From Mr B. Whittaker, MRPharmS
SIR,—May I reply to some comments (PJ, November 27, p860) made on my letter (PJ, November 20, p817). In our school and college days, when taking examinations, it was protocol "to avoid questions on politics and religion", so I think these subjects tended to be swept under the carpet and not given serious study. However, they have an awkward habit of resurfacing, as now.
I base my stand on two principles:
1. A pharmacist in a pharmacy is a pharmacist - a professional. If he is helping out at a citizen's advice centre or other voluntary work or participating in a brains trust locally, he is free to air his conscience, alias religious convictions. In the pharmacy he should treat the patient
2. A request for emergency hormonal contraception is an emergency and the remedy EHC is there. The pharmacist could counsel but to go further into moral education is not our job
Mr Chris Morris states that "in his experience the pharmacist is the first person asked". But why should this not be so. He wants pharmacy's profile raised. Does he mean turning ourselves into a religious organisation? To Mr Jones, I would say: "EHC should not be stigmatised as symptomatic. Better to have some treatment than none."
I point out that none of us is born with religious or political convictions; these are acquired, absorbed or imposed.
B. Whittaker Keighley, West Yorksire