Skip to main content

Crisis of Conscience: Pharmacist Refusal to Provide Health Care Services on Moral Grounds

Abstract

Advances in technology have resulted in medical procedures and practices that were unthought-of in previous generations. Embryonic stem cell research, abortifacients, birth control, and artificial insemination are just a few examples of these technological advances. While many individuals readily embrace such medical advances, others find them morally objectionable. A contentious national debate is now occurring over whether employee pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill legal prescriptions for emergency contraception because of conscientious objections. In the United States, existing public policy is somewhat muddled in both protecting and encroaching on the employee pharmacist’s right of refusal. This article discusses the legal and ethical nature of that controversy, as well as the clash of interests, rights and responsibilities between employers, employee pharmacists and customers from a U.S. perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Afif, M. (2005). Prescription ethics: can states protect pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptive prescriptions? Pace Law Review, 26, 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. (2006, August). Pharmacists with no Plan B. Christianity Today, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/august/31.44.html. Retrieved August 25, 2009.

  • Ahonen, K. A., & Buchman, D. (2008). Emergency contraception: profiles of women using Plan B in a small Midwestern US community. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 20, 35–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook, 55 USLW 4019 (1996).

  • Austria, C. S. (2004). The Church, the State and women’s bodies in the context of religious fundamentalism in the Philippines. Reproductive Health Matters, 12(24), 96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, S. B., Solorio, R., Washington, D. L., Yu, H. J., Huang, Y. C., & Brown, E. R. (2008). Who is using emergency contraception? Awareness and use of emergency contraception among California women and teens. Women’s Health Issues, 18, 360–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbaro, M. (2006, March 4). In reversal, Wal-Mart will sell contraceptive. New York Times, C4.

  • Berg, T. (2004). The state and religion. St. Paul: Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brener v. Diagnostic Center Hospital, 671 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1982).

  • Cantor, J., & Baum, K. (2004). The limits of conscientious objection: may pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception? New England Journal of Medicine, 351(19), 2008–2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

  • Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994). Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Pauline Press, para 2272, 548.

  • Catholic News Agency (2009, Nov. 3). Honduran Congress prohibits morning-after pill. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/honduran_congress_prohibits_morningafter_pill/.

  • Chandrasekhar, C. (2006). Rx for drugstore discrimination: challenging pharmacy refusals to dispense prescription contraceptives under state public accommodation laws. Albany Law Review, 70, 55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church Amendment, Health Programs Extension Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93–45 § 401.

  • Cicconi, L. (2007). Pharmacist refusals and third-party interests: a proposed judicial approach to pharmacist conscience clauses. UCLA Law Review, 54, 709–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1964).

  • Davis, B. (2006). Compelled expression of the religiously forbidden: pharmacists’ “duty to fill” statutes and the hybrid rights exception. University of Hawaii Law Review, 29, 97.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D. & Smith, J. C. (2008). U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-235, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Dignitas Personae, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, December 12, 2008. http://www.vatican.edu/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html. Retrieved March 1, 2009.

  • Dugdale, E. (2008, May 22). Morning after pill? It’s against my religion. Manchester Evening News. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1050688_morningafter_pill_its_against_my_religion. Retrieved December 20, 2009.

  • Duvall, M. (2006). Pharmacy conscience clause statutes: constitutional religious “accommodations” or unconstitutional “substantial burdens” on women? American University Law Review, 55, 1485.

    Google Scholar 

  • EEOC. (2008, July 22). Compliance Manual § 12: Religious Discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html. Retrieved March 1, 2009.

  • Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

  • Ellis, A. D. (2008). Informal survey of pharmacy schools’ position on emergency contraception in the curriculum. [unpublished personal correspondence].

  • Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

  • FDA approves over-the-counter access for Plan B for women 18 and older, prescription remains required for those 17 and under. (2006, August 29). http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm108717.htm. Retrieved March 2, 2009.

  • Freedom of Choice Act. S. 1173, H.R. 1964, 110th Congress (2007, pending).

  • Freeman, A. (2008–2009). Does emergency trump conscience, thus drawing another line in the sand for pharmacists? Regent University Law Review, 21, 181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. (2006). When rights collide: in a battle between pharmacists’ right of free exercise and patients’ right to access contraception, who wins? A possible solution for Nevada. Nevada Law Journal, 7, 212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, B. (2007). The Plan B for Plan B: the new dual over-the counter and prescription status of Plan B and its impact on pharmacists, consumers and conscience clauses. Georgia Law Review, 41, 1395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

  • Harris, G. (2009, April 23). F.D.A. Easing access to ‘Morning After’ pill. New York Times, A14.

