The Spirit of the ’70s

This chapter explores how in the 1970s, freedom of therapeutic choice advocacy, previously the domain of right-wing extremists, became bipartisan and mainstream. It examines how various cultural trends contributed to this trend, including a loss of trust in orthodox medicine, government, and other establishment institutions; a “rights revolution” (including the rise of patients’ rights); and the emergence of the women’s health movement. The chapter shows how Americans’ use of alternative remedies surged during this period and discusses in detail two 1970s social movements in favor of alternative treatments: a successful rebellion against the FDA’s attempt to regulate vitamin and mineral supplements more stringently and a campaign to resist the FDA’s ban on Laetrile, an alternative cancer treatment derived from apricot pits. The chapter also describes how American courts briefly seemed prepared to elaborate the holding of Roe v. Wade into a generalized right to freedom of therapeutic choice.

Conscientious Objection: A Review of State Pharmacy Laws and Regulations

Most states have adopted conscience clauses since the Roe v. Wade paradigm in the 1970s; however, not all clauses are respective to pharmacists. The purpose of this report is to quantify the presence of conscientious objection among US states with respect to pharmacist’s right to refuse to dispense. Fifty Boards of Pharmacy administrative codes were consulted for review. If Web sites were ambiguous or undeterminable, E-mail requests were sent on active legislation per National Association of Boards of Pharmacy contact information. Eleven states have conscience clauses present in their pharmacy administrative code—nearly double than last published in 2006. Requirements vary throughout the states including drug-specific limitations, requirement in writing, or notification in advance. Some states alternatively require duty to dispense. Less than one-fourth of United States boards of pharmacy provide a conscience clause or similar intended language in laws or policies. Within those states, pharmacists have a right to refuse to perform certain services based on religious, ethical, or moral objections. Imprecise language throughout the nation allows the rights to vary widely.

Dirty Work and Intimacy: Creating an Abortion Worker

Abortion work has changed in the decades since Roe v. Wade, and concerns over efficiency and cost reduction have resulted in increased specialization and compartmentalization of duties among health workers. This study examines the current state of surgical abortion at a clinic in southern California. Drawing on 18 months of ethnographic fieldwork at an abortion clinic, I use theories of dirty work and intimate work to examine how abortion work is organized and allocated among staff. I find that work in the clinic is best understood as existing on two intersecting spectrums of intimacy and dirtiness. Whereas existing research on abortion workers has primarily focused on doctors and nurses, this study includes medical assistants and compares experiences across different occupations. I conclude that frequency, intensity, and purpose of intimate work and dirty work coalesce to create distinct types of abortion workers.

Using a Hypothetical Case to Teach about Supreme Court Decision Making

This article presents a hypothetical set of facts that can be used as a device to analyze the workings of the Supreme Court, and the theories of judicial restraint, judicial activism and originalism. It also offers students an opportunity to analogize the facts of this case with Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court decisions.

Conscientious Objection, Not Refusal: The Power of a Word

Conscientious objection (CO) in medicine grew out of the need to protect healthcare providers who objected to performing abortions after the Roe v. Wade decision in the 1970s which has since over time expanded to include sterilization, contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, and end-of-life issues. Since 2006, there has been a growing amount of published literature arguing for the denial of CO. Over the last three years, there has also been an increase in calling this conscientious refusal. This article will argue that the term conscientious objection is more accurate than conscientious refusal because those who object are not refusing to provide care. CO also emphasizes that there are reasoned arguments behind one’s decision not to perform certain actions because of one’s own principles and values. Summary How something is presented matters. Objection emphasizes the thought behind the action while refusal gives the impression that medical care is not given.