Dispensing with Liberty: Conscientious Refusal and the ""Morning-After Pill

Elizabeth Fenton, Loren Lomasky

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Citing grounds of conscience, pharmacists are increasingly refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, or the 'morningafter pill.' Whether correctly or not, these pharmacists believe that emergency contraception either constitutes the destruction of postconception 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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)579-592
    Number of pages14
    JournalJournal of Medicine and Philosophy
    Volume30
    Issue number6
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2005

    Fingerprint

    Postcoital Contraceptives
    Pharmacists
    Postcoital Contraception
    Prescriptions
    Liberty

    Cite this

    Fenton, Elizabeth ; Lomasky, Loren. / Dispensing with Liberty : Conscientious Refusal and the ""Morning-After Pill. In: Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2005 ; Vol. 30, No. 6. pp. 579-592.
    @article{350ee3634b7a46308f3acddf01834204,
    title = "Dispensing with Liberty: Conscientious Refusal and the {"}{"}Morning-After Pill",
    abstract = "Citing grounds of conscience, pharmacists are increasingly refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, or the 'morningafter pill.' Whether correctly or not, these pharmacists believe that emergency contraception either constitutes the destruction of postconception 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.",
    author = "Elizabeth Fenton and Loren Lomasky",
    note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: Journal title (773t) = The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: a forum for bioethics and philosophy of medicine. ISSNs: 0360-5310;",
    year = "2005",
    doi = "10.1080/03605310500421389",
    language = "English",
    volume = "30",
    pages = "579--592",
    journal = "Journal of Medicine and Philosophy",
    issn = "0360-5310",
    publisher = "Oxford University Press",
    number = "6",

    }

    Dispensing with Liberty : Conscientious Refusal and the ""Morning-After Pill. / Fenton, Elizabeth; Lomasky, Loren.

    In: Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Vol. 30, No. 6, 2005, p. 579-592.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Dispensing with Liberty

    T2 - Conscientious Refusal and the ""Morning-After Pill

    AU - Fenton, Elizabeth

    AU - Lomasky, Loren

    N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: Journal title (773t) = The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: a forum for bioethics and philosophy of medicine. ISSNs: 0360-5310;

    PY - 2005

    Y1 - 2005

    N2 - Citing grounds of conscience, pharmacists are increasingly refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, or the 'morningafter pill.' Whether correctly or not, these pharmacists believe that emergency contraception either constitutes the destruction of postconception 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.

    AB - Citing grounds of conscience, pharmacists are increasingly refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, or the 'morningafter pill.' Whether correctly or not, these pharmacists believe that emergency contraception either constitutes the destruction of postconception 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.

    U2 - 10.1080/03605310500421389

    DO - 10.1080/03605310500421389

    M3 - Article

    VL - 30

    SP - 579

    EP - 592

    JO - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

    JF - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

    SN - 0360-5310

    IS - 6

    ER -