Michael As­ciak

This coun­try never ceases to amaze me! A care­fully crafted re­port by a com­mit­tee of the high­est in­sti­tu­tion of the land, Par­lia­ment, sug­gests that the morn­ing-after pill (MAP) should be dis­pensed against a doc­tor’s pre­scrip­tion.

Malta Independent - - DEBATE & ANALYSIS -

Well, what do you know! The ex­ec­u­tive branch of gov­ern­ment over­rules this to­gether with the Medicines Author­ity! They quote sci­ence say­ing that the MAP is not abortive (some­times it is and some­times it is not de­pend­ing on the cy­cle) only for one to read in the spe­cific insert to th­ese tablets that it may pre­vent the at­tach­ment of the em­bryo to the womb, in fact mean­ing that it may be abortive! Won­ders never cease! In its in­fi­nite wis­dom, the Medicine’s Author­ity has de­cided to shift the onus of re­spon­si­bil­ity from physi­cians to phar­ma­cists. This does put a greater re­spon­si­bil­ity on com­mu­nity phar­ma­cists to dis­pense the MAP in a pro­fes­sional man­ner. Con­sid­er­ing that there are eth­i­cal and med­i­cal is­sues why the MAP should not be dis­pensed, it be­hoves the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­mu­nity now to cre­ate a sys­tem where the MAP can be safely dis­pensed. This would re­quire a per­sonal in­ter­view be­tween the phar­ma­cist and the client, which in­ter­view has to be car­ried out in a pri­vate room, where per­sonal med­i­cal de­tails and past his­tory are asked for and checked. If it is found that there are med­i­cal con­traindi­ca­tions to the pill, this should not be dis­pensed as there are health and in­dem­nity is­sues in­volved. It would be very ir­re­spon­si­ble if the MAP were to be dis­pensed without this in­ter­view as if it was just a box of throat pastilles! The phar­ma­cist may choose not to dis­pense the MAP for both med­i­cal and also for purely eth­i­cal rea­sons.

I find it dis­turb­ing that both pro­fes­sion­als and non-pro­fes­sion­als choose to crit­i­cize the fact that pro­fes­sional care work­ers may al­ways ob­ject to par­tic­i­pate in any med­i­cal pro­ce­dure or dis­pen­sa­tion, if such pro­ce­dure or dis­pens­ing goes con­trary to the per­son’s eth­i­cal dis­po­si­tion. Con­sci­en­tious ob­jec­tion has been, is and will al­ways re­main the right of the pro­fes­sional. We can even refuse to see pa­tients if there are eth­i­cal is­sues in­volved in the act of see­ing them. This right is an en­shrined prin­ci­ple of med­i­cal ethics.

In an­cient Rome, the fa­ther, the Pater Fa­mil­ias, had the ab­so­lute

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malta

© PressReader. All rights reserved.