Pharmacy Archives - Page 4 of 8 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Harm reduction or women’s rights? Debating access to emergency contraceptive pills in Canada and the United States

LL Wynn, Joanna N Erdman, Angel M Foster, James Trussell

Abstract
This article compares the ethical pivot points in debates over nonprescription access to emergency contraceptive pills in Canada and the United States. These include women’s right to be informed about the contraceptive method and its mechanism of action, pharmacists’ conscientious objection concerning the dispensing of emergency contraceptive pills, and rights and equality of access to the method, especially for poor women and minorities. In both countries, arguments in support of expanding access to the pills were shaped by two competing orientations toward health and sexuality. The first, “harm reduction,” promotes emergency contraception as attenuating the public health risks entailed in sex. The second orientation regards access to pills as a question of women’s right to engage in nonprocreative sex and to choose from among all reproductive health-care options. The authors contend that arguments for expanding access to emergency contraceptive pills that frame issues in terms of health and science are insufficient bases for drug regulation; ultimately, women’s health is also a matter of women’s rights.

Wynn LL, Erdman JN, Foster AM, Trussell J. Harm reduction or women’s rights? Debating access to emergency contraceptive pills in Canada and the United States. Stud Fam Plann. 2007 Dec 07;38(4):253-257.

Reconciling principles and prescriptions: Do pharmacist refusal clauses strike the appropriate balance between pharmacists’ and patients’ rights?

Sarah Tomkowiak

Extract
Conclusion: When a woman and her physician decide that a prescription for contraception is in her best health interests, legal, professional, and ethical obligations should prevent a pharmacist from being able to effectively override that determination. The right of a pharmacist to abide by her moral or religious principles when faced with a prescription that goes against those principles is an important right to protect. However, this right should never be allowed to infringe on a patient’s right to access birth control, an equally important right that has significant implications for the majority of American women’s reproductive health. Pharmacist refusal clauses acknowledge pharmacists’ right to refuse at the expense of women’s right to access contraceptives, inappropriately reconciling these rights. Griswold v. Connecticut may be forty years old, but the issues debated before the Supreme Court then have risen anew today, this time behind the pharmacy counter. Following in the footsteps of the Griswold Court, we must now reaffirm that women have the right to make their own family planning decisions, including the decision to use contraception. Legislatures, pharmacy boards, pharmacies, pharmacists, and patients must work together to put the needs of patients back where they belong—as the first priority of the pharmacy profession.

Tomkowiak S. Reconciling principles and prescriptions: Do pharmacist refusal clauses strike the appropriate balance between pharmacists’ and patients’ rights? U Illinois L Rev 2007(4) 1329-1360

Reasons and Healthcare Professionals’ Claims of Conscience (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception)

Mark R Wicclair

Extract
Robert Card (2007) argues against even a limited conscience based right to refuse to dispense emergency contraception (EC) on the grounds that there are no “reasonable or justified” reasons to support such claims of conscience. This line of argument raises an important question: To what extent is it appropriate to assess reasons in relation to healthcare professionals’ claims of conscience?

Wicclair MR. Reasons and Healthcare Professionals’ Claims of Conscience (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception). Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(6):21-22.

Conscientious Objection the Morning After (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception)

Carson Strong

Extract
In summary, Card supports his view with weak arguments, makes an erroneous assumption about the state of scientific inquiry, and misrepresents the argument of his opponents. When these various errors are brought to light, it becomes clear that Card has not successfully defended his extreme view. . . . Everyone accepts that conscientious refusal conflicts with the patient’s interests. The question is whether this particular type of failure to meet the patient’s interests can ever be ethically justifiable. Simply pointing out that there is a conflict does not constitute an argument. If a limited right to conscientious refusal is consistent with being a professional, then professional organizations that acknowledge such a right are not acting contrary to the purposes and roles of such organizations. What is needed to support de Melo-Martin’s position is an argument that conscientious refusals never, or at least hardly ever, override a patient’s interests, and de Melo-Martin does not provide this.

Strong C. Conscientious Objection the Morning After (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception). Am J Bioethcs. 2007;7(6):32-34.

