Bills as Band-Aids: Hopes and Challenges of Expanding Pharmacists' Prescriptive Authority to Include Contraceptives.

This paper critically examines the implications of state efforts to expand prescriptive authority of pharmacists, which will allow them to prescribe various types of hormonal contraceptives. With this expansion, women no longer need to see a physician before being prescribed such contraceptives, but instead, they must answer self-assessment questionnaires at the pharmacy to ensure that their chosen method is safe and appropriate. This paper argues that while these measures to expand pharmacists' prescriptive authority will surely meet the stated goal to increase access to hormonal contraceptives, the measures may have detrimental consequences that have largely been downplayed. Studies consistently show that the OB-GYN is a significant primary care provider identified by young female patients, and some of the main reasons provided by these young women for going to the OB-GYN is to discuss, or obtain a prescription for, contraceptives. Through the expansion of pharmacists' prescriptive authority, a likely consequence is that some women will relinquish going to the OB-GYN. However, the OB-GYN provides important services beyond contraceptives, such as preventive screenings for hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, alcohol abuse, mental health, etc., and there is evidence supporting both the effectiveness and cost-benefits of these interventions. By increasing access to contraceptives, the likely result is that many women will have less interaction with a physician and will receive fewer preventive screenings. I do not wish to suggest that these bills should not pass, nor that OB-GYNs should hold contraceptives hostage, only that there are consequences to expanded prescriptive authority that must be anticipated. Further, expanding prescriptive authority obscures the real problem: some individuals have trouble accessing the health care system, not merely trouble accessing hormonal contraceptives. The expansion of prescriptive authority to include contraceptives applies a Band-Aid to treat one aspect of this problem. What is needed is not merely expanded access to hormonal contraceptives, but better access to health care in general.

On the Force-Feeding of Prisoners on Hunger Strike.

Roughly 80,000 U.S. prisoners are held in solitary confinement at any given time. A significant body of research shows that solitary confinement has severe, long-term effects, and the United Nations has condemned the practice of solitary confinement as torture. For years, prisoners have been organizing hunger strikes in order to protest solitary confinement. But such action is not without consequences, and some inmates have suffered serious injury or death. The question I raise in this paper is whether we ought to force-feed hunger striking prisoners when serious harm is imminent. Both the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association have denounced the practice of force-feeding prisoners on hunger strike, and yet, the practice is common. Such prevalence is likely a result of the tension between the person-as-patient and person-as-prisoner and cannot easily be resolved. Instead, we must take seriously the complaint that solitary confinement is inhumane and avoid placing health professionals in the position where they must choose to force-feed the prisoner against his will or not. I argue that a conventional bioethics debate centering on polarizing principles of prisoner autonomy and a duty-to-protect the prisoner from harm is an inadequate framework for this complex issue. Instead, we must examine the prisoner's intent and his right to freedom of speech. I argue that when the prisoner's intent is to raise awareness and communicate with others, his hunger strike is a form of speech. Protest-as-speech is constitutionally protected-even for prisoners-and remains a minimum ethical obligation for society to uphold.