It just so happens that I have an Uncle who is a pharmacist - been one for 30 years or so (he’s also a pilot, but it’s just a hobby). So I asked him about this last night. Now he’s a former Catholic who at one time considered joining the ministry. He’s active in his Methodist church and I’m pretty sure he votes conservative. At the very least, he and my Aunt live in a thoroughly red state.
And he told me that he’s never even considered the issue. Filling prescriptions is his job.
Not a scientific sampling or anything, but I didn’t see any posts from actual pharmacists.
Well, he’d have to indicate a dosage, yes. A prescription is invalid without one. I’m assuming that if assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, the doctor would be truthful about the dosage needed. Here, where it’s illegal, my grandfather’s doctor simply looked him steadily in the eye and told him what the death-causing dose of his morphine would be “so he didn’t take it by accident.”
As far as I know, when causing painless death, you’ve got barbituates and narcotics. Merlot may be nasty, but it doesn’t cause death.
And I know next to nothing about the laws in Oregon but I’m assuming the exact opposite; that in fact the doctor would indicate a dosage consistent with sleep deprivation. It is just an assumption on my part. The merlot was for washing down the pills.
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth_us1.htm
‘If they meet all of these requirements, then they could receive a prescription of a barbiturate that would be sufficient to cause death. Mercy killings by a family member or friend would not be allowed. Assisted suicides of the type performed by Dr. Jack Kevorkian would not be allowed. Physicians would be prohibited from inducing death by injection or carbon monoxide.’
In Oregon, there’s no need to conceal the fact that the prescription is lethal, since AS is legal.
When I drink merlot I get a migraine. Worse than death.
TonyF- so, the RPH should be punished for refusing to help a person kill him or herself? Not snarking here, but this would be economically pressuring a non military person to help kill someone else. I think that’s over the top.
Except that I explictly condemned the refusal to hand back the perscription, so while I agree your analogy is accurate concerning the events, it’s not accurate in expressing what actions I support. I agree that the Morality Air clerk is wrong to refuse to hand back the schedule.
Now, if Morality Air flies to Vegas, that suggests that the owners of Morality Air have no problem with trips to Vegas, and the clerk is taking it upon himself to decide these things… so if that’s true, we have:
Passenger: Let me speak to your manager.
Manager: May I help you?
Passenger: Yes, your clerk refuses to sell me a ticket to Las Vegas because gambling is a sin!
Manager: I’m terribly sorry. (To clerk) You’re fired. (To passenger) Now, what were those travel dates? I’ll be happy to set you up.
If Morality Air’s owners and management are in agreement that gambling is a sin (which is kinda what I was going for, what with them being named “Morality Air” and all), then we have:
Passenger: Let me speak to your manager.
Manager: May I help you?
Passenger: Yes, your clerk refuses to sell me a ticket to Las Vegas because gambling is a sin!
Manager: I’m terribly sorry. But gambling is a sin. We will not sell you a ticket. It’s corporate policy.
Passenger: You are the only airline flying out of Podunk and your airline flies to Vegas.
Manager: Yes, well, that’s too bad for you. I don’t know why we keep flying this empty plane into Vegas, but the fact of the matter is it’s our plane and we don’t wish to have gamblers as customers. So I suggest you visit the train station or get ready for a long drive.
Bricker, I see that the end of my last post was unclear, so I’ll rephrase the post.
As I said, this is nonsense when considered from an economic perspective.
The favored status I was referring to was the restriction on competition that pharmacist licensing provides. The law has created a series of hoops for people to jump through to become a pharmacist. This is a barrier to market entry. You claim that there should be no shortage of people willing to step in and serve, and at the same time you ignore the difficulties the current system has created for people who are willing to step in and serve.
This is a restriction on freedom which benefits current pharmacists. And yet, for those select people who manage to jump through the hoops, you claim that they should have the “freedom” to refuse to sell that which only they have the power to sell. This doesn’t make sense. So long as pharmacists enjoy their favored status (i.e. this licensing which restricts competition), they should be required to fulfill certain responsibilities, including the responsibility to sell to whoever has the authorization to buy their drugs.
By the way, for those still arguing about duct tape or trips to Vegas, I don’t believe those analogies are valid. The government does not regulate who may and who may not sell duct tape (or trips to Vegas, etc.). If anyone refuses to sell duct tape for whatever reason, that’s their choice. There is no requirement for anyone to go to hardware school and get licensed as a hardware seller in order to legally sell duct tape. Unlike the drug market, the hardware market is free and open to all.
Not a pharmacist here, but I’ve talked about this issue with the pharmacists at the pharmacy where I get my prescriptions filled. Every one of them condemned the withholding of a prescription based on the pharmacist’s religious objections as unprofessional and unethical.
Again, not quite. I personally think the RPH should be punished, as in, if I were his boss he’d get at least a lecture. But that’s just me. I personally think that you should do the job you were hired to do or get someone else to do it - or just quit.
I say his actions should leave him open to action. If the company decides to punish him - which I would prefer in this case but would not mandate - then I definitely agree that “but it’s my belief” is not sufficient to ward off the punishment.
My reason is simple: if “but it’s my belief” is to have some kind of weight, then an RPH can deny services to whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants and then cannot be punished for it. I say, let him do what he wants - but if he gets punished for it, well, that was his choice.
The reason I take this stance is because condoning an action based of belief like this can lead to all kinds of bizarre justifications. Like, “I don’t believe white people deserve medicine” - and the guy can’t be fired, because it’s his belief. Or “I’m not giving out AIDS medicine to this guy; he brought it on himself” or “No antibiotics for you; you’ve got a Bush/Cheney '04 sticker on your car.” Or whatever.
