Neil Noesen Case Summary

In the 2002 Neil Noesen case, a woman in Wisconsin went to fill her prescription at a local K-Mart, only to be refused by the only pharmacist on duty at the time, Neil Noesen, because the aforementioned pharmacist was a strict Roman Catholic, and it would be against his principles to give someone contraceptives. In addition to this, he believed it would also be wrong to transfer the prescription so that it could be filled by someone else. The district manager knew Noesen would not dispense contraceptives, but was not aware that he wouldn’t at least transfer the prescription.
In this situation, the issue revolves around the woman’s right to have access to birth control, and Noesen’s right to exercise his religious freedom. Both rights are equally …show more content…
On one hand, the issue takes into account Noesen’s role as a professional in this case. Arguing that side, it can be said that Noesen has a professional duty to do what is asked of him and put his personal feelings aside when filling prescriptions. On the other hand, one could argue that Noesen should stand by what he feels is morally right no matter what, and it is well within his rights to stick by a religious belief. The district manager could be implicated in this issue as well, for allowing someone who they knew would act against a patient’s request to stay in the workforce, though to be fair, they didn’t know that Noesen would also refuse to transfer the prescriptions as well. Regardless, the issue is a matter of Noesen believing that his right to practice his religion and stick to his morals exempts him from having to oblige the woman’s right to obtain birth control. If I were Noesen in this situation, I would still fill the woman’s prescription. Regardless of how devoted I was to my religion, I think I would still be able to recognize that it is my