Jayran Mansouri
Recently, controversy arose in Griffith, New South Wales, Australia after Trevor Dal Broi, a local pharmacist, stated that he would refuse to dispense the contraceptive pill at his privately-owned business, East Griffith Pharmacy. He is only willing to dispense if for medical, not contraceptive reasons. This is because of religious reasons-he believes that contraception is against God’s will. This raises numerous ethical questions that I will attempt to explore-there are certainly no easy answers here. Does he have the right to impose his moral beliefs on his customers? As a licensed pharmacist bound by a code of ethics, does he have the right to choose what medications he will and will not dispense? Is he in breach of the code of ethics he is bound to? Whose moral code takes priority?
Does he have the right to impose his moral beliefs on his customers?
No. However, at the heart of this issue is a conflict between two moral beliefs. The first being Mr. Dal Broi’s belief that contraception is immoral and therefore he will not dispense it. The second being the customer’s belief that contraception is moral, and they have a right to it. No matter what the outcome, someone’s moral code will be overruled by the other’s.
If we agree that Mr. Dal Broi has no right to impose his beliefs on his customers, then must we also agree that no one has the right to impose their belief on him? I personally believe that Mr. Dal Broi’s stance is morally questionable. But do I have the right to impose my moral judgment on him?
Does he have the right to choose what medications he will and will not dispense?
Yes, is the short answer to that. Nowhere does it say that a pharmacist must fill every single prescription they receive. In theory, there is nothing stopping a customer from going to another pharmacist. However, Mr. Dal Broi’s pharmacy is not in a big city, it is one of only a few in a fairly remote area. For some people, going somewhere else might not be an option.
I do believe that Mr. Dal Broi has the right to decide not to stock a certain drug at his privately-owned business. It is a controversial decision, but one that is perfectly within his rights. A kosher butcher does not sell pork for religious reasons. A privately-owned business has every right to make business decisions based on religious principles.
Is he in breach of the code of ethics he is bound to?
The principle that calls this case into question is Principle Eight of the Code of Professional Conduct of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Principle Eight states that “a pharmacist must respect the client’s autonomy and dignity, and their right to make informed decisions relating to their treatment”. Mr. Dal Broi’s business is privately owned, but as a pharmacist he is legally required to abide by the code of ethics. Does Mr. Dal Broi’s policy negate the autonomy and dignity of his customers? One could argue that denying them the pill fits the bill.
But is he denying them the pill, or simply refusing to be the source of the pill? He is not, after all, trying to get the pill outlawed. His objection seems only to extend to his own private business.
Whose moral code takes priority?
At the center of this debate is a conflict of morals. Either the customer gets their way, and Mr. Dal Broi’s moral code is violated. Or Mr. Dal Broi gets his way, and the customer’s moral code is violated. Whatever the solution is, someone imposes their morals on another.
The contraceptive pill is perfectly legal in Australia. Mr. Dal Broi acts in accordance with his conscience by denying his customers a legal and safe drug. In short, Mr. Dal Broi’s moral code leads him to deny his customers their legal rights to access a method of contraception. And this is where it gets tricky. The customer wants something that they are legally entitled to. Mr. Dal Broi, if one looks at the code of ethics, wants to do something legally questionable. It is for this reason that I tentatively say that the customer’s moral code takes priority.
It doesn’t make sense to me…..
If one looks at the concepts underpinning this case, it is a very tricky ethical debate with no clear easy answers. Personally, I do not understand a moral objection to contraception. Mr. Dal Broi’s religion condemns abortion. In that case, it would be logical to support easier access to contraception. More contraception means less unwanted pregnancies, which means fewer abortions, which surely is a good thing? Otherwise, it seems like people like Mr. Dal Broi would want all sex to end in childbirth, an unrealistic, possibly sexist, expectation for today’s world.
I believe that Mr. Dal Broi’s policy is harmful, counter-productive and judgmental. However, it is also within his rights. He has the right to make his own business choices motivated by his own morals.
Editors note: For some more information about religion and sexual and reproductive health in the global context check out these links.
Religion and Contraception
www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/contraception
HIV/AIDS:
http://aids.about.com/od/spirituality/a/religion_2.htm
www.thebody.com/content/living/art52756.html
www.thebody.com/content/living/art48345.html
Islam and Reproductive Health:
www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2002/01/10/nr_gr0406.html
www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1413&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=121980
What about the use of natural contraception as an alternative to the pill or the use of condoms etc. Mr Broi is choosing not to supply oral contraceptives at his chemist however the people of Mr Brois community would still have access to condoms from the local supermarkets and natural contraception from family planning clinics etc. could these and other alternative methods be embraced by those wishing to use contraception.
Is it really being judgemental, what is judgemental about it? He is simply saying he does not believe in it personally therefore chooses not to sell isn’t that his prerogative. It happens that he is the only pharmacist in the community which blocks access to those wishing to use it but if there were another pharmacy it would not be an issue. Perhaps one day another one will open if as the town grows.
In the meantime could this be an opportunity for another source or distributor in his community to supply contraceptive pills so that they are still accessible but his moral code is not breached? or for scripts to be faxed to the next door towns pharmacist and couriered in bulk?