If the pharmacist is privately employed, by a private company, then his employer and he need to come to an agreement about what constitutes doing his job. If he can get his employer to agree that he doesn’t have to sell Plan B, then that is between the two of them. Fulfilling the needs or wants of the customer are, in this instance, a business decision that the law has no business dictating to anyone.
If the pharmacist is employed by the government, such as in a county hospital, I believe then he is subject to following the law regarding non-discrimination. If dispensing Plan B falls under this, then he would be obligated to sell it.
Well, sure…he can, but is it ethical? Anyone can choose to do anything they want to do. But we’re talking about the ethics behind it. Should a person’s morals be more important than ethics?
Re: the abortion. I don’t see how this would ever come into play. An abortion is performed by someone specializing in that field. If a person has trained in that field, he wouldn’t have a problem with it. If he’s not trained, he’d never be called upon to perform one. I don’t think it’s a good analogy.
However, if it was part of basic medical training to perform abortions and this was a standard thing that all doctors did (on a par with dispensing medication), I would say yes, he’d be ethically required to perform one or he should look for other work.
Don’t understand the question. A person’s morals define what he considers ethical, right?
There are doctors who formerly performed abortions who have decided, after a change of heart, to no longer do so for moral reasons. They are licensed, practicing physicians, qualified to perform a legal abortion. If someone requests one, can that doctor ethically refuse? That’s why it’s something of a practical analogy.
I think you’re splitting hairs. What makes something a “standard thing” in the first place? Are you under the impression that all pharmacies carry all items, or that the pharmacist is equally expert in all things? Or that there’s some kind of “pharmacist’s oath” or something? You seem to be saying that there’s some sort of universal “pharmacist definition,” the violation of which somehow destroys the natural order. “If you’re a pharmacist, how can you not dispense any medication anyone wants? How can that be?”
Pharmacists and doctors are both trained professionals who can decide which of the acts their profession permits they’ll take part in. Just like virtually anyone else.
That was partially the point I was making in bringing up cigarette clients in my field. If I don’t want to work with certain types of products, should I just give up on research altogether? I have to be open to any kind of product, no matter how immoral I consider the product or the company? Of course not…it’s a personal choice. If I can find a company that lets me avoid that product or company, then I guess I have a job in research. If I can’t find such a company, I guess I have to start my own, or find a new line of work.
Coincidentally, I am attending a get-together today with some folks from my last job…the host is one of the project directors who refused to work on cigarette research, and one of the guests is her former boss, who was the account manager on the cigarette account. I think I will ask them how they worked around it…they did so for the 5 years I worked with them, so they must have had something figured out.
Yup…I think you are just expressing yourself better than I am, so I am piggybacking off of your posts. Baby was kicking the hell out of me this morning since about 5:00 , and so I am lacking sleep!
Ethically, no. I believe morals are entirely internal. Yes, ethics are guided by it. That’s why you shouldn’t take a job you can’t perform ethically if your morals don’t allow you to.
A pharmacist is licensed to dispense medication as prescribed by a doctor. Unless there is a conflict between the prescription and the manufacturer’s information, he has no ethical right to disregard a doctor’s decision with regard to healthcare.
I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’m saying that the definition of the job is to assist a doctor in caring for his patients by dispensing medication as the doctor sees fit. If your morals don’t allow you to follow that basic concept, you shouldn’t be in that line of work.
Correct. But that doesn’t mean it’s always an ethical decision.
An independent pharmacist has a concession from the government. He is allowed to distribute controlled substances. If he has a problem following the rules that go with that concession, he should find another line of work.
What are the rules that go along with that concession? The rule that Plan B is legal? So is abortion. So…
An independent OB/Gyn has a concession from the government. He is allowed to perform surgery on patients. If he has a problem following the rules that go with that concession, he should find another line of work.
Except that the definition of OB/GYN is not “someone who performs abortions.” The definition of “Pharmacist” *is *“someone who dispenses medication prescribed by a doctor.” That’s what they do. If they don’t think the medication should be prescribed, they can ask the doctor, but it’s the doctor’s decision. In the end if the doctor says fill it, they fill it or they don’t call themselves pharmacists anymore.
For that matter, with a little planning ahead, you don’t need Plan B in the first place.
The definition of OB/Gyn is someone who is qualified to treat patients’ OB/Gyn needs, including surgery. The definition of Pharmacist is someone who is qualified to dispense medications prescribed by a doctor. Neither one’s job description necessarily includes ALL possible tasks involved in those job descriptions, as far as I can see.
Not necessarily, condoms break. Some people can’t or don’t want to be on long-term hormonal birth control.
Plan B or no Plan B, anyone who doesn’t have their birth control ready to go when they need it needs to take some responsibility for themselves. And if Plan B is your preferred fail-safe backup plan, then part of that responsibility is to have that handy, as well.
An abortionist is an ob/gyn, but an ob/gyn is not necessarily an abortionist. Again…it gets down to specialty. I don’t believe there is a distinction made amongst pharmacists; there aren’t specialties pertaining to what kind of drugs they dispense.
If you live in the sticks in the wrong area, you may not have that option if your pharmacist won’t dispense them.
Just not getting your point. What are “ethics” to you? Is there some universal, objective ethical framework, against which personal morals should not be compared? Not sure how that would work. “Ethical” and “moral” are equivalent to me. And to the dictionary, for that matter (bolding added):
eth·i·cal
pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.
(of drugs) sold only upon medical prescription.
Again, what is this ethical standard you keep referring to? Can you clarify? Do you mean it along the lines of #2 in the definition above? If so, can you cite where this is considered the commonly accepted definition of a pharmacist’s obligations?
No, that’s your definition. Who decided that’s the only acceptable definition for this profession? You’re making a narrow definition that you don’t apply to other professions such as doctors. I would agree that it is unethical / immoral for a pharmacist to surreptitiously substitute something he thought better than the doctor’s prescription. It would be immoral to provide a placebo. In both instances, I’d speculate that this is a violation of the honorable practices commonly held in this profession. Not so for someone who openly refuses to provide a particular prescription.
Baby was kicking the hell out of me this morning since about 5:00 , and so I am lacking sleep!