The only other morally equivilent example (IMO) is that of Dr-assisted suicide.
I know that Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act specifically includes a passage that protects doctors and pharmacists who refuse to participate in Dr-assisted suicide:
I agree. But many pharmacists who think it’s ok to abduct someone’s prescription because it breaches their own moral doctrine are obviously far from this type of rational thought. Of course, the “pill” doesn’t abort. It merely prevents conception in the first place. If all pharmacists saw it this way, this thread and the OP’s link would not exist.
Again. If people think taking the pill is abortion. It is abortion…to them. Even if there is only an infitesimal chance. I don’t agree. A lot of people don’t agree. But that doesn’t mean others don’t think this way.
I’m with Dangerosa. There’s probably a higher chance that a prescription for Misoprostol to treat ulcers would cause an abortion than that BCPs would. If a person is so terribly worried about accidentally causing an embryo’s death, they probably shouldn’t be in the business of dispensing prescription medicines at all.
Oh, believe you me, I’d be doing that as well! I’d make a HUGE fucking scene and embarass the hell out of him.
Sadly, though, some women maybe too embarassed to do so themselves, and won’t make a fuss. I can’t imagine this is the first time this pharmacist has done something like this.
Which is fine, but if they have a problem ethically filling one of the most common perscriptions, they should find another line of work.
I worked, for a short time, for a company that designed and made nuclear torpedos. Having an issue with being part of the process that manufacturer torpedos, I worked there three days, then decided I had crossed my ethical line.
A person who has an ethical problem with violence in movies should probably not become a stuntman or special effects guy. A person who has problems with corporate profits may find that “stockbroker” is not a job he is comfortable with. I wouldn’t expect someone who finds stripping immoral to take a job bouncing (in either sense) at a strip bar. And a pharmacist who has trouble despensing birth control pills may be happier working for a drug company, or in a hospital pharmacy, where this isn’t an issue.
Yeah, pretty much. Or have an unwanted child, and support it with magical money that falls from the sky, as it does in Brickerworld. Or give it away, because foster and adoptive parents are never abusive in Brickerworld. Actually, if we all lived in Brickerworld, the market would run free and people could be as oppressive and homophobic as they wanted, as long as they were in the majority, and no one would have to do anything they didn’t want, no matter how it affected the lives of the people around them. Doesn’t that sound like fun?
Though I’m bang alongside anyone who wants to get BCPs for whatever reason, I don’t think it’s appropriate to force any retail establishment to carry a particular drug or medication. Naturally it would suck if you were living in a tiny town where the only pharmacist was run by people who refused to carry the medication you needed, but they should not be forced to do so regardless. IMHO, of course.
Besides, in a town that small someone’s going to be telling your mom what you’re buying. 
But the whole idea is absurd to me. Does this mean that a good Catholic cannot work at any grocery store, Wal-Mart, Target, gas station, or drug store? All those places sell condoms, after all.
Eggzackly! What the hell are these guys thinking? If you’re morally opposed to dispensing oral contraceptives because you believe it is a form of abortion and/or murder; maybe you shouldn’t pursue the only profession in the world that requires you to dispense oral contraceptives. Be a fucking auto mechanic.
But I also don’t think a moral belief should be a limiting factor for an aspiring pharmacist. If presented with a script you don’t want to fill, give it to another pharmacist. If you’re the only pharmacist, you need to find a job at which will never find yourself as the only pharmacist. But in all cases, don’t abduct the poor lady’s script. Keep your moral doctrines to yourself, moron.
Eggsellent point. The pharmacist who refuses to dispense BCPs must consider this: If he owns the establishment at which he refuses to dispense BCPs; he is costing himself money. Likely, if he owned the pharmacy, he wouldn’t carry BCPs in the first place. If he refuses to dispense BCPs at Wal-mart, K-mart, Target, CVS, Walgreen’s, etc., he is costing other people money.
Neither the independent pharmacist or the uber-chain is required to carry anything. The chain pharmacies will carry as much as possible because it’s all about the dollars. True, also, for most of the independents. But a person cannot force a pharmacy to carry BCPs because it’s the only pharmacy to which he/she has access. They will have to find alternatives; i.e. web pharmacies or mail order.
I’m wondering what impact it would have on your analogy, if I were to point out that the carpenter and the painter aren’t federally subsidized? The pharmacist, by taking Medicare dollars, is being partially funded by public money. In theory, shouldn’t this mean that the pharmacist has to perform his duties that are in the public interest?
Also, at what point in time does a pharmacist who’s making decisions about whether or not to give a woman medication that her doctor wants her to take, without knowing why the doctor wants the woman to take the medication, moves from “free to refuse business” to “practicing medicine without a license”?
-lv
Is there any cite, BTW, that a pharmacist not transfering a prescription, or not returning it, is “theft” - or a crime of any sort? There’s no tangible product to steal - a prescription is an order from a doctor, after all, which can be re-ordered by a simple phone call. Most of my last few prescriptions haven’t even been written down on anything, just called in.
I asked for my prescription back on something non-controversial a while ago (insulin) and was told it was “not legal” for them to give it back to me once it had been entered into their system, that it could only be transfered by them, or destroyed. Of course they offered no cite when I asked for proof of this…
Don’t think I support the pharmacist in the OP for refusing to transfer or return the prescription at all, but I’m wondering if anyone claiming theft or criminal actions has any sort of cite? I can’t find one for my State, at least.
I would suggest the woman document that the pharmacist neither filled nor returned her prescription, Then come back in a month and calmly explain that as a result of his actions, she is now pregnant; He can either pay for an abortion or agree to adopt or pay child support.
Or if he refused to fill someone’s heart medication because he believes that the power of prayer should cure you (or however one is supposed to get well when one is a Christian Scientist).
Then I would say made a strange choice of professions.
The general proposition is that anyone has the right to refuse work. There are certainly exceptions in emergency situations, but that’s the starting point.
Sure, but what about the business of rather being right and just?
Certainly I agree that the law does not recognize unborn children as people. But they are.
So which is it? Follow the law, or follow my personal beliefs?
No! You can post your address and phone number here. Then the poor women so situated can call you, and you can send them plane fare so they can get to a big city. Since you believe that such women have the moral right to demand and receive services from anyone they please, and all.
Sounds like freedom.
No. Medicare is not subsidizing the pharmacist. It is refunding him on behalf of the woman. He’s not getting a benefit from the government. He is selling medicine which the government is buying for the woman.
At no point, unless he suggests there is a medical reason for hsi decision rather than a business or personal one.