Legal and Ethical Challenges

This is the case of a pharmacist working at a small community hospital who placed a request concerning Conscientious Objection based on his religious beliefs. One of the main functions of a pharmacist is to dispense medications. Harry Rogers chose to be a pharmacist prior to his religious conversion and now finds that his new beliefs are conflicting with his duties when it comes to abortion drugs. At the same time, he explicitly pointed out that he cannot fill prescriptions for a physician that performs abortions.
The statement can be perceived as discriminatory in nature and it can potentially develop into an organizational ethical dilemma that can affect direct patient care (Pozgar, 2010). Religious discrimination consists of “treating a person or group lower because of their religion, or treating someone differently because of what they do or don’t believe” (Pozgar, 2009).
The state, federal laws and the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics strongly emphasize that only doctors have the right to refuse to provide treatment in a nonemergency setting, this is as long as other treatments are provided. Notwithstanding, conscientious objection does not apply to other health care providers including pharmacists. However, according to Grady, a large group of pharmacists has refused to provide medications on the basis of conscientious objection. (Grady, 2006)
In October 2005, a resolution was passed by The American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated “that a pharmacist’s right of conscientious objection” (Grady, 2006) must be reasonably accommodated (Grady, 2006). Furthermore, “In recent years, several states have passed laws that shield physicians and other health care providers from adverse consequences for refusing to participate in medical services that would violate their consciences” (Curlin,