Without Conscience: A Critique of Pharmacist Refusal Clause Rhetoric

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/193267
Title:
Without Conscience: A Critique of Pharmacist Refusal Clause Rhetoric
Author:
Silleck, Jennette Lynn
Issue Date:
2008
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
The thesis analyzes the political and scientific rhetoric used to enact pharmacist refusal clauses. I examine how refusal clauses are rhetorically framed in politics as well as the "scientific" rhetoric advocates use to generate support for these laws. Additionally, I highlight the consequences these clauses have for women.Chapter one focuses on the political discourse of refusal clauses. I develop an analysis of the phrase "conscience" versus "refusal" clause. I expose how pharmacists and refusal clause advocates make discrimination claims using Cindy Patton as a theoretical framework. Finally, I examine "refusal narratives" from women who have been denied contraceptives by pharmacists. The second chapter analyzes "scientific" rhetorical strategies. Refusal clause advocates rhetorically reclassify contraceptives as an abortion method. I will discuss how this strategy of reclassification has wide implications on public policy. In the conclusion I present the negative consequences refusal clauses have on women.
Type:
text; Electronic Thesis
Keywords:
Refusal Clause; Conscience Clause; Pharmacist; Rhetoric
Degree Name:
MA
Degree Level:
masters
Degree Program:
Women's Studies; Graduate College
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Committee Chair:
Geary, Adam

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoENen_US
dc.titleWithout Conscience: A Critique of Pharmacist Refusal Clause Rhetoricen_US
dc.creatorSilleck, Jennette Lynnen_US
dc.contributor.authorSilleck, Jennette Lynnen_US
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe thesis analyzes the political and scientific rhetoric used to enact pharmacist refusal clauses. I examine how refusal clauses are rhetorically framed in politics as well as the "scientific" rhetoric advocates use to generate support for these laws. Additionally, I highlight the consequences these clauses have for women.Chapter one focuses on the political discourse of refusal clauses. I develop an analysis of the phrase "conscience" versus "refusal" clause. I expose how pharmacists and refusal clause advocates make discrimination claims using Cindy Patton as a theoretical framework. Finally, I examine "refusal narratives" from women who have been denied contraceptives by pharmacists. The second chapter analyzes "scientific" rhetorical strategies. Refusal clause advocates rhetorically reclassify contraceptives as an abortion method. I will discuss how this strategy of reclassification has wide implications on public policy. In the conclusion I present the negative consequences refusal clauses have on women.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeElectronic Thesisen_US
dc.subjectRefusal Clauseen_US
dc.subjectConscience Clauseen_US
dc.subjectPharmacisten_US
dc.subjectRhetoricen_US
thesis.degree.nameMAen_US
thesis.degree.levelmastersen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineWomen's Studiesen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.chairGeary, Adamen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberBriggs, Lauraen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberNye, Jenniferen_US
dc.identifier.proquest2744en_US
dc.identifier.oclc659749773en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.