Rape victim denied emergency contraception based on religious beliefs of the doctor.

I don't like the sound of that. What you get there is a situation where someone who is licensed by the government to provide a specific community service (in this case doctors or pharmacists), can arbitrarily refuse to provide only certain parts of that service which is expected of them. And it is written in law that they can do this!I wonder what kind of precedent that could set. What other licensed community service professionals will be allowed to pick and choose what parts of that service to provide, based on their religious beliefs? And to what extent would different religious beliefs be taken seriously? For example, could we see a situation where a Scientologist pharmacist could refuse to dispense anti-depressant medication? Maybe an Islamic police officer could refuse to investigate a burglary or hold-up at a liquor store. Maybe a Hindu firefighter could refuse to take part in putting out a fire at a mosque. Maybe an atheist road worker could refuse to do road works that facilitate traffic access to a church.I don't really see any of these examples as being any different in principle than the original birth-control situation under discussion. I'm not a lawyer, but I know legal precedent does count for something. It seems to me that passing such laws is potentially opening a huge can of worms. My bottom line is that if you're not willing to do all aspects of the job then it's best you find another line of work.I could say that at least it's not happening here in Oz, but if something starts happening in the US it always seems to show up here after a couple of years or so. We'll cop it soon enough.

As Jazzns mentioned I’d say this is not quite as serious as doctors and pharmacists withholding their services. An inconvenience for sure, but hardly life-changing. That said, cabbies are part of the whole public transportation infrastructure and I don’t think religion is a reasonable basis to deny that service to people. Where people are drunk, abusive, potentially violent or whatever I think that it’s quite within a cabbies rights to decide whether to accept the fare or not, as their personal safety is at risk. A normal, sober person who happens to be carrying alcohol is not a reasonable safety risk in itself.And from your other message . I’ll bet there are a few lawyers out there that are greedily rubbing their hands together in anticipation of these situations. Some of those that are currently chasing ambulances might start hanging around outside pharmacies instead!Basically, a pharmacist is NOT a doctor and has no business acting against a doctor’s decision. A possible exception may be cases where specific pharmaceutical knowledge highlights issues, such as interactions between different medications, where a doctor may not be as up-to-date on the details as a pharmacist (and in such cases, I’d expect the pharmacist to be contacting the doctor and discussing it, not just refusing service).Say that a woman comes in with a prescription for emergency contraception. The pharmacist has no knowledge of the woman’s circumstances, for all he/she knows the woman may have a medical condition that makes it life-threatening for both her and the (potential) baby if she was to fall pregnant. Doctors know this stuff, pharmacists don’t. I think where a pharmacist goes against a doctor’s decision it’s a clear case of wrongful conduct whether or not it’s a wrongful birth issue. That’s my humble opinion anyway!

Yeah I think it has the potential to be a right bloody mess, causing much conflict, cost and litigation. That’s what it comes down to and not much I can add to that. You’re licensed to provide this service that the community depends on so either do it in its entirety, or if you’re not willing then move aside for someone who will.