Reuters
Originally published February 22, 2012
Can a state require a pharmacy to stock and dispense emergency contraception -- even when the owner considers the drug immoral?That's the question at the heart of a long-running legal battle in Washington state, expected to be decided Wednesday with a ruling from the U.S. District Court in Seattle.
It's the latest twist in a contentious national debate over the role of conscience in the workplace.
In recent weeks, the debate has been dominated by religious groups fighting to overturn a federal mandate that most health insurance plans provide free birth control. But the battle extends far beyond insurance regulations.
Asserting conscientious objections, nurses in New Jersey have said they would not check the vital signs of patients recovering from abortions. Infertility specialists in California would not perform artificial insemination on a lesbian. An ambulance driver in Illinois declined to transport a patient to an abortion clinic.
In the Washington case, a family-owned pharmacy in Olympia declined to stock emergency contraception, which can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Co-owner Kevin Stormans says he considers the drug equivalent to an abortion, because it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. His two pharmacists agree.
Their decision to keep the drug off their shelves came under fire in 2007, when the state Board of Pharmacy enacted a rule requiring pharmacies to stock and dispense all time-sensitive medications in demand in their community. In the case of the Olympia pharmacy, that includes emergency contraception, said Tim Church, a state Department of Health spokesman. The pharmacy's owner and employees filed suit to block the mandate.
All our family wants ... is to serve our customers in keeping with our deepest values," Stormans said in a statement issued by his attorneys.
The state argues that it has a compelling interest in protecting the right of patients to legal medication.
The conscience debate has implications for a vast number of patients. A 2007 New England Journal of Medicine study found that 14% of doctors do not believe they are obligated to tell patients about possible treatments that they personally consider morally objectionable. Nearly 30% of physicians said they had no obligation to refer patients to another provider for treatments they wouldn't offer themselves. A more recent study, published last week in the Journal of Medical Ethics, echoed the finding on referrals.
And abortion and contraception aren't the only medical services at issue. Physicians also may object to following directives from terminally ill patients to remove feeding tubes or ventilators, said Kathryn Tucker, director of legal affairs for Compassion & Choices, an advocacy group that backs physician-assisted suicide.
Entire story is here.
