License destroys freedom
A little pill is raising big questions. Advocates of sexual freedom and reproductive choice were delighted late last year when “morning-after” pills were approved for marketing in Canada. And this month B.C. became the first Canadian province to make “emergency contraception pills” (ECP) such as Preven available without a prescription.
Not so happy are the pharmacists who have moral objections to dispensing a pill they believe causes abortions. They may be required to sell it anyhow; their freedom to act according to the dictates of their conscience is in jeopardy.
The battles surrounding ECP are predictable, complex and full of doublespeak. Preven’s advocates might call it “emergency contraception,” but its critics point out that it doesn’t prevent conception. Rather, it works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, which they insist means that conception has already occurred and classifies the drug as an abortafacient. Concerned pharmacists are now struggling to retain the freedom to avoid participating in early term abortions.
Seeking exemption
But conscience clauses don’t come easily. Groups like Planned Parenthood adamantly oppose letting “drug stores become pulpits.” They say it is wrong for pharmacists to deny medication to consumers just because it does not meet their moral approval. Preven’s proponents have polls to show that both pharmacists and the general public are wary of “conscience clauses” that would effectively restrict access. They argue that it’s part of their “professional duty” to meet patients’ needs, that “pharmacists need to hand out all legalized drugs and not pick and choose, especially from a corporate position.”
Ted Gerk is one who sees it differently. Deeply concerned about reports of drug stores developing policies that will require their employees to dispense all drugs regardless of personal moral qualms, the head of the prolife resource centre in Kelowna, B.C. insists that “no pharmacist should be forced to dispense a drug that violates his or her conscience, nor refer for that same drug, which is the same thing as providing it.” He lambastes the corporations that “expect their employees to act like well-trained robots, setting aside their ethical beliefs for the advancement of profit.”
Troublesome thing
Poor pharmacists. They are involuntary participants in a dangerous endeavour, inadvertent warriors in a battle they did not choose. Their plight raises the vexing issue of conscientious objection. An active conscience is indeed a troublesome thing, raising awkward questions at inconvenient times and advising restraint in precisely those areas where temptation is strong and will is weak.
Individuals who act according to the dictates of conscience will frequently find themselves standing against the popular tide. Such a stance will inevitably be annoying to others for whom the fragrance of righteousness is sniffed as the stench of self-righteousness.
But like the canary in the mineshaft, sensitivity to a danger undetected by the mainstream of society is a valuable early warning system which we ignore at our peril. The minority of pharmacists who are putting their jobs on the line over this issue are well aware that moral right does not depend on either consumer demand or government sanction. They are discovering the hard way that there are two ways to deal with a troubled conscience–either attend to it or ignore it. Some will be forced to choose between keeping a job or maintaining ethical integrity.
What is true on the individual level operates on the social level as well. While clearly articulated objections to a morally questionable practice are being raised, those voices are being stifled rather than heeded. Too many within our society have confused license with freedom and are ready to trample on basic individual rights for the cause of reproductive choice. It’s a poor trade.