Morning after pill Archives - Page 8 of 10 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

“Conscience Clauses” or “Unconscionable Clauses”: Personal Beliefs Versus Professional Responsibilities

Martha S Swartz

Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics

Abstract
Conclusion
Ultimately, this Article proposes a new model for such “conscientious objections,” one that presumes the general obligation ‘of health care professionals, who hold monopolistic state licenses, to participate in requested medical care that is not contraindicated or illegal, notwithstanding their personal moral objections. This model is based on “the· premise that it “is the patient’s best interest (as determined by -the patient, but mediated by the health care professional’s medical judgment), not the health care professional’s personal interests, that should govern the professional relationship. This should be the standard taught in professional schools and promoted by professional associations. “Conscientious objections” should be permissible based on prevailing medical ethics; however, to the extent that they are based on the personal morals of the· health care professional, they should be actively discouraged.

Swartz MS. “Conscience Clauses” or “Unconscionable Clauses”: Personal Beliefs Versus Professional Responsibilities. Yale J Health Pol Law Ethics. 2006;6(2):269-359.

Conscientious objection and emergency contraception

Robert F Card

Abstract
This article argues that practitioners have a professional ethical obligation to dispense emergency contraception, even given conscientious objection to this treatment. This recent controversy affects all medical professionals, including physicians as well as pharmacists. This article begins by analyzing the option of referring the patient to another willing provider. Objecting professionals may conscientiously refuse because they consider emergency contraception to be equivalent to abortion or because they believe contraception itself is immoral. This article critically evaluates these reasons and concludes that they do not successfully support conscientious objection in this context. Contrary to the views of other thinkers, it is not possible to easily strike a respectful balance between the interests of objecting providers and patients in this case. As medical professionals, providers have an ethical duty to inform women of this option and provide emergency contraception when this treatment is requested.

Card RF. Conscientious objection and emergency contraception. Am. J. Bioeth. 2007;7(6):8-14.

What is the relevance of women’s sexual and reproductive rights to the practising obstetrician/gynaecologist?

Dorothy Shaw, Anibal Faúndes

Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract
Women’s sexual and reproductive rights are an integral part of daily practice for obstetricians/gynaecologists and the key to the survival and health of women around the world. Women’s sexual and reproductive health is often compromised because of infringements of their basic human rights, not the lack of medical knowledge. Understanding the relevance of respecting and promoting sexual and reproductive rights is critical for providing current standards of care, and includes access to information and care, confidentiality, informed consent and evidence-based practice. The violation of women’s rights in their daily lives through common problems such as gender-based violence and discrimination results in serious consequences for their health. Obstetricians/gynaecologists are natural advocates for women’s health, yet may be lacking in their understanding of relevant laws or the limits of conscientious objection. This chapter outlines the framework for sexual and reproductive rights, and explores its relevance to the practising clinician.

Shaw D, Faúndes A. What is the relevance of women’s sexual and reproductive rights to the practising obstetrician/gynaecologist? Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2006 Jun;20(3):299-309.

The Growing Abuse of Conscientious Objection

Rebecca J Cook, Bernard M Dickens

American Medical Association Journal of Ethics

Extract
Religious initiatives to propose, legislate, and enforce laws that protect denial of care or assistance to patients, (almost invariably women in need), and bar their right of access to lawful health services, are abuses of conscientious objection clauses that aggravate public divisiveness and bring unjustified criticism toward more mainstream religious beliefs. Physicians who abuse the right to conscientious objection and fail to refer patients to nonobjecting colleagues are not fulfilling their profession’s covenant with society.

Cook RJ, Dickens BM. The Growing Abuse of Conscientious Objection. Am Med Ass J Ethics. 2006 May;8(5):337-340.

(Correspondence) Personal conviction: what role should it play

Sandra E Brickell

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
I have, however, a question about the implication that the pharmacy assistant was being unprofessional because he let his personal conviction affect the provision of care. I would like to assume for the sake of argument that his personal conviction was that Plan B is unethical because it induces abortion and he is of the opinion that abortion ends a person’s life. By providing Plan B he would be doing something that he genuinely believes is in the best interest of neither his adult client nor her embryo. Wouldn’t it be unprofessional to ignore this conviction and provide the drug anyway? What should a professional do when he is asked to do something by a client that he genuinely believes is not in the client’s best interest? What would a lawyer do?

Brickell SE. (Correspondence) Personal conviction: what role should it play. Can Med Assoc J. 2006;174(8):1134.

