From Mrs C. A. Hubert, MRPharmS
SIR,—I am gravely concerned about the removal of the original conscience clause from the proposed new code of ethics. One aim of the document, we are told, is to have a clear and concise statement of ethics which has meaning for pharmacists. I strongly suggest that in this case both clarity and meaning have been lost. The original clause specifically acknowledged the right of pharmacists to act in the light of their consciences by clearly stating that "a pharmacist may object on the grounds of conscience to the dispensing of certain medicinal products for the control of fertility, conception or termination of pregnancy".
Having disposed of this statement the proposed new wording has removed the clarity which reveals that the matter of conscience is based upon the intrinsic value of human life at every stage. A pharmacist who refuses to dispense the products mentioned could find himself considered to be "in breach of a fundamental duty (which) . . . could form the basis of a complaint of professional misconduct". In such a situation a pharmacist would then have to argue the grounds of his conscience.
This proposed document is, therefore, discriminatory against pharmacists who have a conscientious objection to dispensing the aforementioned products. This is, in effect, a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights in that it aims to prevent people practising their profession or earning a living on the grounds of religious discrimination. I strongly urge pharmacists to challenge the working party as to their reasons for removing these carefully chosen words which for years have allowed pharmacists to act with personal integrity in professional practice.
C. Hubert
Brighton, East Sussex