Law Archives - Page 20 of 39 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Health care provider refusals to treat, prescribe, refer or inform: Professionalism and conscience

R Alta Charo

Advance: Journal of the ACS Issue Groups

Extract
Conscience is a tricky business. Some interpret its personal beacon as the guide to universal truth and undoubtedly many of the health care providers who refuse to treat or refer or inform their patients do so in the sincere belief that it is in the patients’ own interests, regardless of how those patients might view the matter themselves. But the assumption that one’s own conscience is the conscience of the world is fraught with dangers. As C.S. Lewis wrote, “of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Charo RA. Health care provider refusals to treat, prescribe, refer or inform: Professionalism and conscience. Advance J ACS Issue Groups. 2007 Spring 1:119-135.

From Eisenstadt to Plan B: A Discussion of Conscientious Objections to Emergency Contraception

Lynne Marie Kohm

Extract
Conclusion
Medical ethics and the practice of medicine as an act of conscience have become integral to this scientifically unsettled debate. Before medication is prescribed or dispensed, a prudent practitioner weighs carefully the risks of the medication with the potential benefits. 70 Laws that require a medical professional to perform an act against his or her best judgment violate the code of ethics of that profession to do no harm in the professional’s highest and best medical judgment. It ought to be alarming that a patient’s expectations may become the standard for professional action. Ought medical professionals prescribe and dispense what the patient wants even if it harms him or her, just because the patient’s autonomy allows a patient to live a risky life? 71 Family planning deserves a principled approach carried out with integrity that protects the parties, and that approach should be reflected in legal policy and lawmaking.

Should doctors and pharmacists be able to refuse to give out emergency contraceptives based on conscientious objections? Sexual freedom that was protected by the Supreme Court’s emancipation of sexuality from reproduction has allowed emergency contraceptives to be used for any purpose an individual desires, rather than for the best and most responsible medical purposes. Therefore, when a medical professional has concerns that an emergency contraceptive may harm the health of his or her patients or customers or their offspring, a conscientious objection provided by law seems more appropriate than a legal requirement to dispense despite objections, at least until a medical and legal consensus can be reached.

Kohm LM. From Eisenstadt to Plan B: A Discussion of Conscientious Objections to Emergency Contraception. William Mitchell Law Rev. 2007 Mar;33(3):787-805.

Respect for Conscience in Common Law Countries

Carl Anderson

Proceedings of the Pontifical Academy for Life

Extract
The trend toward freedom of religion and conscience has been building over the past centuries. Certainly, the last hundred years have brought a greater tolerance of religious ideas in England, with restrictions on Catholic finally lifted in the early 19 th century, and the United States has, since the late
18th century enshrined religious freedom as a preeminent right. There is thus reason to hope that we may be moving toward a situation in which the precedent will be established that provides a greater understanding and accommodation of the conscience of the individual healthcare provider. However, there is not unanimity of opinion and contradictory decisions about the freedom of conscience in this area continue. “This issue is the San Andreas Fault of our culture,” said Gene Rudd of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. “How we decide this is going to have a long-lasting impact on our society.”

Challenges to the conscience of a health care professional certainly continue in common law countries, and the current system of dealing with such issues in these countries is far from adequate, or uniform. The problems will only grow as new unethical procedures become seen as “the norm” by some and as a “right” by others. . . . Common law countries certainly have much to do to develop more fully the ideal of a conscience clause for those in the medical field. However, the fact that in most common law countries some accommodation at least seems to be made for the conscience of those in the health care field provides hope.

Anderson C. Respect for Conscience in Common Law Countries. In: Sgreccia E, Laffitte J editors. Proceedings of the 13th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life. 2007;102-114.

Pharmacist refusals and third-party interests: a proposed judicial approach to pharmacist conscience clauses

Lora Cicconi

Abstract
The issue of pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control or emergency contraception recently has become a major debate in the battle over reproductive rights. Several states have enacted legislation to protect refusing pharmacists, and many more are considering such laws. I explore these new laws against the backdrop of the existing legal landscape governing the actions of pharmacists, including tort law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and free exercise jurisprudence. I then consider how courts might interpret refusal clauses upon which pharmacists may rely. I argue that courts should read pharmacist refusal statutes narrowly by limiting the protected act of conscience to the actual refusal to dispense medication, and not extending protection to behavior that could violate the pharmacist’s duty of care to patients. Such an approach will not only minimize the impact of refusals on the interests of patients and employers, but will meld these new statutes with the existing legal framework addressing religious objectors, which has consistently shown concern for third-party rights.

Cicconi L. Pharmacist refusals and third-party interests: a proposed judicial approach to pharmacist conscience clauses. UCLA Law Rev. 2007 Feb;54(3):709-749.