Pharmacist Refusals: Dispensing (With) Religious Accommodation Under Title VII

Amy Berquist

Abstract
Conclusion
. . . The pharmaceutical industry will continue to create drugs to which some pharmacists object on religious grounds. Employers must anticipate that some pharmacists will object not only to birth control, but also to Ritalin, 226 Viagra for unmarried men, or drugs to treat AIDS; some pharmacists may even object on religious grounds to serving particular customers. The religious discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act allow most employers to dispense with the majority of possible religious accommodations for pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions on religious grounds. Those provisions are meaningless, however, if employers are reluctant to assert Title VII’s protections against accommodations imposing an undue hardship on the pharmacy’s business operations. As pharmacies negotiate the tensions between consumers demanding prompt access to prescription drugs, a tight labor market for pharmacists, pressure from certain religious groups to discourage the use of birth control, vocal national groups advocating expanded access to contraception, and their own economic bottom line, Title VII can serve either as an answer or as an excuse. Employers may use Title VII as a pretense to justify unnecessary accommodations for objecting pharmacists; pharmacies may attempt to use federal law to shield themselves from customer and activist criticism by asserting that they have no choice but to accommodate. On the other hand, pharmacies can utilize Title VII as a tool to define the outer limits of their pharmacist accommodation policies. A clear understanding of the parameters of Title VII’s religious accommodation requirements will help guide and monitor the behavior and legal justifications presented by employers, employees, and customers when pharmacists refuse to dispense certain drugs on religious grounds.

Berquist A. Pharmacist Refusals: Dispensing (With) Religious Accommodation Under Title VII. Minn Law Rev. 2006;90(4):1073-1106.

Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. Ethical guidelines on conscientious objection

Gamal I Serour, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO)

International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract
The FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health held a combined meeting with the Committee of Women’s Sexual and Reproductive rights to discuss ethical aspects of issues that impact the discipline of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women’s Health. The following document represents the result of that carefully researched and considered discussion. This material is not intended to reflect an official position of FIGO, but to provide material for consideration and debate about these ethical aspects of our discipline for member organizations and their constituent membership.

Serour GI, FIGO. Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. Ethical guidelines on conscientious objection. Int J Gyn Ob. 2006 Feb 03;92(3):333-334.

(Op/Ed) Counter attack

Barbara W

Extract
The assignment: to buy the drug in a small, remote town where I was sojourning on business. If I could not get the pill in this straight-talking, hard- working place, who could? . . . approached a smiling pharmacy worker and asked for Plan B. . . . Kevin refused to hand it over. Only a pharmacist could give me the drug. He was a pharmacist’s assistant; the real pharmacist was on her break. . . . When I returned at 5:30, Kevin, the man of steely resolve, informed me that the pharmacist had left for the day. No pharmacist, no Plan B. [Pharmacist assistant seems to have answered questions evasively] . . . Was this not a nonprescription drug. Yes. Why could I not purchase the drug if no prescription was necessary? And then he said it: “Because, ethically, I don’t believe in it and I would not give it to you anyway. It is against my principles, and I don’t have to do anything I am uncomfortable with,” he said loudly and proudly. . . According to Kevin, there is nothing unprofessional about placing personal conviction ahead of a woman’s health care needs. . . a reasonably articulate curmudgeon like myself cannot obtain emergency contraception, what chance does a worried, upset teenage girl have?

Barbara W. Counter attack. Can Med Assoc. J. 2006;174(2):211-212.

Conscientious Objection and Collaborative Practice: Conflicting or Complementary Initiatives?

Susan C Winkler, John A Gans

Journal of the American Pharmacists Association

Extract
Expanding collaborative practice navigates the issue well, providing a seamless way for women to access emergency contraception without compromising the pharmacist’s ability to opt out. Such legislative initiatives are far more effective in expanding access to emergency contraception than misguided regulations that require pharmacists or pharmacies to assure dispensing of contraceptives “without delay.” In addition to blatantly insulting the professionals who are required to check their beliefs at the door, duty-to-dispense laws can have the opposite effect by limiting access to contraceptives when pharmacy practices simply choose not to carry the products rather than face sanctions if workable solutions for accommodating the patient and the pharmacist are disrupted by misguided regulations. Conscience and collaborative practice can complement each other, but only if both are available.

Winkler SC, Gans JA. Conscientious Objection and Collaborative Practice: Conflicting or Complementary Initiatives? J Am Pharm Assoc. 2006 Jan;46(1):12-13.

Patient expectations and access to prescription medication are threatened by pharmacist conscience clauses

Kelsey C Brodsho

Extract
The medical community agrees that while health professionals may be given statutory rights to refuse health services for moral reasons, refusal cannot prevent patients from receiving “the information, services, and dignity to which they are entitled.” In theory, laws and institutional policies that allow pharmacists to transfer prescriptions to another pharmacist do not interfere with established treatment plans. However, in practice these laws may delay health care services and harm patients. . . . In many foreseeable situations, a pharmacist’s moral objection may delay or prevent the receipt of prescription mediation. Pharmacists who refuse to provide services or transfer prescriptions to colleagues act contrary to professional objectives. Unnecessary delays or obstructions by pharmacists jeopardize treatment plans established by physicians and patients. . . . Conscience clause legislation that does not assure patient access to contraceptive services likely conflicts with reproductive liberty interests. . . states may require pharmacists to fill all prescriptions. Alternately, states may pass conscience clause legislation that assures patient access to health care services by prescription transfer or other similar procedure. . . . Conscience clause debate should not be clothed in abortion politics. Rather, its focus should be on whether a pharmacist has a right to interfere with a treatment plan established by a patient and his or her primary health care provider.

Brodsho KC. Patient expectations and access to prescription medication are threatened by pharmacist conscience clauses. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology. 2005;7(1):327-336.