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


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    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

    14 ( #95,238 of 1,088,873 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,873 )

    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.