Revisiting pharmacists' refusals to dispense emergency contraception

Abstract

Pharmacists' refusals to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives for reasons of conscience have contributed to a national debate regarding the permissibility of such actions. Some in the medical community assert that pharmacists ought not to refuse to dispense emergency contraceptives on this basis. Three lines of argument have become prominent in defense of that position: 1) the professional status of pharmacists does not allow for refusal to dispense legitimately written prescriptions, 2) the medical facts regarding the mechanism of action of emergency contraception are often misunderstood, misrepresented, or both, and 3) refusals by pharmacists to fill legitimate prescriptions undermine patient care. In this commentary, these arguments are rejected as missing the central point of the issue, which is that pharmacists are autonomous, moral agents who are accountable for their choices and entitled-within limits-to decide in which activities they will participate. Pharmacists' professionalism is defended, their responsibilities in the provision of drug therapy are set forth in the context of pharmaceutical care, and these lead to the conclusion that pharmacists' refusals may be ethically justified. There are important limits on how pharmacists may respond when they are being asked to participate in actions they find morally objectionable. Notably, they must ensure that these prescriptions are filled by someone else in a timely manner and must refrain from any abusive or demeaning treatment of patients, as summed up in our Principle of Conscientious Refusal to Dispense.