. Posted documents are linked to a service that provides free translation of the gist of the text into six languages, with an option for more accurate, paid translation.

There have been over 800 visitors and 1,000 visits to the website since mid-February, 2000, an average of four visits per day. "The numbers aren’t large," comments Sean Murphy, the Project Administrator. "But word is slowly getting out to the people who need to hear about it. And comments from people in difficulty indicate that the work being done is appreciated."

ACLJ Files Religious Discrimination Suit Against Ca. Health Agency Over "Morning After" Pill
 

American Center for Law and Justice
December 1, 2000

(Riverside, CA) – The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Riverside, California on behalf of a health care worker charging that she was fired from her job as a nurse for Riverside County, California after she refused to dispense medication known as a “morning-after” pill designed to end pregnancies.

“This case centers on the rights of our client to hold religious beliefs and have those beliefs accommodated by her employer,” said Frank Manion, Senior Regional Counsel of the ACLJ who is representing the nurse. “Our client did not want to dispense medication that she believes places her in a position to participate in an abortion. It is our position that her deeply held religious beliefs were ignored by her employer and it is our belief that she was wrongly fired because of those beliefs.”

The ACLJ filed suit today in U.S. District Court in Riverside on behalf of Michelle Diaz, who worked as a Clinic Health Nurse at the Riverside Neighborhood Health Center. The complaint contends that in March 1999, Diaz and other health professionals expressed their concerns to management about dispensing the so-called “morning-after” pill – medication designed to end pregnancies. The lawsuit states that Diaz told her supervisor that her deeply held religious beliefs prevented her from distributing the medication because she believed she would be participating in an abortion.

The complaint contends that the Director of Public Health for Riverside County informed her that if she did not sign a document that required her to dispense what the county called “emergency contraception” which included the “morning-after” pill and other pregnancy-ending medications, she would no longer be able to work at the clinic. Diaz did not sign the document and wrote a letter to the Director of Public Health explaining that her religious beliefs prevented her from doing so.

According to the suit, in June 1999, Diaz was contacted by news reporters concerning the “morning-after” pill controversy and explained her position to the media. The suit contends that on June 23, 1999 – just days after speaking with the media – she was told that she was being terminated.

“This case may represent a new kind of religious discrimination in the workplace as health care professionals strive to follow their consciences as they begin dispensing new pregnancy-ending drugs like RU-486,” said Manion. “A person’s religious beliefs must be respected and accommodated in the workplace. To do anything less is simply wrong and unconstitutional.”

The lawsuit contends that the action taken against Diaz violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution along with provisions in the California Constitution. The complaint contends the County violated her constitutional rights of free speech and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to accommodate her religious beliefs and terminating her employment.

At the same time, the suit contends that Diaz has suffered and continues to suffer financial loss from the termination and damage to her professional reputation. The suit requests that the court find the actions of the defendants illegal and unconstitutional and requests unspecified damages. The suit also requests a trial by jury.

The suit names as defendants the County of Riverside Health Services Agency, Kenneth Cohen, the Director of the Agency, and Dr. Gary Feldman, who serves as Director of Public Health and as the Public Health Officer for Riverside County.

The ACLJ is being assisted in this case by Robert Tyler of the firm, Tyler, Dorsa & Eldridge in Temecula, CA.

The American Center for Law and Justice is an international public interest law firm that specializes in constitutional law and focuses on pro-life, pro-family, and pro-liberty issues. The ACLJ is headquartered in Virginia Beach, VA.

Government Declines to Rule Out Prosecution of Conscientious Objectors
 

Protection of Conscience Project
For immediate release
2 November, 2000

A spokesperson for the British Columbia Ministry of Health has declined to provide assurance that health care workers who object to abortion will not be prosecuted under the Access to Abortion Services Act.

The Act could be used to prosecute health care workers in "bubble zones" who decline to participate in abortion, or express disapproval of abortion in meetings or private conversations. It could also be used against clergy or counsellors providing pastoral care in "bubble zones" who provide information about abortion, or express disapproval of abortion.

