Therefore, the state could require pharmacists to register when they have moral and ethical objections to dispensing certain medications. The state could then require employers to employ two pharmacists, who did not share the same moral and ethical objections. Because that option might place an undue physical burden on small pharmacies, the state could require pharmacies that employ such pharmacists to provide patients with locations of pharmacies that will fill their prescriptions. In the alternative, the state could notify physicians of pharmacists that refuse to fill certain prescriptions. Of course, even in the absence of laws, there will continue to be controversy on the issue. A pharmacy that wishes to respect the rights of its pharmacist and the rights of its patients could place a written notification on the outside of the store indicating that the pharmacist will not fill prescriptions for certain medications and providing information about pharmacies that will fill those prescriptions. In addition, if a pharmacy employs multiple pharmacists, it could make sure that they do not share moral or ethical objections and they could require the objecting pharmacist to inform the patient of the pharmacists' moral objections, but require the pharmacist to offer the patient the option of having the other pharmacist fill the prescription. A final possible resolution of the issue would be to encourage doctors to dispense possibly controversial medication, like birth control pills, which would guarantee patients in small markets access to their medication while still respecting the pharmacists' rights.

             Section 3.

             The two most obvious stakeholders in the controversy are patients and pharmacists. Patients obviously want to have the right to have their prescriptions filled at the pharmacies they choose. Pharmacists, on the other hand, want to have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions that they find morally offensive.