Berlin pharmacist gives up a career: argument about the pill afterwards!

Berlin pharmacist gives up a career: argument about the pill afterwards!

The Berlin pharmacist Andreas Kersten returned his license to practice in May 2025 after a judgment by the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg forced him to "Pill after" to this drastic decision. Kersten stated that he cannot bring the sale of the emergency contraceptive into harmony with his professional ethics for reasons of conscience, since he is convinced that the means could possibly end a human life. The court came to the conclusion that the "pill afterwards" was a legally approved medicine and pharmacist has no "test law" regarding their delivery.

This decision has far -reaching consequences for individual freedom of conscience and contrasts them to the obligation to supply drugs. Pharmacists who refuse to submit certain preparations for certain reasons are forced to give up their profession. In the case of Kersten, the conflict had already started in 2018 when the Berlin Chamber of Pharmacists initiated a professional law procedure against him after refusing to have or sell the "Pill after". Although he was acquitted of the allegation of the violation of the professional obligation in June 2024, the reason for the judgment remained problematic for him.

conflict about freedom of conscience

The development of this case illuminates a legal strand in the pharmacy obligation, which is repeatedly questioned by the Berlin Chamber of Pharmacists. In a process that connects to Kersten, another pharmacist appeared, who several times refused to submit the "pill afterwards", even with a prescription and in emergency service. This led to complaints from customers and a process of the chamber. The pharmacist had provided women with notes that contained religious and ideological content, which violated data protection regulations.

The professional court for health care profession found that the pharmacist had become guilty due to his refusal of a career offense, since he had not ensured the legally required pharmaceutical supply in accordance with the Pharmacy Act (APOG). The judges pointed out that, despite its controversial nature, the pill then falls under the obligation to supply drugs, even if it is not explicitly mentioned in the provisions.

criticism of the reasoning

statements by ADF International, which Kersten legally accompanied, sharply criticize the verdict. Felix Böllmann from the organization accused the court of violating the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court and international law. He described the court's press release as inadequate and an questioning of freedom of conscience from pharmacists. This organization made it clear that nobody should be forced to act against his conscience, especially in vital decisions.

The Kersten case is not only an isolated case, but is in the context of a broader discussion about the freedom of conscience in the healthcare system. In many European democracies, freedom of conscience is constitutionally protected. However, in professional practice, the question of to what extent pharmacists can assert their remaining conscience without not doing justice to their professional obligations. Proponents of a legal anchoring of conscience reserve the need to protect pharmacists from coercion.

Finally, this case impressively shows how complex the balance between medical professional duties and personal beliefs in the healthcare system is. The discussion and legal disputes about the freedom of conscience of the pharmacists will continue to gain explosive in the future.