From Dr C. K. Tan, MRPharmS
SIR,—Recent correspondents suggest that, as professionals, pharmacists should avoid religion and making moral judgments in matters relating to medical treatment.
First, we need to recognise that none of us lives in a philosophical vacuum. As a Christian, I believe in a God to whom I have to give an account. Consequently my attitude and behaviour are influenced accordingly. But those who are atheists or agnostics or adhere to a non-religious outlook are also influenced by their beliefs. We both hold on to biased positions. To suggest that the non-religious position is somewhat more unbiased, less dogmatic and neutral is an untenable proposition.
Second, without the religious perspective, we run the danger of merely addressing the "symptom" and not the "diseases" or cause. Unwanted babies are not a pharmacological matter: they are a symptom of a moral and spiritual vacuum. In post-Christian Britain, the previous consensus based on the Judaeo-Christian position has collapsed. It is each man for himself. By merely addressing how to deal with the consequences and not the causes we will not go far enough to a solution. The spiritual and moral elements have to be considered.
Third, to suggest we leave religion and morals out of the debate is to support free speech only for those who hold to the non-religious outlook! Would we accept that only politicians should decide political matters, that only the police should deal with law and order issues, that only social workers deal with social problems, that only doctors handle matters relating to medical treatment and that only geneticists have the right to speak on genetic manipulation? Those who hold religious convictions must add their voice. It is our right and duty.
I can understand the underlying, but unspoken, fear of some correspondents that some who hold strong religious views can be bigoted, extreme and unreasonable. But those who hold no religious beliefs can also be bigoted, extreme and unreasonable. The individual pharmacist is a well-trained, intelligent professional who can evaluate the facts and arguments and decide for himself.
I accept that the aforementioned correspondents mean well; so do I. What we cannot agree is the means to the solution. Availability of OTC post-coital contraception will not solve the problem but compound it. The availability of abortion on demand has led to a dramatic increase in the number of abortions and the availability of oral contraception has not reduced the number of teenage pregnancies. The availability of OTC emergency contraception may or may not reduce unwanted pregnancies but it will definitely reduce the sense of personal responsibility and accountability. That, in the long run, is to be most regretted.
C. K. Tan
Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire