Harm or Mere Inconvenience? Denying Women Emergency Contraception

Hypatia 25 (1):11-30 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper addresses the likely impact on women of being denied emergency contraception (EC) by pharmacists who conscientiously refuse to provide it. A common view—defended by Elizabeth Fenton and Loren Lomasky, among others—is that these refusals inconvenience rather than harm women so long as the women can easily get EC somewhere else nearby. I argue from a feminist perspective that the refusals harm women even when they can easily get EC somewhere else nearby.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Conscientious Refusals by Hospitals and Emergency Contraception.Mark R. Wicclair - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (1):130-138.
Conscientious objection and emergency contraception.Robert F. Card - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (6):8 – 14.
Emergency Contraception and Conscientious Objection.J. Paul Kelleher - 2010 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (3):290-304.
Conscientious Objection, Emergency Contraception, and Public Policy.Robert F. Card - 2011 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (1):53-68.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-08

Downloads
666 (#38,909)

6 months
92 (#68,251)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Carolyn McLeod
University of Western Ontario

Citations of this work

Conscientious Objection by Health Care Professionals.Gry Wester - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (7):427-437.
Does Reproductive Justice Demand Insurance Coverage for IVF? Reflections on the Work of Anne Donchin.Carolyn McLeod - 2017 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 10 (2):133-143.
Parenthood and Procreation.Tim Bayne & Avery Kolers - forthcoming - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations