Introduction
Despite increasing pharmacy supply of emergency hormonal contraception (EHC), little research has explored community pharmacists' related ethical beliefs. Previous research found pharmacists' ethical reasoning not to be significant when EHC was deregulated but it may be argued that EHC supplies represent an opportunity for pharmacists to re-engage with ethical issues and promote discussion in an increasingly routinised professional environment. The present study attempts to elicit community pharmacists' ethical beliefs regarding EHC supply and to identify reasoning used and possible conflicts.

Method
As part of a larger study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-three purposively sampled community pharmacists from Yorkshire and the Midlands, to assess a range of ethical concerns including EHC. Interviews were recorded and analysed using a qualitative interpretative approach consisting of constant comparison and deviant case analysis.

Results
Most pharmacists interviewed expressed a view about the supply of EHC but pharmacists seldom raised EHC spontaneously in response to ethical concerns in their work. Most were in favour of selling but some only accepted supplies under patient group directives (PGD) or on prescription. Arguments advanced in support of supply included respecting the autonomy of the customer but consequence-based reasoning relating to the economic and personal burdens of raising an unwanted child were also raised. Consequence-based arguments for non-supply included pharmacists' concerns about increased promiscuity, especially amongst younger women. Rationale for non-supply also included the need to give customers a consistent response to EHC requests in a pharmacy that used different pharmacists or a religious belief that EHC was a form of abortion. However, other pharmacists argued that their religious beliefs should not influence their decision to supply. In relation to the pharmacy profession, EHC supply was supported by claims that it 'enhanced the profession' but conversely by the belief that pharmacists were 'pawns in a government game.' EHC supply appeared to be contingent for some pharmacists: if time and medical care were lacking, some argued, sales may be made despite opposing sales generally; or supplies could depend upon the locality and affluence of customers or that supplies on PGD or prescription were acceptable 'because the doctor's taking the responsibility.' All the community pharmacists interviewed were accepting of conscience clauses and respected other pharmacists' decisions although some questioned religious and moral non-supply or why sales and prescription supplies should be different.

Conclusions
The community pharmacists interviewed generally favoured EHC sales but non-supply generated greater ethical concern amongst the pharmacists interviewed. Despite causing ethical conflicts for some, EHC supplies appeared to represent a valuable opportunity for pharmacists to re-engage with ethical and moral issues and to consider and discuss attendant reasoning and beliefs. However, the study suggests that ethical reasoning relating to EHC and especially non-supply is complex and contingent and could be vitiated by customer age, predicament and affluence, as identified in previous research, and also by the form of the supply and the logistical availability of other health care supplies.