Maryam T Afif
Extract
Conclusion
Offering legal protection to pharmacists comes at too great a cost to women’s health and legal rights. The pill is a viable and effective method of birth control for many women and, as Congress has noted, it can be used to prevent other social, economic, and medical problems. The Supreme Court has clearly established that a state cannot interfere with a woman’s right to access contraceptives, including the pill. While pharmacists should be free to practice their religion, that practice cannot interfere with their professional duty to dispense valid prescriptions free of moral judgment. Furthermore, the vague wording in most conscience clause statutes does not restrict objections to those of a religious nature. A pharmacist can use any personal moral objection as an excuse not to dispense a prescription. The result of a pharmacist’s objection can be quite severe for the patient (an unintended pregnancy or health problems), and the duties imposed under tort law should apply. A pharmacist should not be able to escape the legal consequences of his or her actions. States that allow pharmacists to do so are clearly protecting the rights of a small segment of their citizens at the expense of others. If these statutes are challenged in court, it is likely that the statutes will be found to be unconstitutional. While this is a serious consequence, it is appropriate given the rights at stake.
Afif MT. Prescription Ethics: Can States Protect Pharmacists Who Refuse to Dispense Contraceptive Prescriptions? Pace Law Review. 2005;26(1):243-272.