The women in question and her doctor did, and those are the two people who should make that choice, not you and her pharmacist.
Also, are you sure? I can understand if you’re against the morning after pill on ethical grounds, but there’s little debate that being pregnant is a serious health issue and that the pill is a good way to regulate it. Thinking that the pill is wrong on ethical grounds is different then thinking its not essential for regulating a certain aspect of someones health, which makes a needed medication.
Then my example isn’t very good either. But hopefully it illustrates what I was aiming at enough to make my point. If the pharmacist had the same views to people of different value sets there wouldn’t even be a thread.
And what if the pharmacist is a Christian Scientist and pretty much feels that most medicines are no-go? Wouldn’t you be just pleased as punch if **you ** went to your local pharmacy for antibiotics for **your ** kid who has pneumonia and he just tells you to move on. I’d want to strangle him.
Get off it, businesses are indeed in existance for the benefit of the customer. Without them there is NO benefit to the owner.
I find it interesting that no one has addressed this, so I will. I realize the story occurred in the UK, but . . .
If this happened in America (aha!), the pharmacist would have his license revoked. I believe that he has a legal responsibility to sell whatever the drug is to whoever is qualified to receive it, his religious beliefs notwithstanding. He can’t arbitrarily refuse to sell the drugs to someone. I think the example of the cashier refusing to ring up purchases for a Jewish customer is an apt one.
For example, barbers are licensed (at least in NY they are). A barber couldn’t discriminate in providing service to someone. The barber would lose his license.
The same goes for a pharmacist. Forget about losing his job; that would be the least of his troubles.
It will be interesting to see what happens when RU-486 finally does reach the shelves here in America. Will Walmart (a huge conglomerate that has “conservative” values) refuse to stock it? Since I don’t have a Walmart near me (I’m in NYC), does anyone know if they stock birth control pills or condoms?
I thought one side of the abortion debate wanted to be described as “pro-choice”. As in, “if you don’t approve of abortion, don’t have one.”
Fine. This pharmacist doesn’t approve of abortion, and chose not to participate in providing one. And all of a sudden his “right to choose” is being questioned.
Why is this “very private, personal decision involving the woman and her doctor, and no one else” so often seem to rachet only one way?
Flawed analogy. The cashier can’t refuse to ring up a purchase because the purchaser is Jewish, but the store owner can refuse to carry any item they wish.
Another flawed analogy. The barber may not discriminate against Jewish people, for example, but he can state “I don’t cut Mohawks” and discriminate on that basis.
Just because a person provides a service or good doesn’t mean that they have to provide every form of that service or good.
My understanding is that, unlike the morning after pill, RU-486 is not something you could stick on the shelf. It needs to be taken in tandem with a doctors supervison, as without follow up it can lead to infections and other nasty side effects.
But in general Wal-Mart does sell condoms and BC. It should be noted that other then Catholisism, most religions don’t really have a problem with these items (and most Catholics in the US are OK with them as well). The morning after pill, on the other hand, has come against resistence recently in the US, with the FDA blocking it being approved for over-the-shelf sale despite the fact that their advisory panels said it was safe to do so. I don’t know if Wal-Mart pharmacies carry it.
But again, the pharmacy did carry the product. The pharamcist on duty just didn’t want to give it out. And he didn’t own the store.
In most cases I agree, but when it comes to essential goods and services, the gov’t has an interest in making sure they are available to people who want them. If the pharmacist had refused the women insulin because he disapporved of how it was made (don’t they take it out of bioengineered pigs or something), we wouldn’t be having a debate.
Again, what really amazes me is that the pharmacy allows this. Who is going to a pharmacy where the goods you can buy depends on who happens to be working that day.
It’s a business, the pharmacy is. There is no precluded right for them to do business with any particular person and/or with any particular drug manufacturer.
It is also the option of the owner of said pharmacy to employ such a pharmacist who holds such values and to determine if the pharmacist is a detriment to the business. I also don’t believe that they can make a pharmacist dispense drugs they have a moral opposition to. They can, however, hire someone else.
I would like to see a site where it says a pharmacist can loose their liscense for doing such a thing.
Why would a christian scientist be working at a pharmacy? You don’t see many anti-death penalty people working executions, so I can’t imagine someone who had a moral issue with medication is much more likely to work with it.
Sorry to disagree. This situation is akin to a policeman who decides he will not arrest a crack-smoker because he feels drugs should be legal.
Pharmacists are there to provide legally prescribed medicines. They are not there to make moral judgements. It’s their job. They chose to be in that profession. Just like the policeman.
While I agree with you that the pharmacists should not be required to provide an abortion, the morning after pill is not an abortion. An abortion is the killing of a fetus (which has usually implanted in the uterine wall and is receiving nourishment from the mother). The morning after pill triggers a sloughing of the endometrium, which simply means that you start your period.
At any rate, sperm can take as long as three days to swim to an unfertilized egg (IIRC), so taking it within the 72-hour window is only killing sperm and ovum, no different than what a condom, hormonal birth control, or your own body does.
The smart thing to do, if condoms are your only method of BC, is to keep a dose of planB on hand for emergencies. Public Health will give it to you if your Dr won’t.
Sorry, but I can’t buy that analogy either. Our society (or the UK) has not decided that smoking crack is a personal decision that everyone has to make for herself. It would be more like someone deciding whether or not to give liquor to a known alcoholic.
The “I was only following orders” defence was found to be invalid, IIRC. Everyone has both the right and the duty to exercise their moral judgements about their jobs.
How about an analogy back at you? Would you agree with the following:
Of course, one other solution is to get rid of the ridiculous laws that don’t allow businesses to stay open all night.
But, if that’s not viable, then I see no problem with taking that pharmacy off the rotation list for late night openning and allowing another one to take it’s spot. Then the pharmacy can decide if the loss of business is worth it.
Not only that, but putting the condom on properly helps too. You have to leave some room at the tip, sans any air pockets. The semen has to go somewhere, and if you don’t leave any room, it’s gonna go out.
It’s not that time-sensitive. There is a 72-hour window, so except in the rare case of a three-day holiday*, she can always find some other pharmacy that actually wants her business next day.
*Which actually happened to me, on a Labor Day weekend. It was hella embarassing trying to find an open clinic that took urgent patients. I finally went to an Urgent Care center, where I was charged $54 for an $18 Rx. Grr.