Pope To Catholic Pharmacists: Avoid Immoral Pills
5 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // October 29th, 2007 // 1:33 pm
Pope Benedict XVI is urging Catholic pharmacists to avoid dispensing drugs with “immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia.” In a speech to participants at the 25th International Congress of Catholic Pharmacists at Vatican City, he says that conscientious objection is a right that must be recognized by the pharmaceutical profession, the Associated Press reports.
Such objector status, he said, would “enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia.” In his speech, the pope also said that pharmacists have an educational role toward patients so that drugs are used in a morally and ethically correct way. “We cannot anesthetize consciences as regards, for example, the effect of certain molecules that have the goal of preventing the implantation of the embryo or shortening a person’s life,” he said.
Emergency contraception pills, which can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex, work by preventing ovulation or by preventing the embryo from being implanted into the womb. The pope, though, says pharmacists should raise people’s awareness so that “all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role.”
In the US, Illinois’ governor, Rod Blagojevich, introduced a rule two years ago requiring pharmacists to fill all prescriptions. Pharmacists challenged the rule, and a legal settlement earlier this month allowed pharmacists who object to dispensing emergency birth control to step aside while someone else fills the prescription.
In Washington state, pharmacists have filed a federal lawsuit sued over a regulation requiring them to sell emergency contraception, saying it violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between “their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs.”
Earlier this year in Georgia, activists demanded that the Kroger grocery chain make the “morning after pill” more readily available after a 42-year-old married mother of two from Rome, Ga., complained that a store manager in her hometown told her she could not buy it there because the store’s pharmacist refused. In response, Kroger said it was clarifying its policy and pharmacists who object may ask another employee to sell it.
Source: The Associated Press
Jack
Does anyone know what happens if there’s only one pharmacist on staff at the time (a common occurrence)?
Reality
Jack,
I believe the Illinois settlement is technically only between the state and Walgreens, but according to one article, “Illinois pharmacists who object to dispensing emergency birth control would be allowed to step aside while someone else filled the prescription, under a deal that could settle a lawsuit against the state. That person - not required to be a pharmacist - would contact a pharmacist at a different location, then follow directions for dispensing the so-called “morning after” pill.”
This might not be a big deal in urban or dense suburban areas, but would be a huge problem in rural areas, where the next closest pharmacist/pharmacy may be 50 miles away.
Of course, the “loophole” here is that there are pharmacists and other practitioners who feel they are morally culpable even by allowing the prescription to be referred–or as the Pope would say, “indirectly collaborating.” I would expect this to be a point of contention.
rodriguez MD
i dont think any pharmacist should feel guilty if someone else orders the morning after pill, so long as his/her signature aint on the script. if concsciously you do not agree with its dispensation, i feel that God will know your intent.
Jack
Well if the legislation applied in a place like Alaska I could see it creating a huge hassle for the patient. But is there a place in Illinois where you’re 50 miles from a pharmacy? I don’t really know how I feel about this.
Reality
Jack,
I don’t know but there’s alot more to Illinois than Chicago. How far is too far to force someone to get medically approved treatment that must be given in a time-sensitive manner? 10 miles? 20 miles? Maybe the pharmacy 10 miles away won’t prescribe it either. Or the next one after that. What if you don’t have a car or don’t drive? What if you’re a rape victim who’s sustained other physical injuries and of questionable mental state due to the trauma? Just going across town would constitute an undue burden to that patient in my opinion.
These are not far-fetched hypotheticals by any means.