Abstract

PIP: Some pharmacists opposed to abortion on moral ground are concerned by having to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs like mifepristone (RU-486). The issue of the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill such prescriptions depends on the model of the physician-pharmacist-patient relationship. The libertarian model of pharmacy practice holds that physicians, pharmacists, and patients are bound only by the contract that they freely negotiate with one another, thus the pharmacist has no moral obligation to fill a prescription for mifepristone unless he or she has expressly contracted to do so. The American Pharmaceutical Association's 1981 Code of Ethics does not specify what a pharmacist ought to do in particular circumstances. The right to refuse is strongly supported by the principles of nonmaleficence and respect for autonomy. These are principles of the libertarian model of the pharmacist-patient relationship but are also present in the guild or societal models stressing the duty to avoid harming others. Justification for pharmacists right of refusal appeals to their autonomy rights as members of the moral community rather than the profession of pharmacy. Since the professional right to autonomy is not absolute, moral consideration circumscribe it: it is difficult to argue that a pharmacist who believes that homosexuality is immoral has the right to refuse to fill a prescription for AZT. Even if a person who presents such a prescription is homosexual there is no causal relationship between filling a prescription for AZT and participating in a homosexual act. At the opposite end the libertarians reject the notion of even a basic right to health care. A woman in the above situation would not have a right to the abortifacient drug, so a pharmacist has no duty to dispense it. According to the technician model of professionalism, the pharmacist's personal values do not matter, so a pharmacist has a duty to provide the service.