Saturday, November 21, 2009
Guest column: As a pharmacist in the longevity concoctions business, I prefer to keep my 'oldies' alive
As Canada's Parliament debates Bill C-384, why are more pharmacists not rising up in protest over possible legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide? Is it because we ought to remain neutral? Yet if this debate is supposed to be all about choice, then, as a pharmacist, I choose not to remain neutral on an issue that could impact my livelihood.......(to read more click on title above)
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Pharmacists must have Freedom of Conscience
I met Martha a few years ago, a beautiful young woman. She started frequently visiting the pharmacy, nearly every month, just to purchase a home pregnancy kit. Her hands always trembled, and there was fear in her eyes. Finally I decided to ask her whether she was okay, if not, what was the matter. She looked at me tearfully and confided, “I don’t want to go through another abortion and if I get pregnant I know he will leave me.”......(click on title to read more)
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/10/08/cristina-alarcon-trusted-professionals-must-have-freedom-of-conscience.aspx#ixzz0Tg8uMRRG
The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/10/08/cristina-alarcon-trusted-professionals-must-have-freedom-of-conscience.aspx#ixzz0Tg8uMRRG
The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Cristina Alarcon in National Post: Right to die? How about right to live
I had just returned from Washington, D.C., where I attended the Second International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. The theme: “Never Again.”
The night before, I had mused over the intense weekend in Washington, the moving testimonials and the lively plane ride where I had become engulfed in conversations that betrayed the pervading culture of confusion surrounding assisted suicide and euthanasia. No, euthanasia is not about withdrawal of life support so as to allow a terminally ill person to die, I had explained to the lady on the plane. No, physician-assisted suicide “guidelines” are not always strictly enforced.......
The night before, I had mused over the intense weekend in Washington, the moving testimonials and the lively plane ride where I had become engulfed in conversations that betrayed the pervading culture of confusion surrounding assisted suicide and euthanasia. No, euthanasia is not about withdrawal of life support so as to allow a terminally ill person to die, I had explained to the lady on the plane. No, physician-assisted suicide “guidelines” are not always strictly enforced.......
Friday, May 08, 2009
LETTER IN RESPONSE TO JULIE CANTOR (NEJM)
Re: Conscientious Objection Gone Awry---Restoring Selfless Professionalism in Medicine
Dr. Cantor maintains that those who disagree with her perfectly contestable philosophical and ethical viewpoints ought to remain neutral, while she herself cannot. Accussing others of selfishly telling half-truths, while she falsely implies that a woman’s right to birth control is Constitutionally protected and self-servingly stomping on the truly Constitutionally protected rights of freedom of conscience and religion of healthcare providers, Dr Cantor betrays her own lack of impartiality.
True, Church and State are autonomous; yet this is not to say that religious believers within a secular society ought therefore to be treated as second-class citizens. .
Cantor’s obvious intent is to promote greater access to a variety of options for women, yet this cannot be done at the expense of relegating professionals to function as automatons or fragmented individuals who live via different mores in different settings.
Just as Dr Cantor has a right to live via her own beliefs and her own conscience, so do those who oppose her beliefs have the right to live with integrity as truly responsible moral agents.
Cristina Alarcon , Bpharm, Masters Bioethics
Longer version of letter:
Re: Conscientious Objection Gone Awry---Restoring Selfless Professionalism in Medicine
Unmatched is the candor of Dr Cantor in “conscientious objection gone awry…”. Not only is she transparently unfair to those who would disagree with her perfectly contestable philosophical and ethical viewpoints, but she also dares to insinuate that healthcare providers ought to remain neutral while she herself cannot.
While it is true that Church and State must each maintain their autonomy, it is false to conclude that religious believers (as opposed to non-religious believers) ought therefore to be treated as second-class citizens. She dares to accuse others of selfishly telling half-truths, while falsely implying that a woman’s right to birth control is Constitutionally protected and self-servingly stomping on the truly Constitutionally protected rights of freedom of conscience and religion of all citizens, those of healthcare providers included.
Cantor’s obvious intent is to promote greater access to a variety of options for women, yet this cannot be done at the expense of relegating professionals to function as automatons or fragmented individuals who live via different mores in different settings.
Furthermore, her myopic views on women’s health issues, which reduces women to the sum of their reproductive organs lacks vision and imagination. It is an insult to the women who, as patients, may not all share her views, and to the professionals who selflessly care for them. To compare the non provision of abortion services to non provision of lifesaving treatments such as blood transfusions and diabetic medicines shows a further lack of deep reflection on the fact that pregnancy is not an illness, and premature delivery is rarely a therapeutically lifesaving intervention. On the contrary, abortion takes the life of an innocent bystander.
Finally, just as Dr Cantor has a right to live via her own beliefs and her own conscience, be it religiously informed or not, so do those who oppose her beliefs have the right to live with integrity as truly responsible moral agents.
Cristina Alarcon
Bpharm. Masters Bioethics
Dr. Cantor maintains that those who disagree with her perfectly contestable philosophical and ethical viewpoints ought to remain neutral, while she herself cannot. Accussing others of selfishly telling half-truths, while she falsely implies that a woman’s right to birth control is Constitutionally protected and self-servingly stomping on the truly Constitutionally protected rights of freedom of conscience and religion of healthcare providers, Dr Cantor betrays her own lack of impartiality.
True, Church and State are autonomous; yet this is not to say that religious believers within a secular society ought therefore to be treated as second-class citizens. .
Cantor’s obvious intent is to promote greater access to a variety of options for women, yet this cannot be done at the expense of relegating professionals to function as automatons or fragmented individuals who live via different mores in different settings.
Just as Dr Cantor has a right to live via her own beliefs and her own conscience, so do those who oppose her beliefs have the right to live with integrity as truly responsible moral agents.
Cristina Alarcon , Bpharm, Masters Bioethics
Longer version of letter:
Re: Conscientious Objection Gone Awry---Restoring Selfless Professionalism in Medicine
Unmatched is the candor of Dr Cantor in “conscientious objection gone awry…”. Not only is she transparently unfair to those who would disagree with her perfectly contestable philosophical and ethical viewpoints, but she also dares to insinuate that healthcare providers ought to remain neutral while she herself cannot.
While it is true that Church and State must each maintain their autonomy, it is false to conclude that religious believers (as opposed to non-religious believers) ought therefore to be treated as second-class citizens. She dares to accuse others of selfishly telling half-truths, while falsely implying that a woman’s right to birth control is Constitutionally protected and self-servingly stomping on the truly Constitutionally protected rights of freedom of conscience and religion of all citizens, those of healthcare providers included.
Cantor’s obvious intent is to promote greater access to a variety of options for women, yet this cannot be done at the expense of relegating professionals to function as automatons or fragmented individuals who live via different mores in different settings.
Furthermore, her myopic views on women’s health issues, which reduces women to the sum of their reproductive organs lacks vision and imagination. It is an insult to the women who, as patients, may not all share her views, and to the professionals who selflessly care for them. To compare the non provision of abortion services to non provision of lifesaving treatments such as blood transfusions and diabetic medicines shows a further lack of deep reflection on the fact that pregnancy is not an illness, and premature delivery is rarely a therapeutically lifesaving intervention. On the contrary, abortion takes the life of an innocent bystander.
Finally, just as Dr Cantor has a right to live via her own beliefs and her own conscience, be it religiously informed or not, so do those who oppose her beliefs have the right to live with integrity as truly responsible moral agents.
Cristina Alarcon
Bpharm. Masters Bioethics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