(Correspondence) Access to abortion

Andrée Côté

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
I am deeply disturbed by the negative responses (posted as e-letters) to the guest editorial by Sanda Rogers and Jocelyn Downie. Most of the authors articulate an uncompromising ideological position in favour of the right to life of a fetus, while ignoring the basic human rights of women who, presumably, are their patients. . . . Why should an individual doctor’s personal beliefs trump the legal definition of “person” and of “human being,” violate the constitutionally entrenched rights of women to sexual and reproductive autonomy, and violate international human rights?

Côté A. (Correspondence) Access to abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 2007 Feb 13;176(4):493-494.

(Correspondence) Access to abortion

Janet Epp Buckingham

Extract
Given that abortion and its regulation and restriction continue to be hotly debated in Canada, it is not simply “like any other medical procedure.” It is also inaccurate to portray a physician who exercises a right of conscientious objection to participating in abortion as violating CMA policy. The 1988 CMA Policy on Induced Abortion specifically allows for such a right of conscientious objection.

Buckingham JE. (Correspondence) Access to abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 2007;176(4):492.

Refusal to Dispense Emergency Contraception in Washington State: An Act of Conscience or Unlawful Sex Discrimination?

Dana E Blackman

Extract
This Article will demonstrate that a pharmacist’s refusal to fill a valid prescription for emergency contraception constitutes sex discrimination and violates the WLAD. Part I explains the nature and function of emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) as well as their role in basic health care for women and the importance of their accessibility. Part II addresses federal civil rights protections and the failure of these protections to provide relief for women facing refusals. Focusing on the WLAD, Part II also explains how state public accommodation statutes protect women from discrimination in places of public accommodation. It further sets forth the prima facie case of such a claim where a woman is refused access to emergency contraception. Part III presents arguments likely to be submitted by a pharmacist facing litigation under the WLAD. Finally, Part IV illustrates how Washington public policy supports women and the protection of reproductive freedom. The Article concludes with suggestions for judicial interpretation..

Blackman DE. Refusal to Dispense Emergency Contraception in Washington State: An Act of Conscience or Unlawful Sex Discrimination? Michigan Journal of Gender & Law. 2007;14(1):59-97.

Conscience Clauses and Oral Contraceptives: Conscientious Objection or Calculated Obstruction?

Mary K Collins

Abstract
The ideal conscience statutes will balance the interests on both sides. Conscientious objectors should be free to practice in accordance with their beliefs, but should have to give employers and patients reasonably advanced notice that they may not be reliable in certain situations.173 The individual objector should avoid knowingly entering into employment situations guaranteed to create conflict. While health care providers have a duty to ensure informed decision making, women seeking unbiased clinical care should not be subjected to lectures on personally held views of morality. Places of worship are a more appropriate arena for proselytizing. Institutional and individual objectors should develop appropriate accommodations through referral and notice to avoid inconvenience, delay, and possible injury to the patients who depend on them.

Collins MK. Conscience Clauses and Oral Contraceptives: Conscientious Objection or Calculated Obstruction?. Ann Health Law. 2006 Winter;15(37-60.

Rx for Drugstore Discrimination: Challenging Pharmacy Refusals to Dispense Prescription Contraceptives under State Public Accommodation Laws

Charu A Chandrasekhar

Extract
The problem of refusals to dispense prescription contraceptives in pharmacies is real and urgent. State public accommodations statutes offer an excellent vehicle in many states for challenging these discriminatory practices. State public accommodations lawsuits should ideally be brought solely against the pharmacy, not against the individual pharmacist who refuses to dispense a prescription. Pharmacies are best positioned to make institutional adjustments that ensure the filling of prescription contraceptives while accommodating the views and legal rights of their pharmacist employees. Moreover, a state public accommodations lawsuit will likely have a greater remedial and public relations impact if brought against a pharmacy as opposed to against an individual
pharmacist and will result in broader systemic change.

Chandrasekhar CA. Rx for Drugstore Discrimination: Challenging Pharmacy Refusals to Dispense Prescription Contraceptives under State Public Accommodation Laws. Albany Law Rev. 2006;70:55-115.

Scope Note 46: Pharmacists and Conscientious Objection

Richard M Anderson, Laura Jane Bishop, Martina Darragh, Harriet Hutson Gray, Anita Nolen,Susan Cartier Poland

Extract
The literature and online resources cited below include (1) policy statements and codes by professional organizations; (2) review essays on conscientious objection in health care and articles on the current debate regarding the field of pharmacy; and (3) legal perspectives and cases.

Anderson RM, Bishop LJ, Darragh M, Gray HH, Nolen A, Poland SC. Scope Note 46: Pharmacists and Conscientious Objection. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2006;16(4):379-396.