by Eric Walters
In August 2006, the FDA approved the sale of Plan B, the “morning after” pill at pharmacies across the country. Plan B hormone pills can be sold to women over the age of 18 without prescription as an emergency contraceptive to prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
This week the Cincinnati Post reported that 23 year-old Tashina Byrd complained to the Ohio governor’s office because Wal-Mart workers refused to sell her the contraceptive. According to the article, Brent Beams, the pharmacist, assumed the status of “conscientious objector” and denied Byrd's request for the contraceptive pills because he believes "in preserving life, and I do not believe in ending life, and life begins at conception.” Wal-Mart is currently investigating the incident.
Major pharmacy chains such as CVS, Rite-Aid and Walgreens carry Plan B in all their stores and have pledged to ensure that customers can buy it at each store even if a certain employee declines to sell the pill because of moral objections. CVS officials say that a pharmacist who refuses to sell Plan B must arrange for another employee to sell it, and the pharmacist must ensure that the customer "is served promptly and treated with respect." (kaisernetwork.org)
Some state legislatures are considering laws that would grant pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense drugs related to contraception or abortion. Still others consider laws that require pharmacies to fill any legal prescription for birth control, … which requires pharmacies that stock the morning-after pill to dispense it without delay. (New York Times, April 2005)
What can be an appropriate Christian response or action when religious liberties and civil liberties seem to conflict?
Should pro-life pharmacists impose their ethics or morality upon customers?
Does “conscientious objection” also apply to the sale of condoms, other forms of contraception, or any other product that may conflict with an employee’s moral convictions?
Eric Walters is Co-Founder of TheoSyst Group.
1 comment:
You raise a number of interesting questions. Conception seems to be the issue here, at least as it relates when birth control is acceptable and when it is not. With the morning after pill, it's quite possible that no conception has taken place. In this sense, it's no different from birth control pills or condoms. But what when conception has taken place? Is it the functional equivalent of abortion. And do employees indeed have the right to refuse to distribute the pill? They certainly have the right not to perform abortions. But the larger question is one I'm still ponder (and ever will, I suppose)... what of religion in all of this?
Post a Comment