Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

World|Fri, Nov. 02 2007 09:14 AM EDT

Gov'ts Press Pharmacists to Ignore Pope's Anti-Abortion Pill Call

By Lawrence Jones|Christian Post Reporter

Both Italian and Chilean governments have told pharmacists that they are obligated to dispense drugs such as the “morning after pill” even if it means violating their moral beliefs.

  • pills
    (Photo: AP Images / Mel Evans, file)
    Bottles of prescription medications move along a production line at Medco Health Solutions, Inc.'s Willingboro Dispensing Pharmacy in this Feb. 28, 2006 file photo in Willingboro, N.J.

The warnings are in response to Pope Benedict XVI’s address before an international conference Monday urging pharmacists to exercise a "conscientious objection" to dispensing drugs that would block pregnancy, induce an abortion or assist euthanasia.

Italian Health Minister Livia Turco said the pope’s call should be ignored and that the pope had no right to tell pharmacists what to do.

"I don't think his warning to pharmacists to be conscientious objectors to the morning after pill should be taken into consideration," she told daily Corriere della Sera newspaper.

Lidia Menapace, a senator of the Communist Refoundation party, criticized the pope’s appeal to pharmacists to refuse dispensing the morning after pill as “a very heavy interference in politics and Italian life.”

In his address, Benedict had described a conscientious objection as a "right that must be recognized for your profession so you can avoid collaborating, directly or indirectly, in the supply of products which clearly have immoral aims."

However, the Italian law does not recognize such a right and requires pharmacists to fill all prescriptions.

"We can't be conscientious objectors unless the law is changed," said Franco Caprino, head of pharmacists' professional group Federfarma, in a Reuters report.

But Pietro Uroda, the president of the Catholic Union of Italian Pharmacists, considered a combination of laws and rules that would permit the practice conscientious objection.

He pointed to article 54 of the Italian penal code, which he says states that “if someone violates the law in order to save another person he is exempt from punishment; if it is for a greater good.”

“Therefore, in order to save the embryo we reject selling the morning after pill,” argued Uroda. “If the embryo — as it is already scientifically proven — is a human life, we think it should be helped and defended.”

The Chilean government, which allows girls aged 14 and over the right to the morning after pill free of charge and without parental consent, has also issued a response to the pope’s speech, which was made at the International Congress of Catholic Pharmacists.

Chilean Deputy Health Minister Lidia Amarales warned that the government would be prepared to close a pharmacy that refused to sell the morning-after pill, according to the British Broadcasting Corp.

Three of the major pharmacy chains had not been selling the pill, citing the lack of locally available stocks. The government responded by importing supplies and then said the stores now had no excuse for not selling the pill.

One chain, Salcobrand, said the government's actions were a violation of its freedom of opinion about the pill which it said was abortive.

"We express conscientious objection to being forced to sell a product that can have that effect," the company said in a statement quoted by the Associated Press.

In the United States, pharmacists in states including Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota may refuse to dispense the morning after pill, a concentrated version of a regular birth control pill, that prevents the sperm from fertilizing an egg. Some states like California allow pharmacists to refuse only with employer approval.

The emergency contraception is supported by U.S. family planning groups but criticized by religious groups for promoting more risky sexual behavior among teens.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I may need to qualify my position a bit.I am against abortion because I believe it "snuffs out" a life.However, a pill that keeps sperm from fertilizing an egg is far different from going in and sucking the brains out of a fully developed fetus/unborn child.Preventing a pregnancy is nowhere near as inhumane as killing an unborn child, at least in my mind.

  • Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:26 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Whether we agree that an unborn baby/fetus is a human life or not, I think we all can agree that someone is denied the chance to live as a result of abortion.In that sense a life is "snuffed out", so to speak.I find that troubling, to say the least.It may not be illegal, but it certainly seems wrong.However, I am a man and therefore my vote doesn't count.

  • apc »
    Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:25 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    The Pope's speech makes all the workers and their work important, others do not. In this case they've been dehumanized and made into mere working machines. With this mentality, anything could be done and no one supposed to mind because they are not human.

  • Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Torus,

    I think you and I agree with the options. The pharmacists can either 1) dispense medication they feel is intended to do nthing other than kill; 2) quitl 3) protest and try to change things while dispensing the drugs 4) protest and try to change things while NOT dispensing the drugs and risk getting fired.

    I suspect you are correct in thinking you, I, and the various governments disagree with what is considered life. It is that difference that causes our consciences to move us to do ceetain things or not do certain things.

    I still hold that the pharmacist took his job with an understanding that he would not be required to break the law or do morally reprehensible things. That understanding has apparently changed on the part of the government. Granted, for some pharmacists, the medication would not be considered morally reprehensible because they do not believe an unborn child of any age is a life. But for others, they face difficult choices.

    Personally, I think the medication should not sold at all. But then I don't think people should have sex outside of marriage either. :) I'm an anacronism. :)

  • Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:20 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    "Italian Health Minister Livia Turco said the pope’s call should be ignored and that the pope had no right to tell pharmacists what to do" ...has Italy turned back to Fascism? Why can't the Pope advise pharmacists about what is the right thing to do? He can't express his opinion? Obviously the Pontiffs' opinions are held in higher regard then that of the governments involved if they make those kinds of statements. I'm very glad to be a Catholic because we have a Pope who will make unpopular statements in an increasingly secular and arguably immoral world. One of the best articles I read about a Pope going against the mainstream was written by Ron Paul and I encourage others to read it:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html

  • Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:41 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    apc - you're out of touch. This is the pharmacist's JOB. My university does not force me to teach students, it's my job, a car mechanic isn't forced to fix your car, it's his JOB. The pharmacist isn't forced to distribute medicine, it's his JOB. If he doesn't like his JOB he can quit it and find another one.

  • apc »
    Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I look at issues such as this and think that slavery never ended. Is it right to try to force a worker to do something against their will? It takes away dignity.
    I also am amazed at some of the websites and their fight against pregnancy. One would think that it's the worst thing ever.
    Lastly it woould be much better to go to somewhere such as Planned Pregnancy before becoming needing something like Plan B. They can do all the counseling, testing, giving of pills, etc. all on a sliding scale.

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:38 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    jlw - Did you actually read my posts?

    1. This is not about what I want, it's about certain drugs which have been defined as legal by the goverment, the same goverment which licenses the pharmacists. Okay, I'll grant that the federal government approves drugs and the state goverments license pharmacists, but the states accept the federal government's decisions regarding legality of medication.

    2. If the pharmacist disagrees with the drugs (or with drugs that may yet appear, or with your hypothetical torture drugs, were the goverment to make them legal) then he can protest and/or quit.

    3. The pharmacist is exactly a vending machine of sorts. His job is to distribute factual information and legal drugs. Suppose you lived in a small town and needed a root canal but can't schedule it for a few days. You go to the pharmacist for the painkillers your dentist prescribed but the pharmacist tells you he doesn't stock it for ethical reasons. Is this pharmacist doing his job? Nope.

    4. Whether the pharmacist disagrees (or whether you or I disagree) with whether the medicine is "taking a life" is neither here nor there. The government made that decision in the negative and the pharmacist has a legal connection to the goverment. If the pharmacist can't do his job then he can quit.

    Compare with the current issue in the news about the state department employees who don't want to get an Iraq assignment. They take this job in the state department where they sign that they'll go where needed and then when they're needed they say they don't want to go. So they either shut up and go or they quit.

    Similarly either the pharmacist does the job he signed up for or he quits.

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    A pharmacist is a professional in a vocation which involves both a range of technical education and training, and an ethical code which specifies that the pharmacist, like the doctor, is supposed to protect the life and promote the health of the client or customer.

    Many would have an ethical objection to providiing drugs for the purpose of torture. Would you require them to do so? Many would object to providing drugs for executions --- that is, for carrying out capital punishment. Would you require this as well? It used to be the fascists who insisted on that sort of pharmacist.

    Is it a good thing to reduce a pharmacist to a vending machine at the behest of those with money and power, regardless of the protection of life and health?

    We used to appreciate people in the healing profession who acted conscientiously. Must we now insist that they be conscience-less?

