I need only point out that the rules of the game were changed after the pharmacists had made their career decisions, so the involuntariness of the situations are quite comparable. Given then that exceptions to the rules do occur, we might consider two principle concerns of Medical Ethics which will reviewed in the courtroom.

I think that many, if not most, people would agree that a medical practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. For example, if a pharmacist is aware that some a medication is contraindicated under some particular circumstances, and the patient presents compelling, or more problematical only a persuasive example of such a circumstance, most people would agree that the pharmacist would be justified in delaying dispensing the prescription until after review.

Take as an example the situation where a female pharmacist is aware that the FDA approval of new medication X was based upon studies conducted upon young males. Such was often the case until recently. Now if an elderly woman presents the prescription to be filled on a Friday evening to be filled, would it be unreasonable for the pharmacist - having a real concern for the welfare of the patient foremost, and having a strong suspicion that this prescription may not be the best for that patient – to insist on a review before filling the prescription?

If you can bring yourself to acknowledge that there exist situations where the immediate actions of a patient (“Please fill this prescription.”) may not be in the patient’s best long term interests, then the pharmacist can and should exercise caution.

There is a second, similar principle: "First, do no harm". In this instance, as the intent, object and goal of the prescription is to NOT induce a spontaneous abortion as does, for example RU-486, but only to prevent conception, then I believe that these objecting pharmacists’ are on rather shakier ethical ground than they may think. The purported death of the baby can not occur as a result of what the pharmacist dispenses, as the fetus is human following conception, not before.

On balance though, it is clear that there are grounds here for honest people to disagree. In democracies, when people disagree with the applicability of laws passed by the Legislature, they seek redress in the Judiciary, and that is what these aggrieved pharmacists are doing. If they strike out there then they will have to make some difficult decisions.

__________________
Eudaimonia