The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7400 p565
13 May 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 40K, Acrobat Reader

· Regulation
· Emergency contraception (3)
· Remote supervision
· Fitness to practise
· Medicines use reviews
· Council election (2)

Letters to the Editor

Emergency contraception

Tesco should not pick and choose

From Mr S. R. Whelan, MRPharmS

I read with interest the decision by East Cheshire Primary Care Trust not to grant a pharmaceutical contract to Tesco because of its refusal to supply emergency hormonal contraception to girls under 16 years of age (PJ, 29 April, p493).

In that regard, I find that I have a different opinion from Andrew Paxton (PJ, 6 May, p531). He seems to suggest that all pharmacists working for Tesco would refuse to participate in providing this service. I see no reason why this should be so. Surely, this was a corporate decision. Indeed it is only a few years since Tesco withdrew from providing the service to girls under 16 (PJ, 27 July 2002, p124), following customer complaints, after the national tabloids published articles about the service. Up until this point the company was happy to allow pharmacists to participate and allow them to use their own judgement and conscience about providing the service.

I have no problem with individual pharmacists exercising their consciences and not involving themselves in this area. However, I fully agree with East Cheshire PCT in not allowing Tesco to pick and choose which services it will and will not provide.

Sean Whelan
Skipton, North Yorkshire

We should not restrict the choices of others

From Miss S. Ganatra, MRPharmS

I read Andrew Paxton’s comments (PJ, 6 May, p531) with interest. Although I respect his right to have his own opinion, I believe strongly that, as health care professionals, it is our job to do what is best in the interests of the patient.

If a 15-year-old girl has been irresponsible enough to have unprotected intercourse but is then mature enough to take steps to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, what message would we be sending if we then said to her it was morally wrong to be taking emergency hormonal contraction?

How can it be more morally correct to let this young girl, or even force her to, follow through an unwanted pregnancy?

It would surely leave physical and mental scars at such a tender age that we, as those who safeguard her health, are in a position to prevent.

I think that, no matter what our personal opinions are, we should not restrict the choices of others.

Sonal Ganatra
London W1

My eyes are open

From Mr P. S. Blake, MRPharmS

Andrew Paxton (PJ, 6 May, p531) has opened my eyes to the deep moral vacuum at the heart of our profession. Not only are we complicit in mass murder, but by permitting any pharmacist to dispense or supply materials that are objectionable to another pharmacist we are daily compounding the damage to those of tender conscience.

This is wrong and has to stop. However, it would be equally wrong to favour one set of beliefs over another; we must take them all into account. So I propose that all pharmacists be immediately banned from dispensing or selling:

· Any contraceptive drug or device (to meet the demands of devout catholics)

· Any abortifacient (to appease those who are against abortion)

· Any drug of animal origin (for the benefit of Jains, Buddhists, Hindus and, in the case of drugs of porcine origin, devout Jews and Muslims)

· Any mixture formulated to contain alcohol (to appease Muslims)

We should probably also ensure, for the benefit of those who place the strictest interpretation on such things, that male pharmacists do not serve female patients, and vice versa. In addition, because we must not favour religious over non-religious ethics, I think we have to take into account the growing body of opinion in favour of animal rights, and refuse to supply any drug unless it can be shown that it has not been tested in animals. This should have considerable benefits in reducing the NHS drugs bill and, in the words of Dickens, decreasing the surplus population (at least until the lack of contraception makes itself felt).

Alternatively, it may be that those who believe professionals are being forced to ignore their consciences should consider their own position, and ask whether it is right for them to continue to practise and enjoy the privileges of a profession so irredeemably tainted. The rest of us, who are so lacking in moral fibre as to think a primary care trust entitled to award contracts only to those prepared to fulfil them in full, will just have to muddle along the primrose path to hell by ourselves.

Paul Blake
London SE13

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Regulation)
Next Topic (Remote supervision)