Should Pharmacists Be Allowed to Conscientiously Object to Medicines Supply on the Basis of Their Personal Beliefs?

For decades, conscientious objection has been a topic of intense debate within the sphere of professional health care, including pharmacy. Like physicians, pharmacists are bound by the same ancient yet fundamental Hippocratic principle—dictum primum non nocere (“first do no harm”)—which at times may be juxtaposed with another important ethical principle, that of respecting patient autonomy (i.e., respect for patient dignity, self-determination, and privacy).1 The contention between these 2 major ethical principles creates what is known as an “ethical dilemma”, a situation where 2 correct principles pull in opposite directions. When a health care professional objects to the wishes of a patient to avoid causing “harm” (whether for personal, spiritual, or professional reasons), this is recognized as the professional exercising his or her right to “conscientious objection.”2 Conscientious objection may be apparent in, though is not limited to, complex situations such as abortion, contraception, and physician-assisted suicide