Inmaculada de Melo-Martin Archives - Protection of Conscience Project Library

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.

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.