ADDRESSING the 25th International Congress of Catholic Pharmacists at Vatican City, Pope Benedict XVI urged them to avoid dispensing contraceptives and pregnancy-terminating drugs, on Oct 29.He insisted that conscientious objection must be recognised as a right by the pharmaceutical profession.
The Pope’s appeal to pharmacists to not dispense or distribute the medicines that they think are used for “immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia,” has invited criticism from the medical profession and social activists.
No specific drug was named as a potential candidate for the ‘boycott’.
But it obviously was the morning-after pill, which can prevent unwanted pregnancy when taken after unplanned sexual intercourse, within two or three days. It is available on prescription in some countries and over the counter in others. He also referred to what is known as smart abortion pill RU-486, which blocks secretion of a hormone that is needed to prevent rejection of the fertilised egg by the uterus. As the foetus is yet to form, it is technically not a pregnancy and therefore, not an abortion.
In his speech, the Pope told the pharmacists that they have an educational role toward patients so that drugs are used in a morally and ethically correct way. He extolled, “We cannot anaesthetise consciences as regards, for example, the effect of certain molecules that have the goal of preventing the implantation of the embryo or shortening a person’s life.” The Pope called upon them to don the objector status because that would “enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia.”
Health Minister Livia Turco of Italy said that the Pope had no business to tell professionals such as pharmacists what to do. She reportedly told the daily Corriere della Sera, “He has all the right to urge young people to be sexually responsible. But, I don’t think his warning to pharmacists to be conscientious objectors to the morning-after pill should be given any consideration.” Lidia Menapace, a senator of the Communist Refoundation party declared, “The Pope’s appeal to pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill is a very heavy interference in politics and Italian life.” Federfarma, the group of professional pharmacists responded that by law, they had an obligation distribute medicines prescribed by a doctor. Its head Franco Caprino, stated, “We can’t be conscientious objectors unless the law is changed.”
Should religious leaders like the Pope or cardinals - or for that matter the mullahs, monks and acharyas of various faiths and sects - interfere in professional matters and the laws of the State and personal choices of people by issuing directions to professionals? There have been comments that this is equivalent to some ayatollah issuing a fatwa to Islamic doctors to verify that the gelatin capsules of drugs they prescribe are not of porcine origin. Similarly, even the most fanatic doctor, belonging to the Hindu or Jain sects that place a taboo on cow slaughter, will not refuse to administer beef-derived insulin to diabetic patients having systemic allergy to human insulin or its analogs. Such a stand would be considered insane and a criminal act.
This is not the first time that Pope Benedict has encountered trouble since he became Pope in 2005. In September 2006, he had to virtually issue an apology, albeit an indirect one; the Vatican said in a statement that he was ‘very upset’ that his speech on Islam offended Muslims and expressed his respect for their faith.
The Pope had outraged not just the Muslims but almost the entire world (barring a handful of religious fundamentalists) when he had quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Widespread outrage at this superannuated concept of religion in a world that is rapidly integrating into a global village made Vatican spokesman Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone to add, “Some parts of his speech could have sounded offensive to the sensibility of the Muslim faithful and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond at all to his intentions.”
Liberal Catholics, in tune with times, eventually buried the controversy with the interpretation that the Pope was only challenging those who thought that all religions were equally unreasonable. He wanted them to prefer and support the religion that was most conducive to creating peace and a community of reasonable people, even if they did not believe in this religion themselves. Although it amounted to promoting Catholicism, or Christianity, in a broad sense, that could be taken as a fundamental right to profess and propagate one’s religion.
The controversies involving Vatican are particularly noteworthy in the light of the high hopes that many Catholics had pinned on the new Vatican order when the reign of 264th Pope John Paul II finally ended in April 2005.
The old Pope had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 1992 that had left him physically and mentally incapacitated. Yet, he vehemently resisted stepping down, as well as any semblance of modernisation in churches to keep pace with times.
One of the cardinal electors who participated in the 2005 papal conclave that selected Pope Benedict XVI was Archbishop Roger Michael of Los Angeles, who is committed to transparency and non-exploitation. He had boldly gone ahead with a USD 660 million settlement with victims of sexual abuse by his cardinals, even when he could have evaded law.
Earlier the Archdiocese of Boston also chose a USD 157 million settlement to be on the right side of law. Catholic clergy everywhere, particularly outside Europe, had hoped that the new Pope would bring in far-reaching reforms. Catholics in India too were looking for adapting to a changing world order. Population explosion being a major bane of developing societies, it was expected that the blind opposition to contraceptive would be reviewed.
Contraceptives have come to be recognised as an empowering tool in the hands of women to end their exploitation. The morning-after pill, sometimes referred to as emergency contraception, has come to be accepted due to compulsions of the times. Some forms are available to any woman above 18 without a prescription, even in the United States. These pills can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex and they work by preventing the embryo from being implanted into the womb, or ovulation.
However, the Pope thinks that pharmacists should raise people’s awareness so that “all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role.”
In India, an emergency contraceptive is marketed since August 2007 by Cipla, which incidentally is the world’s largest manufacturer of antiretroviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS (in terms of volume). The company aggressively markets the morning-after pill under the brand i-pill and has even set up a helpline, as well as a website - www.ipillcipla.com, and is talking to doctors. It has also started a series of TV advertisements that have generated a buzz. While the advertisement has raised some eyebrows among puritans, nobody argues that birth control itself is an immoral activity that corrupts a society.
About 40 per cent HIV/AIDS patients worldwide under antiretroviral therapy take Cipla drugs, but its sales volume is not substantial. It is because the company sells its medicines at up to 1/40 of the price charged by drug multinationals.
It has been earning their ire as they could not fleece poor African patients, by exploiting their patent rights.
That is an indication of the social commitment and responsibility of the company, which is beyond question. Some gynaecologists do feel that the advertisement campaign is over the top and may encourage people to self-medicate.
They only want the advertisement to convey to the consumer clearly that knowing her condition is the key.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce