On April 7, 2005, The Daily Illini took the position that the refusal of a pharmacist to fill a prescription for emergency contraception is similar to a soldier refusing to kill the enemy in combat. I agree that this analogy is apt, but disagree with The Daily Illini's conclusion. A pharmacist is legally obligated to dispense medication that is safe and effective and to do no harm to any "patients" for which they are responsible. A soldier's purpose is to defend the country within the bounds of international law.

Pursuant to the Report of the International Law Commission of the United Nations on the principles recognized by the Nuremburg Trials, a soldier has a legal responsibility to refuse any order that is manifestly immoral. Similarly, a pharmacist has both a legal right under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act and a professional obligation to refuse to perform any action that is manifestly detrimental to the health of patients in his or her care.

To suggest that a pharmacist refusing a prescription over ethical concerns constitutes a betrayal of his profession is like suggesting that a soldier is a traitor and unfit for military service for refusing an order to kill unarmed civilians. If a pharmacist is of the professional opinion that it would be ethically unacceptable to participate in the prevention of a pregnancy that would have otherwise occurred, then I can not see how it could legitimately be claimed that they must be required to act unethically.

While I disagree that preventing a pregnancy is morally reprehensible, I cannot in good conscience mandate that a professional abide by my set of moral principles. Society ought not to force pharmacists to choose between fulfilling their mandate to do no harm and to complying with state regulations.

Dan Parente

senior in engineering