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Now the physician is involving himself..."

    That should, of course, read as "Now the *pharmacist* is involving himself..."

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:37 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

    If a pharmacist has a problem selling the "morning-after" pill he should take it up with the government and *not* with the woman who comes in with a prescription for it. Now the physician is involving himself in with the personal decisions of a stranger, who may not have access to another pharmacy (i.e., she may not have transportation, she may live in a small town where the next pharmacy is 50 miles away, etc). At the very, very least, if a pharmacy *stocks* the drug then there should be someone on duty *at all times* who will dispense it. I resent the fact that an innocent woman will get caught up in the moral quandary of someone who will not obey the law and do their job. The rights of the born outweigh the rights of the unborn. It may not be pretty, but it's what we've got, and if we do away with that, things will get a lot uglier.

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:56 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    You need to understand a priori that your number-one criteria, that this is a question of life versus death, is not an absolute one. Whether a one-day/week/month-old fetus is a "life" is not agreed upon. You and I and the government may have differing criteria as to what "a life" is, we may not. I suspect we all three do, I don't entirely agree with the government and I suspect I don't agree with you.

    The government has implicitly made its criteria clear by allowing the manufacture of these pills. It has decided that the fetus does not have an equivalent "right to life" to a post-birth individual. The pharmacist may disagree with this as a freethinking individual but as an employee of a pharmacy which is licensed by the government he cannot let this alter his duties. The pharmacist took his job on the implicit understanding that he would abide by the goverment's rules.

    If he wants to protest he can do so. He can even stand outside his own pharmacy and protest the fact that he has to sell the stuff but he still has to sell it. If he refuses to sell it then he has violated his contract with the government and ought to quit or be fired.

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:18 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    When the agreement was made, certain things were expected by both parties. If the agreementis changed to include somehting that is morally reprehensible, you have the ability to quit. Or you have the ability to try to change things from within. Or you have the ability to be fired.

    Protecting life is much more important than meekly submitting to a changed agreement. Protecting life is much more important that merely quitting. Quitting just stops one from having to do something reprehensible. However, we have the responsibilty to not just not do bad things, but do what we can to prevent others from doing those bad things as well (without doing morally reprehnsible things ourselves).

    What is more important, someone's life or maintaining a contract which is being manipluated to do something morally reprehensible? I would think life is more important than maintaining an agreement that is being manipulated to try to cause someone to do something morally reprehensible. I think life is worth being willing to be fired - it makes a strong statement of how wrong that thing is, and if enough people hear of it, perhaps things will change. Of course, I'm only speaking theoretically, as I have never been put in that position. But I have been asked to do something illegal in the course of my job (for me, something being illegal is not quite the same as causing/allowing someone's death). I told the person I would not do that thing, but I was able to find a different way to accomplish what needed to occur. Howevr, I was willing to be fired for not doing what the person wanted.

    If someone is in a position where they are being asked by superiors to do something illegal or immoral, then that person has the respoonsibility to speak out and try to change things, rather than meekly going away.

    Your analogy again is lacking, in that you are not discussing life threatening issues, nor is your university asking you to kill someone. Perhaps a better analogy would be that as an instructor, you are expected to teach. But then the officials that be decide you must also allow anyone in your classes to be able to kiill anyone else and you are to stand aside and allow it. Quitting is an option. Speaking out against it while doing what you can to prevent people from being killed in your classes is another option. Which do you choose? I would choose the latter.

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:39 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Moral-free decisions? Who said anything about decisions? When I took my job I agreed (signed) to certain criteria, both explicitly and implicitly. I agreed that I would follow my university's rules and structure. I don't get to choose whether or not I want to teach women, for example, or whether my female students can wear short skirts. If the university decides that precalculus should include more trigonometry, I don't get to choose, I just follow the rules for which I signed on the bottom line.

    Likewise a pharmacist makes an implicit agreement by getting a state-certified license and by passing tests. He agrees to distribute government-sanctioned medication. His job is not to do as he likes. If he doesn't like it, quit.

