Pharmacist Be Allowed To Deny Prescriptions On Grounds Of Conscience Case Study

1313 Words3 Pages

Should Pharmacists Be Allowed to Deny Prescriptions on Grounds of Conscience? Week 5 Introduction: The issue being discussed in the following articles is whether pharmacists should be allowed to deny prescriptions on grounds of conscience. To explain what grounds of conscience is the complexity of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual. The issue mainly under consideration is to force someone to perform an act against his/her religion would be a violation of their human rights. Pharmacists that believe that abortion is immoral want the legal right to exercise their religious beliefs and ethical rights and refuse to dispense the drugs for this purpose and to be protected from …show more content…

In 1998 the (AphA) adopted policies recognizing a pharmacist’s right to refuse dispensing medications based on personal belief. However, if the pharmacist refuses they still have duty to the patient to refer them to another pharmacist. The dilemma is now whether to refer or not. Potential ramifications of not referring are employment termination, civil liability, or disciplinary action form state pharmacy board. Pharmacists are professionals, however he argues if a pharmacist believes whole heartily that if accepting a prescription for abortive and EC medication can lead to facilitating the end to human life, then the pharmacist should be protected under the law and within the …show more content…

In the second article Julie Cantor and Ken Baum explains that individual right and public health boundaries remain unclear and want to offer a balance solution for this complex problem. The conclude that no the pharmacist should not reject and or reject the dispensing of the drugs due to the have an obligation to meet the needs of their customers by referring them elsewhere. They argue in this article “The Limits of Conscientious Objection- May Pharmacists Refuse to Fill Prescriptions for Emergency Contraception?” regarding pharmacists as professional and with their code of ethics that is seems inappropriate to question their right. However, even the courts have agreed that pharmacists have a duty of care. Professionals are expected to place the interests of their clients above their own immediate needs. They believe that a pharmacist understand their fiduciary obligations when they choose their profession (Baum, 2004). Next they argue that emergency contraception is not an abortifacient. They next objecting medications can affect a patient’s health and even place a heavy burden on a person who has no means for another option. Refusal has potential for abuse and discrimination. Final argument is if refusal is the choice then it is unacceptable to leave a patient to fend for themselves. The offer the solution of may have the right to object but, not to

Open Document