The potential for conflict was first brought to the attention of the Minister of Health in 1995. It was raised again in correspondence this year with the Okanagan Similkameen Health Region and the Minister of Heath, as a result of discussion about the imposition of a "bubble zone" at Kelowna General Hospital.

The Minister of Health refused to provide written assurance that the Act would not be applied against conscientious objectors, and refused to amend the Act. The Okanagan Similkameen Health Region declined to consider the question, since a "bubble zone" had not been imposed on the Kelowna General Hospital.

A report on the subject is available on the Protection of Conscience Project website (Report 2000-01)

B.C. Pharmacist Representing "Conscientious Objectors" at AGM Wins Substantial Support from Colleagues
 

Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience in BC
12 October, 2000 

A resolution that would allow pharmacists to opt out of dispensing morally controversial products such as the Morning After Pill gained substantial support from pharmacists at the AGM of B.C. Pharmacists on October 12th.

A number of pharmacists took to the microphone to voice their strong support; only one pharmacist spoke in opposition. Although the preliminary show-of -hands vote was not won, supporters of the resolution do not see this as a defeat, but simply as a sign that more work needs to be done.

At best, the current Code of Ethics for pharmacists acknowledges that some members may run into moral dilemmas, but does not provide accommodation for conscientious objectors.

"It is ironic that the B.C. Health Minister wants to ban tobacco sales in pharmacies while our Premier wants pharmacists to give out the morning after pill like candy. Scientifically, this is an abortion causing drug developed primarily to act against implantation of a live human embryo in vivo. It is a product that professional pharmacists may refuse to dispense for medical, ethical reasons, or on moral or religious grounds, not to mention liability concerns and the possibility of having angry parents of teenagers coming after us. We still do not know long -term effects of repeated use of the morning after pill, but we do know that these high doses of hormones have been strongly linked to breast cancer. We will be using our young women as guinea pigs," says Cristina Alarcon, British Columbia representative for a group called Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience.

" Regardless of where you stand on the moral issues surrounding abortifacient use, pharmacists who do not wish to participate must be respected and should not be FORCED to refer", says Alarcon.

Miss Alarcon made the opening remarks at the AGM in support of the resolution that would recognize a pharmacist’s right to refuse a prescription on moral grounds.

" Conscientious objectors simply want to exercise the right to not participate in morally objectionable treatments and the right to freedom of conscience in matters that pertain to morals and religion in accordance with Canadian Human Rights jurisprudence. We do not claim to have a monopoly on the profession, and we are not blocking access nor infringing on a patient’s " right to choose". Furthermore, with the dawn of ever more controversial "treatments", such as euthanasia,

RU-486, genetic manipulation , and execution (as referred to in our Mar/Apr College bulletin), health care workers are in greater need of Conscience Clause Legislation in this country. This is what I am fighting for," she continues; "If we are to act in the public’s best interests, we must act freely and responsibly, and not as coerced automatons as our College currently mandates, nor as dispensing machines.

All-Party Committee Receives Plea for Freedom of Conscience
 

Protection of Conscience Project
23 June, 2000
(Embargo until 25 June, 2000)

The All-Party Oireachtais Committee on the Constitution has received a written submission from Protection of Conscience Project on the need for laws to protect health care workers and others from coercion and discrimination.

Project Administrator Sean Murphy noted that the focus of the submission was different from that of the recent Committee hearings. "This submission is not about abortion," he wrote, "but about freedom of conscience in relation to morally controversial medical procedures."

"Unfortunately," he explained, "discussions about such procedures have not always been accompanied by sufficient reflection about their impact on those who object to them for reasons of conscience."

Mr. Murphy observed that when the procedure in question is objectionable to large numbers of people, it is usually assumed that no one would be forced to participate in it. The submission cites a number of cases to make the point that, in the long run, this is not the case.

