Skip to content

Amended General Pharmaceutical Council's guidance blatantly ignores the law on freedom of conscience

Printer-friendly version

Christian Concern's Roger Kiska comments on the General Pharmaceutical Council's (GPhC) amending of guidelines to prevent pharmacists from exercising conscientious objection. 

 

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), a professional body overseeing pharmacists in the United Kingdom, has amended its guidance to deny pharmacists the right to opt out of providing services which would offend their deeply held religious or moral beliefs. As the Christian Legal Centre stated in its consultation submission to the GPhC on this issue, the reality is that the proposed shift in language would essentially create a monopoly in the pharmacy profession to those who support abortion, contraception, or other morally suspect treatments; thus overriding the grave concerns of Christians, people of other faiths and none, who have a conscientious objection to the provision of certain services and products.

If the pharmaceutical field truly has a duty to provide clients with all options, then it must also have a duty to afford individuals the possibility of accessing pharmacists who share their views on life and health. In a 2009 study, nearly 90 percent of people interviewed from across the ideological spectrum believed that choosing a health care professional with similar values as their own was important. Equally important is that a client's will is not absolute, and even beyond the issue of conscience, delivering services to some patients may not be in their best interests.

The views and morals of the pharmacist matter. The meaning given to him by his sincerely held religious or moral beliefs provides him or her with a truly person-centred approach. And the GPhC, in its zeal to force pharmacists to dispense any drug asked of them, even if it against their will or the best interests of the patient, is a dangerous departure from customary practice which adheres to laws protecting conscience. This is not only a sad day for pharmacists, current and future, but it is a blow to any client who desires to have a pharmacist who truly has their best interests in mind.

 

Related links: 
Regulator's proposal to remove pharmacists' conscience rights is unethical, uneccesary and quite possibly illegal (CMF blog) 

 

Twitter

  • House of Lords Debates Tenets of Islam: Lord Pearson initiated a debate in the House of Lords last week asking the… https://t.co/LZQCSuAmtm 7 hours 12 min ago
  • Watch Dr Joe Boot introduce his new book Gospel Witness in a short interview: https://t.co/EeD6yrrFqM https://t.co/10tODeBZB3 1 day 11 hours ago
  • NEW BOOK - Gospel Witness by Dr Joe Boot: "Culture is the manifestation of a society's faith or ultimate commitment… https://t.co/UMtJsfqJc8 1 day 14 hours ago
  • The great cake debate: As ever more Christian business owners find themselves under pressure to promote ideas again… https://t.co/pQwGVsrmFq 2 days 7 hours ago
  • . Live: Home Affairs Committee debate. Subject: Harassment and intimidation near abortion clinics. Wi… https://t.co/N5pmYVvZSh 2 days 12 hours ago

Subscribe to our emails