Editorial from Governor Smith

The question of whether or not pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception has been controversial in this state. Arguments in favor of a pharmacist’s right to object include the belief that pharmacists should not have to abandon their morals while doing their job. Also, many citizens believe that pharmacists should be given the freedom to refuse if the action would conflict with their beliefs. Arguments against a pharmacist’s right to object include the fact that a patient’s needs should always come first. Many people believe that by entering such a profession, pharmacists should know that they would encounter these situations and it is their fiduciary duty to fulfill a patient’s needs.

In order to resolve this argument and appease both sides, a policy shall be implemented in the state. The policy proposes that pharmacists have the right to object but they must still help the patient by guiding them elsewhere to get what they need. For example, if a patient came to a pharmacy in need of emergency contraception but the pharmacist felt that filling the prescription would conflict with his/her morals, then the pharmacist must arrange for the patient to go to another pharmacist who will dispense the emergency contraception. Pharmacies that have emergency contraception in stock must make sure that at least one pharmacist who can willingly fill such prescriptions will be working at all times.

For those who feel that by referring the patient to another pharmacist will still conflict with their morals, there should be a sign within the pharmacy stating that they do not fill such prescriptions and the information for another pharmacy that provides this duty should be posted. Another solution would be that upon hearing the patient’s need for the emergency contraception, the objective pharmacist should immediately find a willing pharmacist within the pharmacy to aid the patient. By doing this, the pharmacist should not feel that he/she is going against their morals and beliefs in any way.

For those who feel that this is unfair for patients who have no way of getting to another pharmacist in time, the pharmacy should make sure there is another pharmacy close by who can help the patient. If there is not another pharmacy, then there should at least be a bus nearby that could quickly take the patient to another pharmacy that has the emergency contraception and is aware that the patient is coming.

The state believes that this policy will be most effective and will be the beginning to the end of the controversy between a pharmacist’s morals and a patient’s health needs.

Memo to Governor Smith

Date: August 29, 2008

To: Governor Smith

From: Caly Lebel

Subject: A Pharmacist’s Right of Refusal

I am writing to propose a policy statement regarding a pharmacist’s right of refusal, specifically with prescriptions with a short timeframe of effectiveness, such as emergency contraception. Within our rather evenly split state, the question between morals and medicine has often caused a great deal of controversy. There seems to be few answers that will appease both the pharmacists who feel they would be going against their morals by filling the prescriptions and the citizens of our state who need the prescriptions.

After doing research, I find the most effective solution would be to give pharmacists the right to refuse, but within limits. If a pharmacist is strongly against dispensing emergency contraception, then he/she should quickly arrange for another pharmacist to fill the prescription. The needs of the patient, especially in such a time framed situation, must come first. Also, to avoid problems, pharmacies that have emergency contraception in stock should make sure that there is at least one pharmacist who can willingly fill such prescriptions working at all times.

One problem that may arise with this decision is that despite refusing to fill the prescription, pharmacists may still feel that they are going against their morals by referring the patient elsewhere for their need. They may feel that they are still helping the patient with something that they are strongly against. Another problem may be that the patient has no way to get to another pharmacist within the time needed.

I strongly recommend this policy to limit a pharmacist’s right to objection, despite the problems that may arise. Any decision that is made will be accompanied by disagreement and controversy when living in a purple state with a diverse population, who has many opposing opinions. This policy will not only be beneficial, but it will cause the least amount of problems.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the policy further, please feel free to contact me.