Harm or Mere Inconvenience? Denying Women Emergency Contraception

Hypatia 25 (1):11-30 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Similar books and articles

Conscientious objection and emergency contraception.Robert F. Card - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (6):8 – 14.
Emergency Contraception and Conscientious Objection.J. Paul Kelleher - 2010 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (3):290-304.
U.S. Pharmacists, Pharmacies, and Emergency Contraception.Waheeda Lillevik - 2006 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 25 (1-4):39-66.
Conscientious Refusals by Hospitals and Emergency Contraception.Mark R. Wicclair - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (1):130-138.
Cynicism, with Consequences.Diane M. Plantz - 2011 - Hastings Center Report 41 (2):12-13.
When 'Emergency Contraception' is Neither.Timothy F. Murphy - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (8):7-7.
Is Emergency Contraception Murder?Laura Purdy - 2009 - Ethics, Bioscience and Life 4 (1):37-42.
Women, Sexual Asymmetry, and Catholic Teaching.Erika Bachiochi - 2013 - Christian Bioethics 19 (2):150-171.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-08

Downloads
350 (#37,137)

6 months
52 (#33,525)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Carolyn McLeod
University of Western Ontario