Feedback for Proposed Revision of the Code of Ethics

Pharmacist  ·  Nov. 5, 2015

Although I highly doubt that my comments will result in any changes to the revised code of ethics, I consider it my moral duty as a health care provider to express my objections with the relevant explanation. Section 2.13 is putting at a high risk of losing their job and inflict serious mental/spiritual harm a significant minority of Ontario pharmacists, including myself. This section has nothing to do with ethics or science, but rather with an ideological agenda. The science of embriology (unlike humanist ideology) clearly states: The individual life of a multicellular organism, that of a human too, starts with the zygote. Every organism, humans too, in the course of their life undergo a series of successive transformations from the stage of zygote until death, during which the organism will appear differently, but it will remain the same being – human. This this the biological approach. All other approches of defining a human being will be either legal, or will bear professional preferences. That being said, what is a matter of fact to any biologist is that the unique genetical structure of the zygote is formed as a result of the fertilization of the human egg. This is a scientifical fact. Zygote, embrio and the growing child is not part of mother’s body, but is present in the mother as in an incubator, which is ideally suited for it’s early stages of development. The newly formed human being cannot be considered part of mother’s body neither immunologically nor genetically. The new human life is only geometrically part of the mother, but right from the very beginning it is another human being. From the point of view of biology abortion is forceful interruption of a human life. So, if science tells that abortion is murder – why do we go against science? Because of the humanist faith and it is in direct contradiction with science and other faiths. What else does the recent research tells us about abortion: A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States. So, again, why would anyone be forced to participate directly or indirectly and against his/her will in a procedure that puts a woman under an increased risk of maternal death? Although it is quite saddening, it appears that even a professional organization supposed to stay out of such influence, can be influenced by the political ideology. Also, it is obvious that this code of ethics contradicts itself. We have the obligation, as the revised code of ethics states, to”keep our promise to act in the best interest of our patients and place their well-being first and foremost.” and the second foundational principle states we should do no harm. How does section 2.13 agrees with the scientifical knowledge that the termination of a human life at any stage of it’s development starting from zygote until death is murder and that abortion is increasing maternal death post-abortion?. Forcing the pharmacist to refer a patient to someone else who would agree to help terminate a human life seems utterly absurd. Therefore, these are the changes I propose to section 2.13

Section 2.13 Members can refuse to provide advice or product that will help terminate/result in termination a human life at any stage of it’s development (from zygote until death) on the basis of scientifical, moral or religious grounds. Although abortion and euthanasia are legal, we understand that it is ethically unacceptable to many practicing pharmaciststs. Therefore, members are required to notify patient that they are not providing these products and services and the pharmacist is not required to ensure there is an alternative provider, since it will cause a significant mental/spiritual harm to the member.

I am 100% confident that these changes will not be done and it is a clear sign that persecution against people who think differently started in Canada and true democracy and real human rights are under threat.

Reply or Back