0 - Page 4 of 4 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

An Essential Prescription: Why Pharmacist-Inclusive Conscience Clauses are Necessary

Brian P Knestout

Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy

Extract
Conclusion
. . . The only solution to this dilemma may be the solution that the APhA suggested, namely, to endorse a conscience clause, but simultaneously require pharmacists to refer a valid prescription to another service provider. Those members of the profession who bear the burden of this course of action are those who believe that a referral is equivalent to the act itself. However, such a view safeguards most of the ethical goals of pharmacists while simultaneously serving the public need for effective provision of legally prescribed drugs.

Knestout BP. An Essential Prescription: Why Pharmacist-Inclusive Conscience Clauses are Necessary. J Contemp Health Law Pol. 2006 Spring;22(2):349-382.

(Correspondence) Conscientious Objection in Medicine: Author did not meet standards of argument based ethics

Frank A Chervenak, Laurence B McCullough

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
Savulescu’s account of conscientious objection in medicine is a bold statement that requires all obstetricians to perform abortions, regardless of any moral convictions that they may have to the contrary. Unfortunately, he violates the standards of argument based ethics.

Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. (Correspondence) Conscientious Objection in Medicine: Author did not meet standards of argument based ethics. Br Med J. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):425.

(Correspondence) Conscientious objection in medicine: Doctors’ freedom of conscience

Vaughn P Smith

Extract
Since visiting Auschwitz, I have grappled with the question of how I would have behaved as a doctor in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. I hope I would have had the moral courage to refuse to participate in the various perversions of medicine that these regimes demanded — for example, respectively, eugenic “research” and psychiatric “treatment” of dissidents. . . . My chances of behaving honourably would have been
greatest if I had felt part of an independent medical profession with allegiance to something higher and more enduring than the regime of the day. They would have been least if Savulescu’s opinions had prevailed . . .After 30 years of reading the BMJ, Sava-
lescu’s article was the first one to make me feel physically sick.

Smith VP. (Correspondence) Conscientious objection in medicine: Doctors’ freedom of conscience. Br Med J. 2006 Feb 18;332(425)

(Correspondence) Conscientious objection in medicine: the ethics of responding to bird flu

E Murray, P de Zulueta

Extract
We question Savulescu’s statement that a specialist valuing her own life more than her duty to her patients during a bird flu epidemic would be demonstrating values “incompatible with being a doctor.” . . . recklessly to treat a highly contagious individual without taking adequate precautions would be imprudent and irresponsible. Equity and fairness requires a professional to judiciously balance the needs of one patient with the needs of others, including those of his or her own family.

Murray E, de_Zulueta P. Conscientious objection in medicine: the ethics of responding to bird flu. Br Med J. 2006;332(7538):425.

Conscientious objection in medicine

Julian Savulescu

Extract
Shakespeare wrote that “Conscience is but a word cowards use, devised at first to keep the strong in awe” (Richard III V.iv.1.7). Conscience, indeed, can be an excuse for vice or invoked to avoid doing one’s duty. When the duty is a true duty, conscientious objection is wrong and immoral. When there is a grave duty, it should be illegal. A doctors’ conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care. What should be provided to patients is defined by the law and consideration of the just distribution of finite medical resources, which requires a reasonable conception of the patient’s good and the patient’s informed desires (box). If people are not prepared to offer legally permitted, efficient, and beneficial care to a patient because it conflicts with their values, they should not be doctors. Doctors should not offer partial medical services or partially discharge their obligations to care for their patients.

Savulescu J. Conscientious objection in medicine. BMJ. 2006 February 4; 332(7536): 294–297. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7536.294

Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. Ethical guidelines on conscientious objection

Gamal I Serour, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO)

International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract
The FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health held a combined meeting with the Committee of Women’s Sexual and Reproductive rights to discuss ethical aspects of issues that impact the discipline of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women’s Health. The following document represents the result of that carefully researched and considered discussion. This material is not intended to reflect an official position of FIGO, but to provide material for consideration and debate about these ethical aspects of our discipline for member organizations and their constituent membership.

Serour GI, FIGO. Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. Ethical guidelines on conscientious objection. Int J Gyn Ob. 2006 Feb 03;92(3):333-334.

On Whose Conscience? Patient Rights Disappear Under Broad Protective Measures for Conscientious Objectors in Health Care

Patricia L Selby

Extract
In 2004 the Michigan House passed a bill called the “Conscientious Objector Policy Act.”. . . The bill as passed reflected no balancing of or respect for patients’ rights to autonomy, or their other needs and interests.

This article traces brief histories of health care conscience clauses and the patient’s right to informed consent. It analyzes the bill in the context of patients’s rights, and proposes alternative approaches to restore balance to the patient-provider relationship, while maintaining providers’ right to conscience. The article’s final section evaluates a variety of potential legal challenges to protect patients if the bill is re-introduced unchanged.

Selby PL. Patient Rights Disappear Under Broad Protective Measures for Conscientious Objectors in Health Care. U Detroit Mercy Law Rev. 2006;83(4):507-541.

(Op/Ed) Counter attack

Barbara W

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
The assignment: to buy the drug in a small, remote town where I was sojourning on business. If I could not get the pill in this straight-talking, hard- working place, who could? . . . approached a smiling pharmacy worker and asked for Plan B. . . . Kevin refused to hand it over. Only a pharmacist could give me the drug. He was a pharmacist’s assistant; the real pharmacist was on her break. . . . When I returned at 5:30, Kevin, the man of steely resolve, informed me that the pharmacist had left for the day. No pharmacist, no Plan B. [Pharmacist assistant seems to have answered questions evasively] . . . Was this not a nonprescription drug. Yes. Why could I not purchase the drug if no prescription was necessary? And then he said it: “Because, ethically, I don’t believe in it and I would not give it to you anyway. It is against my principles, and I don’t have to do anything I am uncomfortable with,” he said loudly and proudly. . . According to Kevin, there is nothing unprofessional about placing personal conviction ahead of a woman’s health care needs. . . a reasonably articulate curmudgeon like myself cannot obtain emergency contraception, what chance does a worried, upset teenage girl have?

Barbara W. Counter attack. Can Med Assoc. J. 2006;174(2):211-212.

Conscientious Objection and Collaborative Practice: Conflicting or Complementary Initiatives?

Susan C Winkler, John A Gans

Journal of the American Pharmacists Association

Extract
Expanding collaborative practice navigates the issue well, providing a seamless way for women to access emergency contraception without compromising the pharmacist’s ability to opt out. Such legislative initiatives are far more effective in expanding access to emergency contraception than misguided regulations that require pharmacists or pharmacies to assure dispensing of contraceptives “without delay.” In addition to blatantly insulting the professionals who are required to check their beliefs at the door, duty-to-dispense laws can have the opposite effect by limiting access to contraceptives when pharmacy practices simply choose not to carry the products rather than face sanctions if workable solutions for accommodating the patient and the pharmacist are disrupted by misguided regulations. Conscience and collaborative practice can complement each other, but only if both are available.

Winkler SC, Gans JA. Conscientious Objection and Collaborative Practice: Conflicting or Complementary Initiatives? J Am Pharm Assoc. 2006 Jan;46(1):12-13.