Caution: Conscience is the Limb on Which Medical Ethics Sits (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception)

Farr A Curlin

Extract
Card (2007) does not merely claim that practitioners are obligated to provide EC; he argues that they are obligated to do so even if they have a conscientious objection. This last clause may seem harmless on the surface, but a closer look reveals that it effectively saws off the limb on which the first clause and all medical ethics sit. . . . A genuine conscientious objection, even if misinformed, is an expression of a commitment to acting morally, and . . . judgments of conscience need not be informed by explicitly religious ideas. Moreover, all ethical arguments are appeals to conscience. As such, acting conscientiously is the most fundamental of all moral obligations.

Curlin FA. Caution: Conscience is the Limb on Which Medical Ethics Sits (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception). Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(6):30-31.

Gatekeeping and Personal Values: Misuses of Professional Roles (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception)

D Micah Hester, Toby Schonfeld, Jean Amoura

Extract
. . .pharmacists and physicians who deny EC to women misuse their role as gatekeepers. This is because EC is safer than many over-the-counter (OTC) medications; therefore, its distribution does not require providers to exercise a particular skill or apply special knowledge. As a result,healthcare providers may appropriately act as advisors to women seeking EC, but may not use their role as gatekeepers as away of imposing their values on the women in their care. . . physicians and pharmacists who bar women from access to EC do so without professional cause. They misuse their role as gatekeeper, imposing personal values where professional ones should prevail.

Hester DM, Schonfeld T, Amoura J. Gatekeeping and Personal Values: Misuses of Professional Roles (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception). Am J Med Ethics. 2007 Jun;7(6):27-8. doi: 10.1080/15265160701347361

Conscientious Objection? Yes, but make sure it’s genuine. (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception)

Christopher Meyers, Robert D Woods

Extract
In our earlier essay (Meyers and Woods 1996, 118–119), and in alignment with Card’s (2007) analogy, we recommended a system similar to that used for exemption from military service, one that incorporates a review board for evaluating claims of genuine conscientious objection. Because different groups have different means for communicating that a belief is profoundly held, the review board should be structured to represent a diversity of racial, ethnic and religious beliefs and academic training. Furthermore, to reduce the potential power asymmetry between the review board and petitioners, it should also include a range of disciplines—medicine, nursing, mental health, social services, chaplaincy—and representatives from the community.

Meyers C, Woods RD. Conscientious Objection? Yes, but make sure it’s genuine. (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception). Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(6):. Available from:

Should Professional Associations Sanction Conscientious Refusals? (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception)

Inmaculada de Melo-Martin

Extract
Notice that I am not defending the argument that pharmacists have no right to exercise conscientious refusals. My point is that a professional organization’s policy allowing such refusals cannot be squared with a code of ethics that calls for pharmacists to put concern for the well-being of patients at the center of their professional practice. In fact, such a policy establishes the appropriateness of ignoring the code’s principles anytime a pharmacist has a problem of conscience.

de Melo-Martin I. Should Professional Associations Sanction Conscientious Refusals? (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception). Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(6):23-24.

Conscientious Objection: Does the Zero-Probability Argument Work? (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception)

Greg Loeben, Michelle A Chui

Extract
It seems clear from these observations that Card (2007) uses the zero probability argument as a bit of a straw man. The conscientious objector does not rely on such a simplistic claim. In fact, conscientious objection can and should be evaluated in light of a variety of components, rather than the mere possibility that one’s actions will contribute to an unethical result. Specifically, conscientious objection appears to be made more plausible by a variety of factors, including the likelihood, intentionality, causal directness, degree of consensus, and not least, the severity of the unethical action.

Loeben G, Chui MA. Conscientious Objection: Does the Zero-Probability Argument Work? (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception). Am J Bioeth. 2007 Jun;7(6):28-30.

The Necessity of Conscience and the Unspoken Ends of Medicine (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception)

John J Hardt

Extract
The difficulties lie in those cases in which there is disagreement about the ends of medicine and the obligations they impose on its practitioners. It may very well be the case that in focusing our attention on particular acts of conscientious objection, we will fail to attend to the underlying and more pressing need to engage once again in a conversation on the nature of medicine and its proper ends. . . . It is here, I would suggest, that one will find the root cause of much of our current, heated debate about conscience and, perhaps, some possible resolution.

Hardt JJ. The Necessity of Conscience and the Unspoken Ends of Medicine (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception). Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(6):18-19.