A Stitch in Haste

I have blogged previously about the issue of pharmacists refusing to dispense the so-called "morning after pill" because the pharmaceutical could be viewed as an abortion-inducing agent.

Now what began as an intriguing hypothetical or isolated incident is gaining widespread political traction:

More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights.

About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and "morning-after" pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians.

Refusing to treat gays? Remind me again how these people are trying to claim the moral high ground?

In any case, my position is unchanged. While it is tempting to side with the notion that the "right to practice in according with one's politics conscience" outweighs the "right to receive treatment" (or even to assert that the latter isn't even a true "right"), I still submit that there is, as a matter of contract law if not of ethics, a "right not to be blindsided." Choosing a pharmacy, let alone a health care provider, is often a lengthy, cumbersome task that takes into consideration a variety of factors, including the expectation that one will not later be turned away based solely on somebody else's "principles."

If pharmacists and other health care personnel want the legally protected ability to pass judgment on people, then is it really too much to ask that such prerogative be disclosed at the commencement of the professional relationship? So, for instance, when a customer tries to fill a first-time prescription, he is warned in advance that future prescriptions are subject to "pharmacist's discretion"? Or a fertility clinic being required to disclose, in its advertising, that gays need not call for an appointment?

Other industries include "full disclosure" as part of their ethical buffet. My industry is now manic about it. So if the concern is truly about "defending consciences," then why not adopt the simple, straightforward balancing of these solemn concerns of both providers and patients?

UPDATE: Here's an example of the issue in Illinois, where Walgreens is requiring its pharmacists to sign a pledge that they will dispense morning-after pills. The pledge reflects a new state law requiring all pharmacists to dispense any pharmaceuticals they have in stock regardless of any moral reservations they may have. Four Walgreens pharmacists are suing to have the law declared illegal.