  • Heioarsdottir, M. L., Almarsdottir, A. B., & Geirsson, R. T. (2009). Providing emergency contraceptive pills in pharmacies. Laeknabladid, 95, 343–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbe, D. (2002–2003). The right to refuse: a call for adequate protection of a pharmacist’s right to refuse facilitation of abortion and emergency contraception. Journal of Law & Health, 17, 77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, E. (2008). Accommodating religious expression in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, E. P. (2009, March 6). Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 59:6. [personal email correspondence from Michael von Rosen, Public Relations Spokesperson, LDS Temple, Salt Lake City, UT.]

  • Lichtman, J. (2003). Restrictive state abortion laws: today’s most powerful conscience clause. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 10, 345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (2006). The unconscionability of conscience clauses: pharmacists’ consciences and women’s access to contraception. Health Matrix, 16, 237.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Conference of State Legislatures. (2009). Pharmacist conscience clauses: laws and legislation. www.ncsl.org/programs/health/ConscienceClauses.htm. Retrieved June 10, 2009.

  • Nelson, J. (2005). Freedom of choice for everyone: the need for conscience clause legislation for pharmacists. Univestiy of St. Thomas Law Journal, 3, 139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, B. T., & Zaller, N. (2009). Male access to over-the-counter emergency contraception: a survey of acceptability and barriers in Providence, Rhode Island. Womens Health Issues, 19, 365–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noah, L. (2004). A post modernist take on the human embryo research debate. Connecticut Law Review, 36, 1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Callaghan, N. (2006). Lessons from Pharaoh and the Hebrew midwives: conscientious objection to state mandates as a free exercise right. Creighton Law Review, 39, 561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 238n (1996).

  • Rambaud, D. (2006). Prescription contraceptives and the pharmacists right to refuse: examining the efficacy of conscience laws. Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal, 4, 195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 (S.Ct. 705, 1973).

  • Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britian. (2004). Practice Guidance on the Supply of Emergency Hormonal Contraception as a Pharmacy Medicine. http://www.rpsgb.org/pdfs/ehcguid.pdf. Retrieved December 20, 2009.

  • Rubenfeld, J. (1991). On the legal status of the proposition that “Life Begins at Conception”. Stanford Law Review, 43, 599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, N. N. (2009). Emergency contraception spearheading despite hurdles and hindrance. International Medical Journal, 16, 211–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiappacasse, V., & Diaz, S. (2006). Access to emergency contraception. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 94, 301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherbert v. Verner, 374. U.S. 398 (1963).

  • Smearman, C. (2006). Drawing the line: the legal, ethical and public policy implications of refusal clauses for pharmacists. Arizona Law Review, 48, 469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonne, J. (2007). Firing Thoreau: conscience and at-will employment. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor & Employment Law, 9, 235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, R. (2006, January 30). Health workers’ choice debated. Washington Post, A01.

  • Stout, D. (2009, February 27). Obama Set to Undo ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/politics/28web-abort.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20conscience&st=cse. Retrieved February 28, 2009.

  • Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986).

  • Turpen v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co., 736 F.2d 1022, 1026 (5th Cir. 1984).

  • TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977).

  • U.S. Constitution. (1791). Amendment 1. http://www.usconstitution.net. Retrieved December 21, 2009.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008, December 18). News release. HHS issues final regulation to protect health care providers from discrimination. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/12/20081218a.html. Retrieved March 1, 2009. Rescission of the regulation entitled “Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services funds do not support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law”; Proposal. 74 Fed. Reg. 10207 (March 10, 2009).

  • Wardle, L. (1993). Protecting the rights of conscience of health care providers. Journal of Legal Medicine, 14, 177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon Amendment, Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 110–161, § 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209.

  • White, M. (2005). Conscience clauses for pharmacists: the struggle to balance conscience rights with the rights of patients and institutions. Wisconsin Law Review, 200, 1611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanda, K., Smith, S. V., & Rosenfield, A. (2003). Reproductive health and human rights. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 82, 275–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eileen P. Kelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kelly, E.P., Ellis, A.D. & Rosenthal, S.P.S. Crisis of Conscience: Pharmacist Refusal to Provide Health Care Services on Moral Grounds. Employ Respons Rights J 23, 37–54 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-010-9142-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-010-9142-2

Key words

  • workplace accommodation
  • discrimination
  • religious expression
  • emergency contraception