27 August 2023.
Secretary,
Pharmaceutical Society NZ,
Wellington 6001.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Is the unborn child a patient?
I am concerned that the government is requiring pharmacists to become abortion providers and to be implicated in the killing of defenseless unborn children, your patients.
I am aware that since the 1st November 2022 with the introduction of the National Abortion Telehealth Service pharmacists in New Zealand have become abortion providers.
Women seeking to terminate the life of their unborn child in its first 10 weeks of life may request to have a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol to take or be sent to their local pharmacy to be dispensed.
Mifepristone is a lethal drug that is taken for the purpose of killing an unborn child by starvation.
I am aware that pharmacists who uphold the sanctity of life of every human being and do not wish to be implicated in the killing of an innocent child may refuse to dispense a prescription for these drugs on conscience grounds.
The Association is to be commended for upholding high principles and requiring registered pharmacists to comply with a strict code of ethics.
It is noted that the first principle states, “Make the health and wellbeing of the patient your first priority”.
Human life begins at conception and every human being is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’ loving creation. The unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family and deserves respect and protection.
I believe that the unborn child is a patient and that a pharmacist has a serious moral and ethical duty to protect the wellbeing and life of his defenceless unborn patient. Dispensing mifepristone and misoprostol for the purpose of killing an unborn patient, is in my opinion a violation of principle one and the fifth commandment of our Creator, “thou shalt not kill.”
I also believe that it is an injustice to impose a duty on a pharmacist who refuses on conscience grounds to dispense lethal drugs a responsibility to find a chemist who will dispense the drugs. If a pharmacist refuses to be involved in the murder of an unborn child why should he be required to find a pharmacist who is prepared to be implicated in the murder of the child.
I also believe that it is an intolerable injustice for the government to impose this burden on the pharmaceutical profession to dispense these lethal drugs. It is the duty of government to uphold the code of ethics of the pharmacy profession and not to legislate to violate them
Dispensing lethal abortion drugs to kill a patient, I believe will proceed to the introduction of telehealth assisted dying. There is currently a concerted campaign in Australia to provide assisted suicide with pharmacies being required to provide lethal drugs on prescription to those wishing to commit suicide.
In conclusion I request that your Association uphold principle one and make the health and wellbeing of all your patients including the unborn child your first priority.
Yours sincerely,
Ken Orr,
Secretary, Right to Life New Zealand Inc