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.