Pharmacist Conscience Clauses- A Free Review of the Review

Hospital Pharmacy – Volume 46 – Number 5 / May 2011 – RxLegal – Pharmacist Conscience Clauses: Continuing Debate – Journal Article.

When the “experts” are called upon to provide commentary in professional Journals, it would help if they research their work sufficiently to write something accurate and useful.

Michael Gabay, Pharm D, JD, BCPS,  has attempted to present the topic of Pharmacists conscience clauses, which have led to legislation excusing pharmacists from dispensing drugs which may operate to kill  a human organism.

Listed below are a few of the troubles with Gabay’s article:

1) The implication that RU-486 contributed to pharmacists’  conscientious objection conflicts.  Mifepristone/misoprostil  regimen was highly regulated, and dispensed by the abortion practitioners themselves, rather than pharmacists.  The article gives no mention of ulipristal acetate, the new analog of mifepristone which is now approved as a morning after pill, doses of which may be accumulated to accomplish a later abortion.  (Way to keep current, Dr. Gabay.)

2) Glaring omissions of significant, current,  judicial decisions.  Dr. Gabay is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Dept. of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois, Chicago. Yes, he is in Illinois, a member of the Chicago Bar Association, and inactive member of the Illinois Bar. His article failed to mention the group of lawsuits recently decided  in his own state, involving conscientiously objecting pharmacists and pharmacy owners, Walgreens and former Gov. Blagojevich. It is possible that Dr. Gabay, JD, was not aware of these significant court decisions, or perhaps he did not approve of them.

3) Garbled facts of the K Mart controversy, which actually involved a refusal to dispense progestin-only birth control drugs, not all “oral contraceptives” as the article incorrectly states.

4) Attributing the statement that oral contraceptives can prevent “implantation of a fertilized ovum”, to a person who knew better than that.  Embryology lesson begins  here:  Fertilization of the secondary oocyte, produces an evanescent form called the zygote, that immediately begins cellular division, and proceeds to the next stage.  By the time the human organism reaches the uterus to begin implantation, its embryonic form has differentiated into a blastocyst. (Dr. Gabay forgot the basic  anatomy/physiology stuff which should have been prerequisite to his Pharm D.)

5) Dr. Gabay still appears not to know what Ms. Brauer  knew about the mechanisms of birth control drugs,  and the progestin, norethindrone, in particular. The actual disagreement in the K Mart case is  still readily visible on the net:  Page 1 and Page 2.

6) The crux of ethical objection to dispensing drugs which act, to a significant extent, to stop the life of a human organism is just that.  It is not tied up in the various newer concepts  of “abortion” and “pregnancy” which exclude the early human embryo.  Abusing these terms to obfuscate the issue  violates the patients’ right to give informed consent. The law has established no cogent or consistent basis for determining which human organisms may be willfully  killed and which may not.

The complimentary review and editorializing  will end here, to prevent  reader fatigue.

The take home lesson for users of the literature in science and medicine is to read critically.   Much of it is incomplete and factually “challenged” whether it is primary literature, or review and commentary,  as in the case of Dr. Gabay’s article.

The value of extensive,  formal education (as currently supplied)  is also called into question, as it increasingly appears not to be helping with the quality of intellectual output.

*Note: This commentary has not been subjected to editorial review.

Read the Ultrasound Amendment, Charlie Crist!

Either the Florida Governor  did not read Senator Gardiner’s amendment to HB 1143 or he lied.  Probably the latter.

Read  Associated Press LIES about the content of the bill and the cost of the ultrasounds, which are not 750-1500.   Pharmer is not paying nearly  that much  for an ultrasound done this year.  It is in the range mentioned in the article  below.

A closer look at abortion and Florida’s proposed law – St. Petersburg Times.

So basically, the bill that Crist vetoed requires informed consent before abortion, which would prevent psychological troubles later, when women see ultrasounds of the babies they want to keep, and start grieving for the ones they aborted.

The women would have to pay for a relatively inexpensive ultrasound  (which could also reduce  troubles of missed ectopic pregnancies, and various abortion errors. )  Remember that many crisis pregnancy centers are offering these ultrasounds for no charge at all.

The woman could choose whether or not to hear about or see the ultrasound, and she would have to sign a form affirming refusal,  (as Pharmer did each time she refused prenatal, alpha feto protein testing.)  Many consent forms are associated with giving birth.  Why are such intrusions  considered acceptable while a form to refuse medical information is not?

The woman would be informed of the risks of abortion procedures, which should have been done anyway.

Click  HERE to view the florida ultrasound amendment for yourself!

Always double check the  output of the Associated Press, as much of it is manure.

Abortion supporters have taken one more opportunity to show us clearly that women’s  health, and informed consent are NOT their concern.   Governor Crist as done the same,  for which he will soon be put out to political pasture.