"As a sociologist of law and medicine, I've spent the past 20 years studying how pharmacists grapple with tensions between their personal beliefs and employers' demands. Framing the problem as a tension between religious freedom and patients' rights is only one approach. Debates about pharmacists' discretion over what they dispense also raise bigger questions about professional rights - and responsibilities."
"Their refusal stemmed from a belief that it caused an abortion. That is inaccurate, according to medical authorities. When Plan B first became available in 1999, the label said the medication might work by expelling an egg that had already been fertilized. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration relabeled Plan B to say that it acts before fertilization. From a medical perspective, both mechanisms are contraception, not abortion."
Two pharmacists sued Walgreens and the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy after being punished for refusing to dispense gender-affirming medications on religious grounds; one had hours reduced and the other was fired. Walgreens reportedly denied requests for formal religious accommodation, citing state law. The dispute raises tensions between religious freedom and patients' rights while also foregrounding broader questions about pharmacists' professional discretion, duties, and responsibilities. Historical controversies over contraception, especially Plan B, illustrate similar clashes and persistent misunderstandings about mechanisms of action and regulatory labeling.
Read at The Conversation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]