Unlimited Attempts Allowed 4/5/2023 Details Assessment Purpose and Description: In your future healthcare career, you will be faced with making difficult decisions that are based on your understanding of medical law and ethics. It is imperative that you follow all laws and act ethically in all actions and decisions. Case studies provide you with opportunities to practice making ethical decisions and adhering to laws. Assessment Weight: This assignment is part of the Chapter Exercises category, which is worth 5% of your total course grade. Directions: Follow the steps below to complete this assignment: 1. View Case Study 2: Conscientious Clause in Providing Contraceptives. This case study can a hussiancollege.instructure.com Conscientious Clause in Providing Contraceptives On July 6, 2002, a University of Wisconsin-Stout student went to the Kmart in Menomonie, Wisconsin, to fill her prescription for birth control pills. The only pharmacist on duty, Neil Noesen, asked if she intended to use the prescription for contraception. When she replied "yes," Noesen, a Catholic, refused to fill the prescription, explaining that to do so would be against his religious beliefs. He also refused to transfer the prescription or tell her how or where she could get the prescription filled because in his view it would constitute participating in wrongful behavior. Before employment at Kmart, Noesen had informed the district manager that he would not dispense contraceptives; however, he did not mention that he would refuse to refer or to transfer prescriptions. The woman filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing's Pharmacy Examining Board. The administrative law judge who heard the complaint found that the ordinary standard of care "requires that a pharmacist who exercises a conscientious objection to dispensing of a prescription must ensure that there is an alternative mechanism for i hussiancollege.instructure.com pharmacist who exercises a conscientious objection to dispensing of a prescription must ensure that there is an alternative mechanism for the patient to receive his or her medication, including informing the patient of their options to obtain their prescription." Furthermore, he found that Noesen's conduct constituted "a danger to the health, welfare, or safety of a patient and was practiced in a manner that substantially departs from the standard of care ordinarily exercised by a pharmacist and which harmed or could have harmed a patient." His ruling also limited Noesen's license, requiring him to notify any pharmacy where he worked of any practices he would refuse to perform and how he would ensure patient access to prescriptions that he declined to fill. Noesen appealed, but the judge's decision was upheld. 1. Did Noesen have the right to refuse based on the conscientious clause and his religious freedom? 2. Would Noesen's actions be considered discriminatory? How so? 3. Does Noesen's employer, Kmart, have any liability in this case? View Rubric
