Washington State victory

I was thrilled to learn that Washington State will be creating new rules for pharmacists who have conscientious objections to providing services or products they find morally objectionable. It will allow pharmacists to refuse to sell anything or provide services that go against their conscience and deeply held beliefs.
The reason for the new rules was because of a lawsuit concerning a pharmacy that, against the objections of the state, refused to stock or dispense the Plan B morning-after pill, based on their belief that life is sacred from the moment of conception and the pill can sometimes work as an abortifacient.
This is a great turnaround by both the state and the Pharmacy State Board, which for several years maintained that religious freedoms of pharmacies and pharmacists had to be restricted in order to ensure patient access to the morning-after pill.
In 2006, Pharmacy Board members unanimously supported a rule that would protect conscience for pharmacists and pharmacy owners. Shortly after, though, the board buckled under political pressure and mandated pharmacies to stock and dispense the medication despite any conscientious objections.
The board adopted this regulation even though it admitted it found no evidence that anyone in the state had ever been unable to obtain Plan B (or any other time-sensitive medication) due to religious objections.
In the aftermath, a pharmacy and two individual pharmacists filed suit to prevent the new regulation from forcing them out of their profession. The Becket Fund also came to their defence.
In its most recent filing, the state conceded that allowing pharmacists with conscientious objections to refer patients to other pharmacies “is a time-honoured pharmacy practice that is often in the best interest of patients, pharmacies and pharmacists, and [does] not pose a threat to timely access to lawfully prescribed medications.”
Although I do not advocate mandated referral, this is a clear victory for the profession and it sends a clear message to all: The state and professional boards ought to remain neutral in matters of faith and morals as they relate to individual conscience, in so far as there is no threat to public safety or to the common good.
While the state plays an important role in ensuring the health, peace, morality and safety of its citizens, it should not use its power in a dictatorial way, imposing limits on individual conscience in legitimately disputable matters.
But is this not a case of a religious pharmacist or store owner imposing his or her values on others, and will it not cause great inconvenience to customers, which some would argue should be a professional’s first priority?
To the question of fairness I would answer that justice is for all. In any agreement, one party must not be oppressed at the expense of another. In the case of the Plan B provision, both parties can be readily respected by placing the onus on provincial pharmacy boards to provide information on non-dissenting providers via toll-free numbers.
Some might argue that inconvenience is a form of oppression. But isn’t it a greater oppression to ask one to betray deeply held beliefs than walk a few extra blocks?
A version of this article was originally published in “Holy Post”, the religion blog of the National Post.

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.

I'm in the business of health and wellness; longevity concoctions, my specialty. I believe it is more lucrative to keep my oldies alive and kicking longer; eliminating them is against my mission statement, and it would surely kill my business too. Unless, of course, I could charge a hefty sum for how-to-exit kits, including arsenic, asphyxiation bags, and other death paraphernalia.

But then comes another dilemma; as the elderly get knocked off, replacements will be needed -- so I can continue to offer my services. Yet most pharmacies are also in the birth control business; sooner rather than later, my clients will largely come from overseas. Time to brush up on my Arab and Cantonese.

Are health-care providers prepared for the impact a euthanasia law could have on their day-to-day practice? If, for moral or ethical reasons they find themselves unable to comply with such
a law, would they risk being fined or put in prison? Would I be accused of imposing my morality were I to dissuade sweet Ms. Jones from being euthanized by her inheritance-ravenous offspring? Yes, they will all claim it was her own choice, and really, in everyone else's best interests.

How about the lady with the severe arthritis or the man with the club foot? How about the child with the MS or the severely depressed teenager? Will our answer to their pain be their death too? If the Right To Die movement has its way, it will all boil down to "personal" choice. But whose choice will it really be? For example, as a pharmacist, I had no choice over the following briefing which states that everyone should have a choice.

In 1994, a government brief was presented to the Senate Committee Studying Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide by the Canadian Pharmacists Association. This brief clearly shows that pharmacists, like the Canadian population as a whole, are "largely divided on the issue [of euthanasia] and cannot make a strong recommendation on the legalization of euthanasia or
assisted suicide." The briefing statements make it appear as though everyone involved will have a choice, but the reality is there will need to be a balancing of rights; the right of the
patient to receive what he wants, versus the right of the health-care professional not to participate in the patient's demise. For many, referral will not be a viable option.

So if such a law should pass, I want to make something clear; I want two choices; the choice not to kill off my business by concocting death potions, and also the choice not to refer my oldies or disabled youngsters for liquidation elsewhere.

But, with all our "rights and choice" talk, are we not neglecting the underlying issues causing the euthanasia debate in the first place? And why are we not learning from the Netherlands? According to Dr. Herbert Hendin, American author of, Seduced by Death, the broad "safety" guidelines to prevent people from being euthanized against their will have been largely ignored, to the point where the doctors who help set euthanasia guidelines will privately admit that euthanasia in the Netherlands is basically out of control.

What we really need to be asking ourselves is: How did the patient reach the decision to put an end to his or her life in the first place? Was there any pressure? Was there fear of pain, of loneliness, or of the unknown? Has our society become so cold and ruthless that a sick person would rather die than be subjected to humiliating treatment by those who ought to care?
The reality is that were euthanasia to be legalized in Canada, we would be embarking on a "social experiment" of great magnitude.

Once the experiment is unleashed there will be no turning back. Your "choice" and mine may become somebody else's.

Alarcon is a Vancouver pharmacist with a masters in bioethics.
Published in Vancouver on October 29, 2009 in The Province

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

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.......