Conscientious Objection and Collaborative Practice: Conflicting or Complementary Initiatives?

Abstract

Two articles in this issue of the Journal relate to emergency contraception. Borrego et al. 1. Borrego M.E. Short J. House N. et al. New Mexico pharmacists' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward prescribing oral emergency contraception. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2006; 46: 33-43 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (36) Google Scholar report results of research to assess pharmacists' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward prescribing oral emergency contraception, and Monastersky and Landau 2. Monastersky N. Landau S.C. Future of emergency contraception lies in pharmacists' hands. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2006; 46: 84-88 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar provide their perspectives on pharmacists' efforts to expand consumer access to emergency contraception through collaborative practice agreements. Inherent in such discussions is the conscience clause issue, through which individual pharmacists can choose to opt out of participating in activities that conflict with their personal beliefs. As reflected in Tables 1 and 2, the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) supports both this conscience clause as well as expanded access to emergency contraception through collaborative practice agreements, and these positions have sparked questions about the apparent disconnect between the two concepts. The positions do not conflict, but rather are complementary. Table 1APhA Policy on Pharmacist Conscience Clausea Table 2APhA Policy on Emergency Contraceptiona Table 2APhA Policy on Emergency Contraceptiona