Harm or Mere Inconvenience? Denying Women Emergency Contraception

Hypatia 25 (1):11-30 (2010)
Abstract
This paper addresses the likely impact on women of being denied emergency contraception (EC) by pharmacists who conscientiously refuse to provide it. A common view—defended by Elizabeth Fenton and Loren Lomasky, among others—is that these refusals inconvenience rather than harm women so long as the women can easily get EC somewhere else nearby. I argue from a feminist perspective that the refusals harm women even when they can easily get EC somewhere else nearby.
Keywords emergency contraception  conscientious refusals  health care  women
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive Carolyn McLeod, Harm or Mere Inconvenience? Denying Women Emergency Contraception
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Chalmers C. Clark (2005). In Harm's Way: AMA Physicians and the Duty to Treat. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (1):65 – 87.

View all 15 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Waheeda Lillevik (2006). U.S. Pharmacists, Pharmacies, and Emergency Contraception. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 25 (1/4):39-66.
Marcia Riordan (2010). Paying Women for Egg 'Donation'. Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 16 (1):10.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-09-08

Total downloads

20 ( #82,881 of 1,098,129 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

6 ( #42,748 of 1,098,129 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.