If pharmacists don’t want to dispense certain drugs because of moral objections, they have options. They can work at a pharmacy that doesn’t stock the offending drugs. They can work at a pharmacy where it would be simple to pass the transaction along to a co-worker. They can start their own business or move to a state with laws more to their liking. They can change careers.

One unacceptable option is to force patients to go elsewhere because they spun the roulette wheel and it landed on a conscientious objector.

This controversy started when a few pharmacists objected to giving patients emergency contraceptives, which they believed were tantamount to aiding abortion. Women’s rights groups protested, noting that the longer the wait, the less effective the drug becomes. Emergency contraceptives generally don’t work after 72 hours.

The Washington State Pharmacy Board issued a ruling last week that it claims is a smart compromise. Pharmacists can forgo morally offensive transactions as long as patients are given “timely alternatives.” If that’s a compromise, then why is only one side pleased?

Fact is, this isn’t a compromise. In supporting the board’s “conscience clause,” the Washington State Pharmacy Association noted that it merely codifies what had been common practice around the state anyway. In other words, pharmacists surrender nothing. Plus, the rule is written so loosely that an obstructing pharmacist could probably just point to a phone book to satisfy the clause that calls for alternatives.

It is patients who will continue to be put out, especially those in rural areas who may have to embark on long journeys.

By calling the ruling a compromise, the board is glossing over the fact that it has chosen sides. The board needs to realize that it cannot protect patient rights while at the same time allowing pharmacists to inject their personal beliefs between a doctor and a patient.

The public isn’t going to stand for a decision that demeans and inconveniences patients because a few pharmacists are offended by legal drugs. The board’s decision will undoubtedly trigger action by the state Legislature, which will be less sympathetic to pharmacists.

State Sen. Karen Keiser, who chairs the Health Care Committee, has already said she will sponsor a bill that will overturn the ruling. After an initial overreaction, Gov. Chris Gregoire, who threatened to disband the Pharmacy Board, has agreed to a legislative solution.

It’s not too late for the Pharmacy Board to head that off. A final ruling is set for August. It would be better for everyone involved if it rescinded the conscience clause and issued a ruling that puts patients first.