Conscientious objectors – ‘Pharmacists have right to refuse to sell the MAP’

As “independent healthcare professionals”, pharmacists had every right to refuse to sell the morning-after pill if it went against their moral beliefs, Malta Chamber of Pharmacists president Mary Ann Sant Fournier said yesterday.

Ms Sant Fournier’s comments came in the wake of a decision by the Medicines Authority that the contraceptive could be sold over the counter.

“One must emphasise the status that pharmacists enjoy as independent healthcare professionals and their right to conscientious objection should be upheld at all times,” Ms Sant Fournier said when contacted.

Medicines Authority chief Anthony Serracino Inglott told the Times of Malta on Monday that, while taking into consideration the recommendations of the joint parliamentary committee set up to discuss the introduction of the MAP, those wanting to obtain the pill would not need a prescription.

Instead, they could ask for it at a pharmacy, a move which was crucial to ensure that the contraceptive’s efficacy was not compromised, he said.

Ms Sant Fournier said that the authority’s decision to classify the MAP as a non-prescription, pharmacist ‘moderated’ medicine was in line with the situation in the majority of EU member states.

“This decision attests to the standing of community pharmacists in Malta as  highly-trained healthcare professionals, long dedicated to delivering excellent patient-centred care and their optimal attention to clients,” Ms Sant Fournier said, rejecting claims that pharmacists did not have the necessary skills to dispense the MAP.

The joint parliamentary committee had come to the conclusion that the MAP should only be given against a prescription following a suggestion by the Medical Council, which had insisted it should be doctors who decided whether or not to prescribe the pill.

“Pharmacists will be the first port of call for those seeking emergency contraception and, like their inter­national counterparts, shall choose to dispense or other­wise according to a previously established protocol.

“This will ensure optimal, safe use of the emergency contraceptive while informing on its correct use,” Ms Sant Fournier said.

In the coming weeks, she said, the chamber would be organising an event to propose “a specific protocol for the dispensing of emergency contraception”.

According to Prof. Serracino Inglott, the Medicines Authority will also be supplying pharmacists with a set of guidelines.

The decision to make the contraceptive available over the counter came just a day after some 300 people protested in Valletta over the parliamentary committee’s recommendation for the morning-after pill to be sold against a prescription.

The debate on whether the morning-after pill should be made available made headlines earlier this year when the Women’s Rights Foundation filed a judicial protest against the State calling for MAP to be licensed.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161019/local/conscientious-objectors-pharmacists-have-right-to-refuse-to-sell-the.628398

New Documentary Reveals Effects of Assisted Suicide Legalization on Those Who Want to Live

https://youtu.be/S4z7GWP7EG8

 

Compassion and Choice DENIED explores the effects efforts to legalize physician assisted suicide have on those who are living with terminal illness but who do not want “aid in dying.” The film features Stephanie, a wife and mother living with a terminal diagnosis. She has experienced first-hand the dangerous effects of California’s recent legalization of physician assisted suicide.

As she deals with insurance denials of treatment her doctor ordered and changes in the tone of conversations in various support groups, her story highlights the ways in which the difficulty of living with a terminal diagnosis is compounded by the growing cultural acceptance of the notion of assisted suicide. This negatively changes the ways in which people with terminal illnesses are thought of, and the ways in which they think about themselves.

But hers is also a story of hope. Her hope is that if we can change our way of thinking about the process of dying and those who are dying, we will be able to provide the resources people truly need to be supported and well cared for at the end of their lives.

Jennifer Lahl, Founder and President of the Center for Bioethics and Culture—and writer/director of this and the other films listed above—says, “Stephanie’s story calls us to a higher and more dignified understanding of the role of suffering in our lives. She challenges us to see the many unexpected benefits of living while battling a terminal illness and the value of life and one more day.”

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Program in Medical Ethics at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine says of the film: “Stephanie is courageously living out her last days with a terminal illness and showing us that every day is a gift. Her experiences clearly unmask the lie that doctor assisted suicide enhances patients’ autonomy and choice—clearly demonstrating that it is a form of abandonment rather than an act of compassion. Watch this film to understand the real forces behind doctor assisted suicide, and why we need to oppose it.”

Dr. Miriam Dalli replies to Life Network Foundation Malta re MAP

Dr Sciberras,

Thank you for your email and for sharing your concern with me.

First of all I would like to invite you to see the whole interview
which has now been published and in which my comments were very
clear. My comment was that if this pill is being approved by the
Parliamentary Committee then it seems illogical to me that a doctor
prescription is required.

To answer your questions, yes I have gone through scientific
literature, particularly also what the World Health Organisation
says on the matter (pg2):

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70210/1/WHO_RHR_HRP_10.06_eng.pdf

To avoid any misunderstanding and to avoid a situation where anyone
would twist my arguments, may I emphasise that I feel strongly about
abortion, have always voiced this and have always voted against any
clauses on abortion at European Legislative level in my capacity as
a Member of the European Parliament.

I would not ask anyone what “authority they have” to speak out on
different matters. We live in an open democratic society where yes,
people do express their opinions. I trust people to inform
themselves, and take the best decisions for their own wellbeing.

Kind regards,

Miriam

Unborn children matter by Tony Mifsud

There is no way any magistrate, judge or group of judges in any court of law in Malta can disregard the right to life and good health of unborn children in Malta, at whatever stage of their gestation in the womb, when their life and health are threatened. This right is enshrined in eight Maltese laws.

This irrespective of how much two groups of women shout, selfishly and irresponsibly, only for the “rights of women to be protected”, whatever these rights may be, when there is human conception in a woman’s womb, even before, in vitro.

In this they are aided and abetted by the Civil Liberties Minister, herself a woman.

This despite the fact that the minister declared at the United Nations in Geneva in December 2013 that the Malta government is against abortion. Such a stance by these women shows an utter and callous disregard to the dignity of womanhood and the dignity of motherhood.

If, and when, these women take their claims to court, the Commissioner for Children should be the first to challenge their stand. It is her duty to do so as obliged by law.

It is also the duty of the Minister of the Family and of Aġenzija Appoġġ’s CEO to protect unborn children from any harm, and death. They are already protecting born children from neglect, abuse of any kind, and abduction out of Malta.

In the eyes of Maltese laws, the life of a child does not begin at birth. It begins at conception.

The protocol on abortion signed by the prime minister in 2004, when Malta joined the European Union, provides the legal certainty that EU law, present and future, cannot change Maltese law on abortion.

Our law courts cannot be turned into theatres of destruction and death, with magistrates and judges as main actors. I am sure these learned people do not want this to happen.

Dispassionate discussion by Louis Cilia

Euthanasia is an extremely difficult subject to write about mainly because it entails expressing oneself on something that is so very personal, emotional and distressing to a person who is terminally ill and suffering continuously from severe pain. Those around him or her, mostly the near family and friends, are also caught in the tragic drama.

For a detached person it is easy to be dogmatic and judgemental even quoting learned sources to argue for or against the practice. For those directly involved, however, it is a deep and harrowing experience that could be lasting; others are mere uninvited intruders.

The legalising of euthanasia is now attracting interest and gaining supporters around the world. It has, so far, been introduced in at least six important and highly civilised countries, namely The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Colombia, Luxembourg and Canada. Given this situation, it needs to be discussed dispassionately and intelligently.

In Malta, the debate is also slowly gaining ground. Although politicians on all sides have so far failed to declare their firm positions on the subject, it can happen (based on recent experiences on other equally divisive issues) that after the next elections the matter would suddenly flare up and a decision taken on behalf of a bewildered and unprepared public on half-baked assumptions.  This ought to be avoided at all costs since the subject is too serious and complicated to be decided in such cavalier manner.

Once euthanasia becomes accepted in society its ramifications are unknown and without limit

In the Book of Job (Job: 2:9-10) his wife entreats him as she sees him suffering from the ailments that have long assailed him: “Curse God and die!”

He turns towards her and after calling her “foolish woman”, he tells her most emphatically: “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” To the Christian (and those in many other religions) euthanasia, under whatever form and guise, is equated with intentional killing that is contradictory to God’s will.

God is the giver of life and one would be simply usurping that authority were one to take life in one’s own hands.

On one side of the debate there is the story of men of great eminence who have undergone the traumatic journey of extreme pain and who changed their opinion in the face of such physical and internal turbulence.  Two well-known public figures are recent examples – Lord Rix in the UK and Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, both highly well-suited to speak on the subject with great moral authority.

Brian Rix, Lord Rix, who died on August 20 of this year at the age of 92 was a comic actor of great talent renowned for his originality and versatility.  His first child, Shelley, was born with Down Syndrome and this changed the direction of his life. He became an active campaigner for people with learning disabilities. He was knighted in 1986 and raised to the peerage in 1992 in recognition of his sterling work in this sphere.

Rix was also an active campaigner against euthanasia. In 2006, he voted in the House of Lords against a Bill on assisted dying as he claimed it might be misused in relation to people with learning disabilities who would not be mature and judicious enough to decide on such momentous matters. He was one of the most notable and vociferous opponents of the Bill both in the House and outside it.

In 2016, after months of relentless pain with terminal illness, he wrote to the Speaker of the House of Lords urging that the law on assisted dying be changed “as soon as possible to allow the many people who find themselves in the same situation as I am to slip away peacefully”.

The famous Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel laureate, while celebrating his 85th birthday at St George’s Cathedral, Cape Town, on October 7, said that he would like the option of “a dignified assisted death” when the time comes. He has been undergoing cancer treatment for years and has supported initiatives for assisted dying laws in the UK, US, South Africa and elsewhere.  He claims that in refusing dying people the right to die with dignity “we fail to demonstrate the compassion that lies at the heart of Christian values”.

The greatest concern of those against euthanasia is that once euthanasia becomes accepted in society its ramifications are unknown and without limit. It could, for example, be used on vulnerable people where the value of their consent remains questionable. The recent news of the death of a child by lethal injection in Belgium is proof enough of where legalised euthanasia can lead.

In the debate on the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 in the Australian House of Representatives, Lindsay Tanner, an MP from Melbourne, encapsulated the primary concerns of those objecting to legalised euthanasia when he said:

“I am troubled by euthanasia because I think it is virtually impossible to draw safe boundaries, because I think it is virtually impossible to prevent abuses and mistakes and because I think it is virtually impossible to justify offering the option of assisted suicide to one category of people and deny it to others.”

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161014/opinion/Dispassionate-discussion.627910

 

Life Network Foundation Malta concerned about MEPs comments on MAP

Life Network Foundation Malta has sent an email with the following questions to Dr Roberta Metsola and Dr Miriam Dalli after their public statement.

Dear Dr Metsola/Dr Dalli

I was following the ‘breaking news’ about your comments on the morning after pill – that this is contraception. I am sorry to inform you that this is DEFINITELY NOT TRUE.

I want ask how you came to that conclusion. Kindly answer the following questions:

1. Did you read the scientific literature?

Look at one article at least , and see pg 3 last paragraph. What is your comment now?

 

2. Did you know that the ACOG changed the definition of pregnancy in 1965 as to starting after implantation ie 12-15 days after fertilization?

This means ignoring human embryonic life in the first two weeks of life.

Most European and American bodies like FIGO, WHO and others use this definition because they are pro-abortion and the life of the embryo is not important to them. But in Malta we protect life from conception.That is why we are saying that MAP has mostly an abortifacient effect because we include the first two weeks of life.

3. What is your comment to this fact please?

4. On what basis did you feel you had the authority to make such a public statement ?

Hoping that you will reply to this e mail

Dr Miriam Sciberras
Life Network Foundation Malta

Sign the Petition to protect marriage and family!

MUM DAD & KIDS
European citizens’ initiative to protect marriage and family

Together let’s support marriage and family in Europe:

Marriage – a permanent and faithful union of man and woman with the purpose of founding a family.

Family – a father, a mother, and their children.

Family relationship – the legal relationship between two spouses, or between a parent and a child.

Yes, I support the request for an EU regulation that defines the meaning of marriage and family: marriage is a union between a man and a woman and family is based on marriage and/or descent.

Decision on MAP rests with medicines authority, no over the counter sales, committee says

A joint parliamentary committee agreed this evening that the decision on whether to license the Morning After Pill (MAP) should rest with the Medicines Authority.

The decision should be based on recommendations by Parliament and the authority should put national legislation before EU law.

The committee members also agreed that, should the products be licensed, they should not be sold over the counter but only with a doctor’s prescription.

Health Minister Chris Fearne welcomed the recommendations, which were unanimously approved this evening, saying that all members were now of the same opinion. He also said the government had always believed that the decision should be taken by the authority.

The recommendations also include making a distinction between different types of MAP and to allow doctors to serve as conscientious objectors and not prescribe the pill. Furthermore, Malta’s laws on abortion and embryo protection should be respected.

At the start of today’s sitting, former health minister and government whip Godfrey Farrugia presented five recommendations. These said that different forms of MAP have different modes of action and one cannot totally exclude that their mode of action does not preclude implantation of an embryo.

Malta prohibits abortifacients and embryos are protected by The Embryo Protection Act. Dr Farrugia said the EllaOne product and intrauterine devices are “certainly abortive.” The laws of Malta have to be strictly adhered to. He also insisted that, while the Medicines Authority fell under an EU parent entity, it had to give more weight to national law.

Dr Farrugia also said patients seeking to use MAP and IUDs have a right to make an informed, voluntary decision and choose that clinical pathway that safeguards their holistic health. Furthermore, the medical profession has a right to its professional and ethical integrity, and doctors should be free to act as conscientious objectors when deciding whether to prescribe MAP or not. In fact, the Ethics of Medical Practitioners state that ‘a doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving life from the time of conception till death.’

Finally, dispensed medication should be a prescription only. Public health issues and the wellbeing of the patients through a comprehensive health care delivery system have to be safe guarded.

He also received correspondence from Professor Anthony Serracino Inglott, the Chairman of the Medicines Authority, who recommended that Levonogestrel (Plan B) pills and Ella should be used legally in Malta but physicians should favour the first. The professor said both should be prescription-only in the first stage, but could later be considered to become pharmacist-recommended medicine. Thirdly, physicians and pharmacists may be allowed to be conscientious objectors to prescribe or dispense all or any emergency contraception, provided that they refer client to a colleague and do not charge for this referral.  Dr Farrugia said he held some reservations.

Health Minister Chris Fearne said it had emerged from the discussions that Levonogestrel  (Plan B) was non-abortive. Therefore it should be made legal in Malta. He also said that distinction had to be made between different forms of MAP and and some of the emergency contraceptives should be also be available over the counter from pharmacies.

Dr Farrugia said studies showed that Ella worked in the same way as the RU468 abortifacient drug and could abort a pregnancy. PN MP Michael Gonzi disagreed, pointing out that the dosage for Ella was much lower than that of RU.

Dr Farrugia said he would prescribe Plan B to a patient only after carrying out an ovulation test, which is 99.9% accurate. “If the test shows that ovulation would have occurred I would not prescribe the morning after pill, as a conscientious objector. The patient would be free to visit another doctor. Doctors should look at the patient’s health in a holistic way and see what is best for them. This is why I believe that community pharmacists should not be able to dispense MAP.”

PN MP Clyde Puli said great emphasis was being placed on the medical and scientific arguments but this issue was also about ethics. A balance needed to be found. He said there seemed to be disagreement even among the top experts and these should be clarified or else this committee would keep going round in circles. He also said that the Medicines Authority, not a parliamentary committee, should decide which forms of MAP were acceptable and which ones were not.

PL MP Deo Debattista said the main aim was to protect life from beginning to end. “From what we have heard one of the forms of MAP is not abortive so this should be available by prescription. But I do not believe that it should be available over the counter because there could be medical implications.”

PL MP Etienne Grech agreed that the decision should rest with the Medicines Authority. He also agreed that MAP should not be available over the counter. He suggested including a recommendation to the effect that doctors should apply the Gillick Principle, which allows them to decide whether they should prescribe MAP to underage girls.

Dr Gonzi said a recent UN report had concluded that neither form of MAP was abortifacient. Dr Godfrey Farrugia retorted by saying that the UN was wrong because it now considered life to start from implantation, rather than fertilization. “They have effectively moved the goalposts – that is why the UN says that they are not abortive.”

Health Shadow Minister Claudette Buttigieg warned that the committee was effectively debating whether a particular medicine should be licensed. This could set a precedent and requests for the licensing of other medicines could be made in future. “What these discussions have proved is that there is wide divergence within this committee. We simply have to hold the medicines authority for abiding by the law. The Embryo Protection Act is clear.”

Dr Paula Mifsud Bonnici said nothing should hold the Medicines Authority from issuing the relevant licenses if its studies concluded that the medicine is non-abortive.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-10-05/local-news/Decision-on-MAP-rests-with-medicines-authority-no-over-the-counter-sales-committee-says-6736164743

Agenda Europe Summit 2016 Warsaw Poland

Dr. Miriam Sciberras and Ms. Mary Hilda Camilleri recently attended the Agenda Europe Summit in Warsaw Poland on the 26th September 2016 on behalf of Life Network Foundation Malta.

The Summit is an important pro-life, pro-family annual event bringing together more than 120 participants from 23 countries.

The summit discussed the intense local issues in view of the on-going human rights debate all over Europe. Life Network Foundation Malta is proud to be part of this debate and we are greatly encouraged by the pro-life pro family situation developing in Poland.