Pharmacists should not have to violate morals
I cannot see where the problem arises as your editorial states that condoms are available even at corner shops and the president of the Pharmaceutical Union said on RTÉ that about 99% of pharmacies stock contraceptives.
Whatever happened to freedom of choice and conscientious objections? No one, least of all a health care provider, should be required to violate his or her conscience by participating in a product or procedure that he or she deems harmful.
The morning-after pill is not basic health care as stated in your editorial, it is an abortifacient.
The tactics of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, in its efforts to track down pharmacists who will not do its bidding, smacks of a witch-hunt.
As the country is awash in contraceptives, how is having 1% additional pharmacies acceding to the CPA demands going to help the situation?
Britain has been throwing condoms at minors for years but the teenage pregnancy and abortion rates there continue to climb. New British abortion figures show that there were 2.1% more abortions performed in England and Wales in 2004 than in 2003.
But some people, such as those in the CPA, are slow learners and refuse to comprehend the experience of other countries. Then again, they must be seen to be doing something, such as producing numerous reports, the conclusions of which we knew before they started.
It is too bad they don’t do what they were set up to do - ie, reduce the number of women going for abortions. The only positive thing I have seen them do is their recent report on domestic adoption.
With so many infertile couples wishing to adopt a child, the CPA could be true to their mandate if they had a publicity campaign about the positive option of adoption. Many young women look on adoption as worse than abortion. If this perception could be changed it would have at least three beneficiaries - the pregnant woman, the unborn child and the adoptive parents.
Loretta O’Connor
54 Halldene Grove
Bishopstown
Cork
