El4333@wayne.

edu
PHI1120
Chad Hunter
Term Paper

Should pharmacists be able to refuse filling prescriptions for

emergency contraception? Cantor and Baum believe that they should
be able to however, I do not. Pharmacists should not be able to turn
down emergency contraceptive prescriptions because it is bringing
personal beliefs and morals into the professional environment, it
conflicts with their duty, and lastly it can cause complications in the
future. Deciding whether or not an emergency contraceptive is a
solution is not the choice of the pharmacist but the person who will be
undergoing the pregnancy and any other complications that come with
it. In Cantor and Baums article The limits of conscientious objection-
May pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency
contraception? the authors state that pharmacists can reject
emergency contraception prescriptions. The authors thesis statement
says that pharmacists who cannot or will not dispense a drug have an
obligation to meet the needs of their customers by referring them
elsewhere (Cantor and Baum 133). The authors give other options
however they are flawed. This idea is uncontroversial when it is applied
to common medications such as antibiotics and statins; it becomes
contentious but is equally valid when it is applied to emergency
contraception. Therefore, pharmacists who object should, as a matter
of ethics and law, provide alternatives for patients. The premises for
this argument are as followed. Pharmacists who object to filling
prescriptions for emergency contraception should arrange for another
pharmacist to provide this service to customers promptly. Pharmacies
that stock emergency contraception should ensure, to the extent
possible, that at least one non objecting pharmacists is on duty at all
times. Pharmacies that do not stock emergency contraception should
give clear notice and refer patients elsewhere (Cantor and Baum 133).
The authors believe that the pharmacists can refuse to fill these
prescriptions at their own will, whether this is due to moral or religious
reasons. The argument the authors provide is strong however there
are still some flaws.

Canter and Baum state that a pharmacist who refuses a

prescription should refer the patient elsewhere. This option is not
feasible because this is a time sensitive situation and sometimes the
other pharmacy is not readily available. Emergency contraception has
to be taken within 72-120 hours in order for it to be effective. The
second premise that is stated in this article is, In rural areas,
objecting pharmacists should provide referrals within reasonable
radius. This is not a viable option because in some cases a pharmacy
is not available within a reasonable radius. Although Cantor and Baum
believe that if there is not a pharmacy nearby or if the patient cannot
 El4333@wayne.edu
PHI1120
Chad Hunter
get to the other pharmacy, the pharmacist should fill it. The
pharmacists who refuse to fill the prescription due to personal beliefs
will not fill it but this leaves the patient with no means of going
elsewhere, so the pharmacist has to provide the contraceptive. This
makes the pharmacist go against their morals and do something they
are not comfortable with. A solution for this is for the pharmacy not to
stock the contraceptive but then again, the problem arises for the
patient to go elsewhere. Rather than this happening, pharmacists
should not be able to refuse the contraceptive. The next premise
states, Society does not require professionals to abandon their
morals. This premise contradicts the previous premise. A solution to
this would be to have two pharmacists on duty but that is not a
feasible solution for all pharmacies. A majority of pharmacies only
have one pharmacist on duty per shift. Pharmacists are professionals
who are licensed to prepare and dispense drugs. They dispense drugs
to patients according to their medical diagnoses. After reading through
the pharmacists oaths, I came to realize that this type of duty is called
a fiduciary duty. This means the patient who comes to the pharmacy
asking for an emergency contraceptive is putting his or her full trust
and hope on the pharmacist. By turning down the plan b, pharmacists
are breaking this trust and hope and therefore not completing their
duty. Not all pregnancy cases go smoothly and without complications
so by refusing someone the contraceptive, the individual could face
complications down the road. In severe cases the pregnancy could
even result in the mothers death. The choice of taking the emergency
contraceptive should be entirely up to the person consuming it rather
than the person dispensing it. The pharmacist should dispense the
medication and provide a brief description of how to take the
medication and inform the patient that he or she can always call the
pharmacy if any other questions arise. Lastly, professionals should
keep personal beliefs and morals out of the workplace. By doing so, it
keeps the professional environment equal and free of any
discrimination similar to how lawyers keep morals and beliefs out when
representing convicted criminals.

Pharmacists should not be able to turn down emergency

contraceptive prescriptions because this brings personal beliefs and
morals into the professional environment, it conflicts with their duty,
and it can cause complications in the future. The choice of taking an
emergency contraceptive is the choice of the person who is at risk of
becoming pregnant and is not the choice of the pharmacist. The
pharmacist is only responsible for dispensing the medication and
answering any questions the individual might have regarding the
medication.