Brushwood D B
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Clin Ther. 1993 Jan-Feb;15(1):204-12; discussion 168.
The legal right to assert a conscientious objection is reviewed, using as an example the dispensing of abortifacient drugs by pharmacists. The three areas of law that most significantly concern the right to assert a conscientious refusal are employment law, conscience clauses, and religious discrimination law. Each of these is reviewed, with descriptions of recent cases. It is concluded that employment law protects refusals that are consistent with public policy, but does not permit an employee's personal policy to determine how a business will be run; that conscience clauses appear to provide protection for pharmacists who object to dispensing abortifacients, but that the precise meanings of critical words and phrases in some clauses need to be defined; and that even though laws of religious discrimination require that employers accommodate religious beliefs, they may not protect a pharmacist who objects to dispensing abortifacients if the accommodation becomes unreasonably burdensome.
以药剂师配发堕胎药为例，对主张良心拒服权的合法权利进行了审视。与主张良心拒服权最密切相关的三个法律领域是劳动法、良心条款和宗教歧视法。对每一个领域都进行了审视，并介绍了近期的案例。得出的结论是，劳动法保护符合公共政策的拒服行为，但不允许员工的个人政策决定企业的运营方式；良心条款似乎为反对配发堕胎药的药剂师提供了保护，但某些条款中关键单词和短语的确切含义需要界定；尽管宗教歧视法要求雇主迁就宗教信仰，但如果迁就变得不合理地繁重，可能无法保护反对配发堕胎药的药剂师。
