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 -]