    As regards the police and the letter J issue. If you're a policeman and the government tells you such then your moral duty, if you feel it is higher, should tell you to quit the job. If a pharmacist feels his moral duty to protect fetuses is higher than his duty to be a pharmacist, he ought to quit being a pharmacist. If the university tells me to fail all my students with red hair I'll quit first because that isn't the job I signed up to do.

    Think about this: If your child were dying (very close to death, let's say) and the one medication which could save his life was not available at your local pharmacist because it had been tested on animals, and you pharmacist was against animal testing, how would you feel? Maybe you'd feel that that's just life and say some prayers for your son as he died. Personally I'd sue the pants off that pharmacist for not doing his job.

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:46 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    First, you claim to have stronger analogies, because they are not influenced by moral viewpoints. In fact, there is no such thing as a moral free decision. Your morals may or may not be mine, but they definitely affect any decision you make. The same is true regardless of whether those morals are based upon utilitarian beliefs, theistic beliefs, deistic beliefs, etc. Everyone has a moral compass, even if some think that compass is warped or wrong. That moral compass affects our decisions.

    Second, when the government tells you to do something that is morally reprehensible, you have the responsibility to do the right thing, not what the government says. For instance, if you are a police officer and the government says you are to arrest all people whose name begins with the letter J, simply because their names begin with the letter J, should you do so? What about when you find out that those people whose name begins with the letter J are not just being detained, but made to be slaves? What about when you find out they are actually being starved and tortured, simply because they have a name that begins with the letter J? What about when you find out they are being killed for that reason? Even the secular world said that the Germans were guilty of atrocity and had the repsonsibility to not commit what they called war crimes, even if they had orders to do so. The prosecuted what were considered to be the worst examples of this.

    Third, I submit to you that one can not do one's job when that job is intended to heal and you are now being expected to harm. Doctors and Pharmacists have a responsibilty to help prevent people from harming themselves or others. Everyone does - in fact, in many places it is illegal to stand by and do nothing when you know someone is going to harm themselves or someone else - especially when you are in a health profession, or where you interact with children. So if you are going to use an analogy, it must include the life and eath of others for it to be a valid analogy. Because that is what we are discussing - the life and death of people.

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:48 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Please explain why my examples don't compare apples to apples, rather than just saying it.

    We are both looking at this from different analogical viewpoints. I think of the analogy as being that of the job we take. We do our job or we find another job. Your analogy is between fetuses and living children. My analogy is stronger than yours as it's not based on any particular moral or religious viewpoint, it's based on standards of doing-ones-job.

    Given that medical jobs have a strong government connection (as regards what can be dispensed, in what doses, etc.) it makes sense that the government gets to dictate. The pharmacist's own (relative) morals do not trump this. If a pharmacist wants to refuse birth control or dispense marijuana or LSD or do anything else which is not sanctioned by the government then he should not be a pharmacist.

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    torus, your examples don't compare apples to apples.

    Let's get some more accurate examples. Suppose you are a doctor and the government said that while you can heal some people (which is the reason you became a doctor), you had no choice but to kill others, because it was inconvenient for those others to live. Should you kill those people, or should you refuse?

    Suppose you are a firefighter who risks his life to save other people's lives, but the government said you have to let the children of some people to burn to death, because the parents of those children felt it was more convenient to let them die than to save their own children's lives. Should you let those children die, or should you rescue them?

    Suppose you are a police officer who risks life to save lives, but the government says you have to not stop drug dealers from killing drug addicts children, if the drug addict gave permission for their kids to be killed? Should you allow the murder of those children, or should you save them?

  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:07 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    I'm a university lecturer. Suppose I told the university that I didn't want to teach women (for example) because it conflicted with my religious beliefs. Think I'd keep my job? Think they'd give me classes with only men?

    What if a professional firefighter didn't want to put out a fire in your house because he felt that saving your life was against his religion? Think he'd be a firefighter for long?

    What if you got a job in a restaurant as a waiter and didn't want to serve pork? Think you'd be a waiter at that restaurant for long?

    If you can't do the job then find another job. Don't take the job and then complain that the job requirements conflict with your religion.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links