Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (6):579 – 592 (2005)
AbstractCiting grounds of conscience, pharmacists are increasingly refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, or the "morning-after pill." Whether correctly or not, these pharmacists believe that emergency contraception either constitutes the destruction of post-conception human life, or poses a significant risk of such destruction. We argue that the liberty of conscientious refusal grounds a strong moral claim, one that cannot be defeated solely by consideration of the interests of those seeking medication. We examine, and find lacking, five arguments for requiring pharmacists to fill prescriptions. However, we argue that in their professional context, pharmacists benefit from liberty restrictions on those seeking medication. What would otherwise amount to very strong claims can be defeated if they rest on some prior restriction of the liberty of others. We conclude that the issue of what policy should require pharmacists to do must be settled by way of a theory of second best. Asking "What is second best?" rather than "What is best?" offers a way to navigate the liberty restrictions that may be fixed obstacles to optimality.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Active and Passive Euthanasia.James Rachels - 1975 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. Oxford University Press.
In Harm's Way: AMA Physicians and the Duty to Treat.Chalmers C. Clark - 2005 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (1):65 – 87.
The General Theory of Second Best.R. G. Lipsey & Kelvin Lancaster - 1956 - Review of Economic Studies 24 (1):11-32.
Citations of this work
Harm or Mere Inconvenience? Denying Women Emergency Contraception.Carolyn McLeod - 2010 - Hypatia 25 (1):11-30.
Conscientious Objection by Health Care Professionals.Gry Wester - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (7):427-437.
Public Cartels, Private Conscience.Michael Cholbi - 2018 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 17 (4):356-377.
Futility, Conscientious Refusal, and Who Gets to Decide.J. K. Davis - 2008 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 (4):356-373.
Imposing Values and Enforcing Gender Through Knowledge: Epistemic Oppression with the Morning-After Pill's Drug Label.Christopher ChoGlueck - 2022 - Hypatia 37 (2):315-342.
Similar books and articles
Conscientious Refusal and a Doctors's Right to Quit.John K. Davis - 2004 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (1):75 – 91.
Conscientious Refusal by Physicians and Pharmacists: Who is Obligated to Do What, and Why?Dan W. Brock - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (3):187-200.
Conscientious Objections in Pharmacy Practice in Great Britain.Zuzana Deans - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (1):48-57.
Pharmacies, Pharmacists, and Conscientious Objection.Mark R. Wicclair - 2006 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (3):225-250.
Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception.Robert F. Card - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (6):8 – 14.
Giving Liberty Its Due, But No More: Trans Fats, Liberty, and Public Health.Dr James Wilson - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (3):34-36.
Freedom of Conscience, Employee Prerogatives, and Consumer Choice: Veal, Birth Control, and Tanning Beds. [REVIEW]J. M. Dieterle - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 77 (2):191 - 203.
Emergency Contraception and Conscientious Objection.J. Paul Kelleher - 2010 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (3):290-304.