Pharmacists have the vital job to provide their patients with any medications they need or have been prescribed for. However, there may be some medications, such as Plan B or emergency contraception, that are tied to moral beliefs that certain pharmacists do not agree with. This brings up the issue if pharmacists should have the right to refuse dispensing certain medications if they do not agree with them, and to go even further, if pharmacies should have a right to not carry these types of drugs or should there be restrictions on whether or not they must have the drug available to the public.
This is a controversial issue, since there is not a simple way to appeal to both parties. This issue also can be extended further into issues with selling other drugs, such as marijuana, if it becomes a legal medication. However, regardless of complexity, pharmacists should be required to dispense all medications to their patients, regardless of their moral stance on said medications. Pharmacists should not be able to refuse giving a patient emergency contraception, despite whether or not they agree with the morality of the drug.
As a pharmacist, it is their job to provide care to all patients without harming them, and refusing to give this drug to an individual would result in harm to them, pregnancy. A patient should not need to justify the reason they need the drug to the pharmacist, since it is their right to have the drug if they want it. Also, there is a common misconception around how Plan B works, and this misunderstanding may lead individuals to believe that the pill is against their moral stance on abortion when in fact, Plan B works in a much different way.
Many believe that Plan B serves as an abortion pill, where the drug kills a zygote, a fertilized egg. However, this is incorrect, and in fact what Plan B does is prevent ovulation, or the release of an egg into the fallopian tube. Therefore, nothing resembling an abortion is being taken place and if there is indeed a zygote, it will attach to the uterus and there will be a chance of pregnancy in the individual. Since this moral stigma against Plan B is based on a flawed understanding of how the drug works, then it is invalid to reject selling it.
If a pharmacist still disagrees with even preventing ovulation, they should still not be able to refuse to give the drug to a patient. This ties into the fact that a woman should have the right to health care as she chooses. It is the woman’s decision and autonomy to ingest the drug, and her well-being outweighs the effects of the moral values of the pharmacist. If a pharmacist is refusing to dispense this medication, then their employers should have the right to fire them, since it is purely personal beliefs that they do not want people receiving emergency contraception.
It should be known to a pharmacist that they could be put into situations they do not feel comfortable with, as any job will have, and either need to find a job where this will not affect them as much, or be okay with respecting other’s choices and autonomy. If pharmacists did have the right to refuse, this would need to be heavily regulated by superiors so that this policy was not abused, since someone with this power could easily grow a god complex and believe they have the right to choose whether or not a person’s life can truly become affected.
For example, if someone refused emergency contraception to an individual who was raped or perhaps at risk because of a different horrifying situation, they could be forcing the patient to carry a child that could easily affect their mental health and life for worse. Therefore, it is impossible to let pharmacists simply pick and choose what medications they should give to patients. However, one may argue that if there were a system where there was always at least one pharmacist on duty who was okay with giving out Plan B, then this would be absolved.
This is one way that both parties could be appealed, since the patient is still able to receive the treatment they desire, and certain pharmacists do not have to commit and act they are uncomfortable with. However, it would be quite strenuous for the pharmacy to enforce this policy, and it would be much easier for them to simply hire individuals who are not against this medication. It would also be difficult for pharmacies to know if the individuals they were hiring were truly okay with selling emergency contraception, as someone could easily lie.
Another solution for this predicament is also to sell the drug over the counter, which means that pharmacists would not be directly selling the drug to patients themselves, but still people have access, and in fact, many pharmacies now do this in their stores. This seems to be a good solution, however certain pharmacists may still think they are allowing patients access to an immoral drug, but as said before, patient autonomy is of much greater importance.
Also, some pharmacists may be worried that people will steal the expensive drug. There is simply no situation where both parties can be completely happy, since in any case the emergency contraceptive is still being sold, which could make certain pharmacists upset, and if they stop selling the drug, then the patients and customers would be upset. However, it is the job of the pharmacist to provide whoever needs medication what they need, since it is their right to receive said medication.
If a pharmacy wishes to not carry emergency contraception, they still should be required to carry it regardless, since there could be situations where they are the only pharmacy that a person could access. If there is only one pharmacy in a small town and the next closest one was hours away, this would cause plenty of frustration to people whom live in the area and may need emergency contraception. It is not fair for anyone to be denied treatment when it is available and legal to the public.
There does not have to be harsh penalties for a pharmacy not carrying the drug, however, if enough people complain then maybe various action would need to be taken, but this could simply be that the pharmacy needs to have emergency contraception in stock and obtainable. If a pharmacy has a problem with this, there may not be distinct steps to enforce that they actually keep the drug in stock, but they may suffer in sales or customers if they do not provide adequate care. Conscientious objection is not immoral in itself, but if it is harming others greatly, then it is not a priority over their safety.
To delve further into this controversial topic, it is questioned whether or not pharmacies should have a right to refuse dispersal of other drugs. If pharmacies wish to do this, there would be much backlash from the community. People rely on pharmacies to acquire the drugs they need and if they cannot since an establishment simply does not want to carry a drug on moral terms, then that will physically hurt them and in fact can create permanent changes in their lives. People should not be forced to go somewhere else or even perhaps illegally find a drug they need.
It is the job of pharmacies to provide people with the medications they need or are prescribed to, and therefore there should not be policies where they do not require carrying a certain drug on moral grounds. However, this can become complicated with certain drugs like marijuana, which is not legal medically everywhere yet. This can be solved with the creation of stores who’s sole purpose is to sell the drug, that way the public still has access to treatment and only people who are morally okay with selling marijuana are employed.
In any case, people should be able to safely obtain the medication they need, regardless whether or not someone morally agrees with them, and this is based on the right of autonomy in health care. To conclude, in regards to the right in refusal of emergency contraception, the answer is clear, that this and even any other drug should not have the right to be refused to give to a patient by a pharmacist.
It is a pharmacist’s job to provide the treatment to those who want it, whether it is prescribed by a doctor or available over the counter. A pharmacist should know that when committing to their job they are not going to agree with every aspect of it, as most jobs have situations similar to this, but in fact even if they are hurting their own morals, they are potentially saving someone’s life. Someone who needs emergency contraception may be in a dangerous situation, and it is their right to receive the medication they need.
Also Plan B is often compared as an abortion pill, which it is not, so no fetus or zygote would even be killed in the process, thus making the treatment less of a moral issue. In addition to this, if pharmacists and pharmacies refuse to dispense this medication, females may resort to finding the drug illegally and put themselves in further, possibly life-risking danger. Regardless, a patient has the right to receive the treatment they want it, and if this is an issue with particular individuals, the autonomy of the patient is held highest.
