No

by C. Spencer

Created on: August 01, 2007   Last Updated: January 20, 2012

In 2004, pharmacist Gene Herr was fired from his job for refusing to fill a prescription for the so-called "morning after pill." As Mr. Herr explained to the Associated Press, he refused to fill the prescription for the emergency contraceptive because he believed that it would cause the death of the embryo if the woman seeking the prescription had conceived [1]. Although Mr. Herr viewed the consequences of his decision as less than favorable, he remarked that he understood that he had violated company policy, and was thus deserving of termination [2].

This case sparked the interest of many people in the nation who had hitherto given little thought to the moral dilemmas facing pharmacists who were morally opposed to abortion and who viewed the emergency contraceptive as a form of abortion. This issue has again surfaced as a result of a suit that has been filed against the state of Washington by pharmacists who object to being required by law to sell the contraceptive, despite their moral misgivings [3].

While I appreciate the argument that a patient's rights to the drug outweighs the pharmacist's personal moral beliefs [4], I do not believe that the Washington state law is appropriate. Pharmacists should not be required by law to violate their moral and/or religious beliefs as a pre-condition for being allowed to engage in their profession.

That having been said, I believe that market principles, not the government, should determine whether pharmacists who refuse to sell the pill will be able to retain their livelihoods. By allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill, the government would thus allow the market, not the legislature, to dictate the success or failure of such a policy.

As a brief explanation of what I mean when I claim that market forces should be allowed to dominate, let me provide a simple hypothetical scenario: assume that a pharmacy has adopted a policy of refusing to fill the controversial prescription. This company's policy creates a market incentive for another pharmacy to come along and provide the pill to its consumers.

In such a situation, pharmacists at both companies are allowed to act on their moral convictions. Clearly, this sort of scenario retains a patient's ability to locate and purchase the drug, while preventing the government from entering into the delicate business of forcing people to choose between their livelihoods and their moral convictions.

It might be objected that too few pharmacies would opt to sell the prescription. Were that the case, the government would have a legitimate reason for attempting to persuade pharmacists to sell the drug. But such forms of persuasion need not take the form of the Washington law. A number of other candidate routes may be pursued. For example, the government could legitimately force state-run institutions (such as university hospitals) to carry the drug in their pharmacies. Or similarly, the state could force hospitals that receive state funding (but are not necessarily state-run) to carry the pill. Alternatively, the state could offer modest tax incentives for those pharmacies that provide the pill to consumers.

The point to be drawn from this is that our legislators ought to be charged with finding creative ways to make the drug available which do not interfere with a pharmacist's right to pursue her occupation within the confines of her moral framework.

Our government has long been committed to providing people with the reasonable opportunity to attempt to earn a living in whatever manner they deem fit. While we are not obligated to ensure that pharmacist's who refuse to sell emergency contraceptives succeed in their business ventures, it does seem that we have an obligation to not be overly intrusive and dictatorial in creating policies that effectively (if not obviously) force people to choose between their profession and what they take to be a moral life.

CITATIONS:

1. The Associated Press, "Pharmacists fired for denying morning after' pill." February 12, 2004. Reported by CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/02/12/pharmacy.firing.ap/index.html

2. Ibid.

3. The Associate Press, "Pharmacists sue over morning after pill." July 30, 2007. Reported by MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19998286/

4. Ibid.

Learn more about this author, C. Spencer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.