The Project does not recommend specific measures, leaving such questions for the consideration of the Committee: "If there is or will be a need for protection of conscience legislation in Ireland, that need will have to be articulated by Irish citizens, and laws and policies framed according to the circumstances prevailing in Ireland."

The submission to the Committee is available on-line through the Project Website.

Faigheann Coiste Ill-phairti Oireachtais Run Mar Gheall ar Saoirse Choinsiasa
 

Tacaíocht do chonsias
Tacaíocht choinsiasa
25 -06-2000

Fuáir an Coiste Ill-phairti Oireachtais ar an mBunreacht,pléadáil I scríbhinn on gComhairle Saoirse Choinsiasa, ar an nga oibrithe I gcúrsaí leighis agus daoine nach iad a bheith cosainte ó éigeantalacht agus di-mheas.

Chuir Riarthóir an Phróiseas, Sean ó Murchu, in úil go bhfuil béim an phléadáil o chuile éisteachtai eile an Choiste go dáta. "Ní faoi geinmhilleadh,@ adeir sé, "ach faoi saoirse choinsiasa, chomh fada is a bhaineann sé le cursai leighis faoi lathair, ata na smaointe seo.@

"Mo lean," a mhinigh sé, "na h-argointi faoi chúrsai léighis go dtí seo-ni raibh siad riamh curtha, ionas go mbeadh, mar deir diad (seal mhachnamh stuamtha), agus mar gheall air sin ni raibh aon mhachnamh deanta ar na rudai tharlaionn dóibh siud ata in aghaidh geinmhilleadh de réir choinsiasa".

Thagair an t-Uasal ó Murchu don staitistic a rinne iarracht soiléiriú, nuair nach raibh an cúrsa leighis seo sásúil do go leor daoine,nach raibh iachall ar na daoine sin páirt a ghlacadh ann. Rinne an pléadáil I scríbhinn an poinnte nach bhfuil sé sin fíor. Ní dheanann an pléadáil aon phoinnti faoi moltaí spesificiula-fagtar iad seo faoi chúraim an Choiste.

" Má tá nó má bhionn gá le tacaíocht choinsiasa a chur ins an dlí in Éirinn, is faoi Muinntear na H-Éireann a bheas an cúram sin, agus is in Éirinn a chaithfidh na dlíthe agus na polasaithe a bheith déanta-chomh fada is a bhaineann siad le saol na H-Éireann".

Tá an pléadáil seo ar fáil on Website.

Pharmacists for Life Applaud Manitoba Colleagues for Protection of Conscience Guideline
 

Pharmacists for Life International (Canada)
June 7, 2000

Pharmacists for Life Int'l/Canada (PFLI/Canada) is an educational group concerned with sanctity of human life issues affecting the profession.  We appreciate and applaud the noble decision of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association to include in their Standards of Practice a statement which allows the professionals that they regulate to follow their conscience in the practice of this health care profession.

Since the statement does not force a pharmacist to dispense or make referrals for products or services "in which they have a medical, ethical, moral or religious objection to, the Association shows its recognition of the pharmacist's autonomy and integrity.  By allowing a freedom of conscience, pharmacists are not impaired in the proper exercise of professional judgment and skills", said Mr. Michael Izzotti, coordinator of PFLI/Canada.

For many years the profession has been encouraging all pharmacists to become more involved in the practice of "pharmaceutical care", in which pharmacists provide cognitive services to the public, as well as, supplying products which are intended to achieve specific "health outcomes" for the patient. Mr. Izzotti stated that in the provision of pharmaceutical care, "causing death of a human being is not included in the list of "health outcomes."  He also stated, "that to many pharmacists, the practice of proper pharmaceutical care would exclude the provision of any products that are intended to cause death, including chemicals for assisted suicides, euthanasia and those which can cause abortions."

Freedom of Conscience Recognized
 

Protection of Conscience Project
For release 5 June, 2000

Pharmacists in Manitoba have decided that they should not be forced to be involved in medical procedures that they find morally abhorrent.

The Annual General Meeting of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association adopted a policy that pharmacists may refuse to dispense certain drugs for reasons of conscience. Such policies exist in the United States, but it is believed that this is the first time a pharmacists’ association in Canada has formally recognized the importance of freedom of conscience.

News of the development was conveyed to the Protection of Conscience Project in a letter from Ronald F. Guse, Registrar of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association.

The Association rejected a clause that would have forced conscientious objectors to involve themselves by making a referral to another pharmacist.

"Pharmacists in Manitoba who voted for this measure should be congratulated and thanked by their colleagues," said Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. "The present concern among conscientious objectors is the so-called ‘morning-after-pill’. However, if non-objecting pharmacists do not support their colleagues on this issue, they should expect no support if they object to dispensing drugs for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and execution by lethal injection."

"If that seems somewhat far-fetched," Murphy added, "the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia is already speculating about the expansion of pharmacy services to include such procedures."

Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience Supports Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association
 

Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience
June 5, 2000

The professional group Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience supports and applauds the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association's courageous inclusion of a model statement in their Standards of Practice, which does not require pharmacists with conscientious objections to refer patients. Patient access to legally prescribed therapy would continue to be available without compromising the health professionals' right of conscientious refusal.

Ms. Maria Bizecki, spokesperson for Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience, says "Pharmacists in Manitoba can now exercise their freedom of conscience rights without fear for their noble livelihood. Pharmacists are presently objecting to participate as agents of death, not attempting to block access or give moral pep talks at the pharmacy counter."

Bizecki futher added that as the Canadian Medical Association does not require doctors to participate in or refer for abortions, all pharmacists must also be protected nationally by their associations. "By pushing their morality on health care workers, the public violates a pharmacist's autonomy, integrity and basic human rights in a country that protects its minorities."

Pharmacists for Life Criticizes BC College of Pharmacists
 

Pharmacists for Life International (Canada)
April 12/00

Pharmacists for Life International/Canada opposes the controversial policy decision by the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia in which pharmacists in that province will be facing increased pressure to be distributors of death-causing products and services.

Mr. Michael Izzotti, Coordinator of PFLI/Canada, stated in an information bulletin today that "to supply death causing products and services from a pharmacy (a health care facility) flies in the face of the promotion of appropriate practices the pharmaceutical profession has engaged in for the last 15-20years".
    
Mr. Izzotti further stated that "the push by the College of Pharmacists of BC to pressure the professionals that they regulate to supply the controversial products and services that the College suggests, represents a travesty in health care".  This is in direct contradiction to the Hippocratic Oath which many noble and honorable medical practitioners have taken and are committed to follow.

A recent BC College bulletin article, "Ethics in Practice",1 suggests that pharmacists may have a conscientious or moral objection to future services that "might expand to include, preparation of drugs to assist voluntary or involuntary suicide, cloning, genetic manipulation or even execution". These products & services and some others mentioned in that article in fact are not necessarily "recognized" nor "legitimate" services to be expected from a pharmacy.

In light of the above concerns, and considering that similar concerns are arising in Alberta,  PFLI/Canada extends it support to Alberta's Bill 212 prepared by Julius Yankowsky, which would insure Human Rights protection regarding Freedom of Conscience to all health care workers.  In addition, PFLI/Canada encourages federal conscience legislation to be enacted.

Notes
1. Bulletin of the College of Pharmacists of B.C. Mar/Apr 2000, Vol. 25, No.2
 

Pharmacists for Life International (Canada)
Information Bulletin
April 12/00

Due to continuing discussions caused by a controversial policy decision by the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia in which pharmacists in that province will be facing increased pressure to be distributors of death-causing products and services, PFLI/Canada felt it necessary to make these statements at this time. Pharmacists have traditionally been known, trusted and respected for being providers of life saving, health-maintaining-and-restoring products and services, however, the College in B.C. is now suggesting that pharmacists should be involved in the provision of products for ending the life of human beings as well.

