The Pope is encouraging pharmacists to refuse to dispense the morning-after pill (MAP), if they have a conscientious objection. The European Union is considering obligating pharmacists to dispense the MAP as a condition of practice.
This brings up some interesting issues regarding womens' right to contraception. Much of the debate has been colored by gender and racial considerations that emerge from a larger social context (old white man controlling the fertility of a young woman of color for example), but I would prefer to stick to individual ethics
In the US, the government has no constitutional authority to impel behavior from individuals, especially if it is morally repugnant to the individual, unless there is a compelling societal interest. I am not sure Europe's constitutional protection of the individual is as strong as the American tradition.
On one side of the argument is the moral question of abortion which appears to coincide with the protection of individual liberties.
On the other side of the argument is a woman's liberty in relation to reproductive choice and the practical issues of access to heath care.
I used to work with physicians who actively advised against abortion, the use of abortifascients and did not prescribe contraceptives. I respected their right to do so and they respected my wish to do the contrary. If a patient came into the office with the expectation of having her demand satisfied, she was in for a sad surprise with some doctors.
Is it reasonable to demand that a health care provider simply agree to whatever a customer/client/patient wishes? I think not, especially if there is a moral overlay. We should all try to do what we believe is best, given our ability to discern the correct course of action. As a medical director, I might hesitate to hire a physician if they refused to provide a service that was required or needed by the community, from either a business or a public health perspective. But on the other hand, if they cannot abide by the perspectives of my organization, they can certainly set up their own shop where they please and not have to deal with me and my beliefs.
They should not be expected to dispense something for which they harbor doubt, medical, ethical or otherwise. So maybe the expectation of getting your morning-after pill on demand, wherever and whenever you choose is unreasonable. Access is one thing, but not at the price of the individual liberties of my colleagues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Agree wholeheartedly.
Seems this all centers on the definition of "rights."
To me - and, I would argue, to the Constitution - a right is a protection, not a demand. Thus, the "right to contraception" means that the government should not prevent people from getting it, rather than that all health care providers must provide it.
Rights? Prescriptions? Hello, what are you smoking? What about the "rights" of individuals who want to buy drugs without prescriptions? Rights of contract are central to our conception of human rights--yet government restricts these consumers rights to buy/ sell drugs.
If government can restrict the rights to buy/sell drugs and treats it as a privilege, it seems it can condition that privilege upon the observance of certain standards--like the willingness to sell ALL legal drugs.
You have a right to despise abortion; you don't have a right to prescribe or dispense drugs--and government can condition that right.
I disagree. Physicians and pharmacists are allowed to have all of the doubts they wish about the efficacy and applicability of a certain drug. I do not see how the moral stance of a pharmacist should in any way affect the dispensation of any drug. I object to Viagra, but I would dispense it. Access is everything, especially when the clock is ticking, as is often the case for "morning-after" situations.
Although I understand the importance of access, I do not believe anyone in this or any other country would stand for compelling someone to act against their moral objections.
In my state, New York, the legislature recently decided to compel Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.
The Catholic hospitals expressed publicly their objection that they are being required by the state to act in violation of their beliefs and conscience.
Everyone else in New York? Big shrug.
So much for the idea that Americans would "not stand for" this kind of government coercion.
Stella Baskomb
The noise is loud enough for those who care to read. I suspect there may be a constitutionally-based challenge, but am not sufficiently familiar with all the legal considerations...
There remains a medical and scientific distinction between EC and abortion and I prefer not to confuse the two. Morally may be another story... I tend to defer judgment in favor of discernment.
You may be right.
Yeah, morality may be another story.
And there's this:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/
updates/story/198911.html
Stella Baskomb
Please contact me at protection@consciencelaws.org re: permission to post your entry,with an appropriate link and credit line.
(Sean Murphy) Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
http://www.consciencelaws.org
Post a Comment