No, sorry. If it is prescribed, a pharmacy should be required to fill it. A pharmacy should then be able to decide whether every employee is allowed to fill it, or if an employee may personally refuse to fill it so long as someone working there does fill it. Allowing them to pick and choose will set a dangerous precedent in health care. Also, even small delays hurts the effectiveness of the morning after pill. And in many rural areas there may only be one pharmacy nearby, putting everyone there at the mercy of that single pharmacy.
This argument is the correct one to focus on. If a person lives in a city and runs into a bizarroland Walgreens that wont stock EC, they can walk a few blocks to a CVS or RiteAid or SavOn or whatever. If you live in a really small town or even *gasp* on a farm, your options are not nearly so extensive. Should a person be expected to travel a long distance from their home in order to follow their doctor's orders? No, a person should be able to easily follow doctor's orders.
Think about that, your prescription is an essential part of your doctor's orders. For a pharmacist to put themselves between a patient and their doctor's care is unconscionable. How would you feel if someone stood in your way for medicine your doctor ordered you to take? Perhaps the patient is being prescribed EC due to cancer treatments that would make pregnancy dangerous and cruel to any possible offspring. Thalidomide, for instance, is a cancer treatment that results in terrible birth defects and a LOT of miscarriages. A doctor might, for instance, insist that a young cancer patient take birth control pills and keep a store of EC, just in case, to prevent any chance of pregnancy.
Should a morally domineering pharmacist place themselves before the doctor and paternalistically deny a patient care that a doctor has ordered? No. A doctor knows better than a pharmacist and should be deferred to. For instance: an oncologist decides that a patient's advanced cancer requires experimental treatment and comes up with a perhaps life saving combination of cancer drugs. A pharmacist, checking their database, sees that those drugs can have dangerous, unpredictable side-effects. Once the pharmacist checks with the doctor to make sure there was not a simple typo that accounts for the oddity, the phamacist should defer to the doctor's assesment of potential risks and benefits. Why? Because the doctor is a doctor of medicine and the pharmacist is not. It is that simple.
The medical system is built on one fundamental unit: the doctor. Everything else, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, drug manufacturers, pharmacies, all of them exist to allow a doctor's knowledge and expertise to be put to optimal use to save people's lives. The second we forget that is the second that people who DO NOT KNOW what they are doing take charge over life and death decisions. In short, pharmacists must get out of their profession if they are unwilling to do their job.