The 1st week of May is the scheduled date for certain "trained" pharmacists to be the providers of the abortifacient Morning After Pill with or without a prescription from a doctor. A recent BC College bulletin article, "Ethics in Practice", suggests that pharmacists may have a conscientious or moral objection to future services that "might expand to include, preparation of drugs to assist voluntary or involuntary suicide, cloning, genetic manipulation or even execution". These products & services and some others mentioned in that article in fact are not necessarily "recognized" nor "legitimate" services to be expected from a pharmacy.

To supply death causing products and services from a pharmacy (a health care facility) flies in the face of the promotion of appropriate practices the pharmaceutical profession has engaged in for the last 15-20years.  These appropriate practices include: encouraging pharmacists to provide more cognitive services, (e.g. being a drug information resource for the community, resolving drug related problems, providing increased patient counselling etc); other practices include, emphasis to provide greater communication with the public and to promote proper pharmaceutical care for all human beings especially those most vulnerable and needing our unique knowledge and skills. These vulnerable people should include, the child in utero, the elderly and disabled people.

The push by the College of Pharmacists of BC for pharmacists to supply the controversial products and services, noted above, represents a travesty in health care. It is in direct contradiction to the Hippocratic oath which many noble and honourable medical practitioners have taken and are committed to follow.

The policy decision, named above, of the College of Pharmacists of B.C. should be withdrawn because it causes a negative influence on organizations who sponsor provision of pharmaceutical services from their outlets, and a damaging and unhealthy image to our honourable and dignified profession.

It would be much appreciated if these organizations would rather continue to encourage and exhort practitioners in our profession to be the providers of proper pharmaceutical health care services to the public as they have done in the past.

For further information, please call Michael Izzotti, Coordinator, PFLI/Canada, 905-528-4828

Conscience Protection Bill Applauded
 

Canadian Physicians for Life applauds efforts before the Alberta legislature to grant protection of conscience to health care professionals who support the sanctity of life.

Recent suggestions by several regulating bodies that morally troublesome issues need only be referred to a colleague are oblivious to the principled objections of pro-life physicians. Increasingly exotic reproductive technologies may eventually offend even the most laissez-faire physicians.

There may come a day where no physician feels free from coercion to violate his or her conscience.

Bill 212 is an amendment that, if adopted in the Alberta Legislative Assembly, will establish the rules up front. Health care professionals can confidently provide life-affirming care while retaining the choice of conscientious objection.

Christian Medical Professionals Support Alberta Bill
 

Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS) 
April 10, 2000

The Calgary and Edmonton Chapters of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada are in support of Bill 212, The Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, which would protect healthcare workers' conscience rights.

Increasingly, we hear of institutions and organizations placing pressure on healthcare workers to act contrary to their convictions, especially as technological advances challenge traditional ethical boundaries. Canada has a long history of recognizing the rights of freedom of conscience; however, healthcare workers are feeling increasingly vulnerable. Many are calling for explicit legislation to protect them from being required to refer for or participate directly or indirectly in medical procedures or treatments that violate their convictions without fear of discrimination, dismissal, or harassment.

Certainly, physicians and other healthcare workers must provide care in life-threatening emergencies to all people regardless of ethnic origin, creed, etc.: this is consistent with the Hippocratic tradition. Also in keeping with the Hippocratic tradition is the inviolable tenet that human life is sacred, regardless of stage. Consequently, those who solemnly hold these principles must not be pressured to act contrary to them as they are foundational to the integrity of the profession and the trust of the public. In matters of choice, healthcare workers are positioned to fully inform patients of all their legal options, but they must not be obligated to participate in a patient's choice of treatment.

CMDS desires an open discussion of the issue of conscience-protection legislation and, to this end, invites healthcare workers to bring their concerns to the attention of their professional organizations, politicians, and members of the public.

Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS)
#26, 7740 18 St. S.E.
Calgary, AB T2C 2N5
Tel:  (403) 236-1500  Fax (403) 236-2839

Concerned Pharmacists Cite Lack of Consultation in Alberta
 

Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience
March 24. 2000

In a controversial policy change, announced this week the College of Pharmacists of B.C. decided to allow pharmacists to hand out the morning after pill, Preven, over the counter without a doctor's prescription.  In response, Greg Eberhart, registrar of the Alberta Pharmaceutical Association (APhA) has stated that "The APhA hopes to follow B.C.'s push..."

"There has been no dialogue between the membership of the APhA and its executive, as to how pharmacists stand on this position," says Ms. Maria Bizecki, spokesperson for the group Concerned Phamlacists for Conscience (CPC).  Ms. Bizecki further states the APhA executive finds itself under increased pressure from the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC), to dispense this product over the counter.

In 1995, the issue of a "conscience clause" came before the  APhA membership and was passed, but, after consideration, dismissed by the APhA's self appointed Regulatory Affairs Committee.   "Forcing pharmacists to dispense or refer patients requesting Preven, an abortion causing drug developed to primarily act during Implantation of an embryo, is an insult to the autonomy of the pharmacist, the profession of pharmacy, and a health risk to women" adds Ms.Bizecki.

Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience (CPC) is opposed to pharmacists dispensing medications that violate their conscience on moral, medical ethical, or religious grounds.

New Advisors Join Project
 

Protection of Conscience Project
For immediate release
23 March, 2000

Two new advisors joined the Project in March.

J. Budziszewski, Ph.d, is Associate Professor, Departments of Government and Political Philosophy, University of Texas (Austin), U.S.A.. He is a specialist in ethical and political philosophy, is the author of five academic books, most recently "The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man" (1999) and "Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law"(1997). He has contributed numerous articles and reviews to both scholarly and popular periodicals, including "First Things", the "American Journal of Jurisprudence", the "Journal of Politics", the "American Political Science Review", the "Weekly Standard", the"National Review", and Public Choice".

David Novak, A.B., M.H.L., Ph.d., is the Richard and Dorothy Shiff Chair of Jewish Studies, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is Professor of the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto, and also Professor of Philosophy, with appointments in University College, the Faculty of Law, the Joint Centre for Bioethics, and the Institute of Medical Science. He is also Director of the Jewish Studies Programme. From 1989 to 1997 he was the Edgar M. Bronfman Professor of Modern Judaic Studies at the University of Virginia. He had taught previously at Oklahoma city University, Old Dominion University, the New School for Social Research, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and Baruch College of the City University of New York. From 1966 to1969 he was Jewish Chaplain to St. Elizabeth's Hospital, National Institute of Mental Health, in Washington, D.C.

New Advisor Joins Project
 

Protection of Conscience Project
For Immediate Release
21 January, 2000

Janet Ajzenstat, Professor of Political Science at McMaster University in Hamilton Ontario, has joined the advisory board of the Protection of Conscience Project.

Professor Ajzenstat teaches public law and political philosophy.  Her most recent books are Canada's Founding Debates (edited with Paul Romney, Ian Gentles and William D. Gairdner [Stoddart, 1999], and Canada's Origins (edited with Peter J. Smith [Carleton University Press, 1995]).  She is associated with the Centre for Renewal in Public Policy and the Dominion Institute.  In 1988-89 she was Executive Director of the Human Life Research Institute (now the Barrie de Weber Institute). Her most recent contribution to reports for the Institute is Going it Alone (co-authored with Elizabeth Cassidy, Elise Carter and Gerald Bierling), a study of pregnant, unmarried women who have chosen to continue their pregnancies.

The Protection of Conscience Project is a non-denominational, non-profit group of individuals consisting of a project team and advisory board.  The Project

- advocates for protection of conscience legislation;

- provides information on protection of conscience legislation worldwide;

- promotes clarification and understanding of the issues involved to assist in reasoned public discussion;

- acts as a clearing house for reports from people who have been discriminated against for reasons of conscience.