Indiana Senate Bill 201, proposed by Senator Liz Brown, has been amended in committee and is progressing through the Indiana General Assembly. Existing Indiana law protects freedom of conscience for physicians, nurses and institutional employees in relation to surgical abortion. Bill 201 amends the statute to include medical abortion and extends protection to physician assistants and pharmacists.
The Chamber of Pharmacists (Kamra tal-Ispizjara) has sent an email to
its members stating that there is a standard question protocol that
pharmacists must follow when dispensing the Morning After Pill without a
These guidelines, the email said, are professional tools and should be kept confidential.
The Chamber also noted that pharmacists should avoid engaging in public discussions on social media. “The Chamber reprimands pharmacists who do not uphold such standards bringing the profession to disrepute.” [Full text]
A midwife who campaigned for staff to opt out of abortion work fears plans for “at home” abortions could see a rise in objections from health staff.
Mary Doogan lost her fight to not be responsible for other colleagues involved in terminations.
She thinks the plans to allow women to take the second abortion pill at home will implicate GPs and pharmacists.
She supports a law change to extend conscientious objection to those not directly involved with the process. . . [Full Text]
Andrea L. Murphy, Claire O’Reilly, Ruth Martin-Misener, Randa Ataya, David Gardner
Pharmacists are likely underestimating their frequency of interactions with people with thoughts of dying or with intentions to die either by suicide or through medical assistance in dying procedures. Pharmacists report empathetic responses for those with severe and incurable diseases wishing to end their life, but most do not support death by suicide or through medical assistance. From the preliminary analysis, a personal connection to mental illness or suicide does not appear to influence the permissiveness of pharmacists’ attitudes towards suicide. Framing effects in survey research for pharmacists have not been adequately considered, and more work is needed to determine how this influences the responses of pharmacists.
Murphy AL, O’Reilly C, Martin-Misener R, Ataya R,Gardner D. Community pharmacists’ attitudes on suicide: A preliminary analysis with implications for medical assistance in dying. Can Pharm J (Ott). 2017 Dec 1;151(1):17-23. doi: 10.1177/1715163517744225.
Debate about Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation is dividing the country… but what do pharmacists think?
Victoria’s controversial Voluntary Assisted Dying bill – which would introduce legislation that would be the most “conservative” of its type in the world – has passed the State’s lower house, bringing the process one step closer.
Under the legislation, pharmacists would be part of the process, supplying lethal medicines in a locked box to eligible patients. . . [Full text]
Catholic heads in the UK are issuing a robust defence of the Church’s abortion teaching after criticism of bishops’ stance from within the Catholic hierarchy.
Describing having a termination as a ‘grave decision’ the two leaders of the Catholic Church in England, Wales and Scotland attack the ‘contradiction’ in abortion laws for disabled babies and praised politicians who try to change the law.
They also lambast an ‘erosion of respect’ for those who oppose abortion, saying doctors and nurses ‘face increasing difficulty in being able to combine their dedicated professional work with their personal conviction’.
Pointing to recent cases where doctors and pharmacists feel they cannot refuse to offer abortion services, the senior bishops write: ‘So much talent is being lost to important professional areas. Personal conscience is inviolable and no-one should be forced to act against their properly formed conscience in these matters. This is something which needs greater debate in our society.’ . . . [Full Text]
Heather Bellamy spoke with Ciaran Kelly, the Head of Communications at the Christian Institute, about the importance of reasonable accommodation in balancing people’s rights, and how after consultation, the General Pharmaceutical Council have chosen to continue to value their pharmacists faith and conscience, as well as patient care.
For the past few months, Christian pharmacists in Great Britain anticipated having to choose between their faith and their job, but after a huge campaign and the threat of legal action from the Christian Institute, their regulatory body has backed away from ending conscience rights. Heather Bellamy spoke with Ciaran Kelly, the Head of Communications, at the Christian Institute, to find out more. . . [Full text]
Eastern Daily Press
I was drawn to a news story which snuck under the radar this week. This issue is a classic ‘contract’ versus ‘conscience’ battle facing some pharmacists, which was brilliantly highlighted on the BBC Radio Norfolk Sunday Breakfast programme.
I pen this week’s article with genuine interest, a will to impartially provoke a healthy debate rather than trying to influence opinion. In a U-turn on proposed policy, Britain’s pharmacy regulator has declared that pharmacists should not be forced to dispense medicine and substances against their consciences. This includes drugs such as the morning-after pill or even contraceptives. The pharmacist can object if it goes against their religious beliefs, forcing the customer to go elsewhere. . . [Full text]
Christian Concern reported earlier this year that the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) had amended its guidance to remove any protection for pharmacists and their legal right to freedom of conscience.
Christian Concern provided submissions to the GPhC stating very clearly that not only did pharmacists enjoy a legal right to freedom of conscience, but also that the public had a right to receive services from pharmacists who share their set of values. . . [Full text]
CatholicPhilly/Catholic News Service
MANCHESTER, England (CNS) — In a U-turn of proposed policy, Britain’s pharmacy regulator has declared that Catholic pharmacists should not be forced to dispense lethal drugs against their consciences.
The General Pharmaceutical Council, the regulatory body that sets professional standards for the industry throughout the country, has backed away from controversial proposals to abolish the right of people with religious convictions to conscientiously object to dispensing the morning-after pill, contraceptives and hormone-blocking drugs used by transsexual patients.
In new guidance issued June 22, it says: “Professionals have the right to practice in line with their religion, personal values or beliefs as long as they act in accordance with equalities and human rights law and make sure that person-centered care is not compromised.” . . . [Full text]