Grrrr...

Protest follows denial of morning-after pill

Okay guys, for the last time, the morning after pill does not cause abortion and should not be confused with RU-486 (Mifepristone), which does. It's simply a particularly strong version of birth control pill that helps delay ovulation. I can't imagine why a pharmacist (who should know the difference) would balk at filling a prescription for this drug. Granted, it is theoretically possible for the drug to prevent a fertilised embryo from implanting. So do birth control pills and other medications. Pregnancy is defined as happening after implantation, not from the moment of fertilisation. (For example, a woman going through in vitro is not pregnant, even with fertilised embryos insider her, until they implant and begin to grow.) I could see someone who takes the view of life from fertilisation as morally obligated to not contribute to a loss of life if this is his or her belief. But, one wonders whether there's any consistency here. Does the pharmacist fill contraceptive pills? If that's the case, then there's an obvious inconsistency, meaning that the refusal was irrational. If not, then why on earth would anyone work in an environment where one would be expected to dispense such drugs? There are other companies that do not, after all.

Concerns could have been aired early on so that this sort of confrontation could have been avoided. If an individual's morals are at issue, another worker if available could have dispensed the drug. If the pharmacy is owned by the pharmacist, then obviously there is an issue between the store/franchise and the parent company, which does dispense the medication. If the pharmacy is not pharmacist-owned, then one would think the proper thing would be to find a place to practise according to ones beliefs or set up one's own business.

This is an issue that is likely to come up in the field. They probably devote many seminars, just as I sit through teleconferences on confidentiality. Surely anyone in the profession has had to grapple with such ethical considerations. Which makes me wonder...was there any written policy? Any alert to customers that they could not reasonably expect this service? Refusing to fill a drug because of one's morals, regardless of the needs of the patient and the will of the prescribing doctor crosses into the realm of unprofessional behaviour. It should not be about the pharmacist; it should be about what is best for the patient, and in this case, the pharmacist's opinions did not support the best interest of the patient and were essentially 'playing God'. Boo.

PS It also annoys me that searching for info on the morning after pill sends you to official and scientific looking sites that purport to give you the scoop but are often woefully one-sided. Many women would be too embarrassed to ask for help say, from their local librarian. But a librarian can help find good, quality information from all sides of the argument. It's what we do. Just because I'm pro-choice (and incidentally, anti-abortion except in extraordinary circumstances--which is why I support contraception) doesn't mean I'd impose my beliefs onto a patron, anymore than I'd judge someone for making what is essentially a private choice. Pity that's not the case with all the information services out there.