Project Logo

Protection of Conscience Project

www.consciencelaws.org

Service, not Servitude
Project Reports

Report 2001-01

Re: College of Pharmacists of British Columbia -
Conduct of the Ethics Advisory Committee

26 March, 2001


APPENDIX "E"

Correspondence with Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal


17 July, 2000

To: The Editor, Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal

From: Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project

Enclosed is an article written in response to a column by Frank Archer that appeared in the May issue of the Journal . . .


17 August, 2000

To: The Editor, Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal

From: Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project

On 17 July, 2000, I forwarded a manuscript and computer disk with the submission In Defence of the New Heretics: A Response to Frank Archer . . .

I have enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for the return of the manuscript if it is not your intention to publish it.

However, I draw your attention to Mr. Archer's accusations, published in the CPJ in his May column, that conscientious objectors believe that they are entitled to lie to and mislead patients, and that they wish to obtain patient consent by dishonest means. No evidence was provided to support these statements.

Publication of unsubstantiated and prejudicial generalizations is known in some forums as "poisoning the workplace environment." I request that the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal provide evidence to substantiate the accusations, or print a retraction and apology for having published them.


15 November, 2000

To: The Editor, Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal

From: Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project

. . . On 17 August I forwarded a stamped, self-addressed envelope for the return of the manuscript. An e-mail response to this letter stated that the article was "currently under review for an upcoming issue of the CPJ."

In my letter of 17 August, I also drew your attention to Mr. Archer's accusations, published in the CPJ in his May column, that conscientious objectors believe that they are entitled to lie to and mislead patients, and that they wish to obtain patient consent by dishonest means. No evidence was provided to support these statements, and I asked that the Journal provide evidence to substantiate the accusations, or print a retraction and apology for having published them.

Please advise what you intend to do with the article, and when you will provide evidence to support the accusations, or publish a retraction and apology.


20 February, 2001

To: The Editor, Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal

From: Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project

. . . In my letter of 17 August, I also drew your attention to Mr. Archer's accusations, published in the CPJ in his May column, that conscientious objectors believe that they are entitled to lie to and mislead patients, and that they wish to obtain patient consent by dishonest means. I asked that the Journal provide evidence to substantiate the accusations, or print a retraction and apology for having published them.

As a result of an access to information request, I am now aware that the College of Pharmacists of BC has no evidence to support almost identical statements that appeared in one of its bulletins last year. The publication of unsubstantiated imputations of dishonesty by a regulatory authority is reprehensible. I am concerned that their re-publication by a professional journal has further prejudiced the profession against conscientious objectors. Please advise whether or not you intend to publish a retraction and apology for having published them.

[The editor of the CPJ responded by way of an editorial in the April, 2001 issue of the Journal.  - Administrator -]

 

 

Print Friendly and PDF