Conscientious Objection
Conscientious Objection
Case Summery
Mr. Harry Rogers is a pharmacist working at a small community hospital for six years. He made a request concerning Conscientious Objection based on his new 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. However, his new beliefs are conflicting with his duties on the grounds of filling up abortion drugs as well as filling prescriptions for a physician that performs abortions.
Legal and Ethical Challenges
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, 2014). 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, 2013). The state, federal laws and the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics strongly emphasize that physicians have the right to refuse to provide treatment in a nonemergency setting, as long as other treatments are provided. However, other healthcare professions, including pharmacists, there is nothing to support for conscientious objection. 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 stated that a pharmacist’s right of conscientious objection must be reasonably accommodated (Grady, 2006). In recent years larger numbers of pharmacists have been independently choosing not to participate in patient drug therapies on the grounds of moral objection. These issues have led to legislations to accommodate both conscientious objectors and patients (Grady).
The patient is directly impacted by Mr. Harry Roger’s decision for several reasons. This action
Case Summery
Mr. Harry Rogers is a pharmacist working at a small community hospital for six years. He made a request concerning Conscientious Objection based on his new 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. However, his new beliefs are conflicting with his duties on the grounds of filling up abortion drugs as well as filling prescriptions for a physician that performs abortions.
Legal and Ethical Challenges
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, 2014). 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, 2013). The state, federal laws and the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics strongly emphasize that physicians have the right to refuse to provide treatment in a nonemergency setting, as long as other treatments are provided. However, other healthcare professions, including pharmacists, there is nothing to support for conscientious objection. 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 stated that a pharmacist’s right of conscientious objection must be reasonably accommodated (Grady, 2006). In recent years larger numbers of pharmacists have been independently choosing not to participate in patient drug therapies on the grounds of moral objection. These issues have led to legislations to accommodate both conscientious objectors and patients (Grady).
The patient is directly impacted by Mr. Harry Roger’s decision for several reasons. This action