Completely ridiculous to compare the MAP to tail docking, on any level, although it does demonstrate how little weight is given to women's health and reproductive autonomy.
You refuse to dock a tail? Outcome: a dog continues to have a tail.
You refuse to provide the MAP? Outcome: day by day, a woman's unwanted pregnancy progresses until, after 40 weeks of drastic and potentially fatal physical change, she is forced to give birth, which may damage or even kill her. Another human being now exists. Someone must assume financial and practical responsibility for them for at leas 16 years, including a multi-year formative stage where they require twenty-four-hour support for feeding and personal care.
So: no, not really like refusing tail-docking at all, even purely on a professional/regulatory point of view. The potential impact on at least one other human's life, on a huge scale and for a long duration, has to be factored in, not just glossed over as if all professional decisions are equal.
And I expect most MAP-refusing pharmacists would say, look, I'm not trying to affect this woman's life long-term: she'll get the MAP from someone, no harm done.
But then what outcome are they trying to achieve from their denial? It's impossible to reconcile the strength of the principle (women should not make their own reproductive decisions; conception trumps personal choice) to this half-assed 'oh, I know you'll do it anyway, just don't get me involved' attitude.
Do they secretly hope that the MAP won't be available anywhere and that the pregnancy will progress?
Or do they fully accept that this pregnancy will be prevented ,and just want to signal their disapproval (to the woman, to themselves, to the universe)?
If it's the former, they have no respect for women's choices or mental and physical health.
If it's the latter, they care more about virtue-signalling than the mental and physical health of their patients, an attitude which I consider incompatible with their status as a medical professional. The only defensible reason to deny legally permitted healthcare upon request is a) lack of confidence in your own competency to prescribe it properly, b) reasonable suspicion that it will be used for illegal purposes, c) awareness that the patient is in some way unsuited to this particular drug or procedure.
Refusing a request to provide legally-available healthcare when the lack of provision has severe and long-reaching consequences is not a morally neutral decision. The pharmacist isn't recusing him/herself from the issue of an unwanted pregnancy; they're further complicating it.