# Pharmacist's conscience and new Indiana abortion law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850 "2011-05-14T00:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/21 "2011-05-14T03:29:49Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > It’s been a while since I’ve taken a biology class, but is it demonstrably false that life begins at conception? I mean those little cells start dividing pretty quickly. Cells aren’t generally considered life. You probably “kill” several thousand cells each time you scratch your nose. https://www.youtube.com/embed/vWpvQa5-nUQ?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/22 "2011-05-14T03:57:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Emegency contraception is not an abortifacient. These phrmacists are just retards who don’t know what the drug does. The “conscience clause” laws don’t merely apply to emergency contraception, but to your run of the mill everyday birth control pill as well. As for “pharmacists should not have to dispense abortifacients” that’s great, because neither regular birth control pills or Plan B are abortifacients, and so no pharmacist was dispensing them in a commercial pharmacy to begin with. There’s a stunning hypocrisy in people suggesting that pharmacists should be able to make a personal decision, informed by their _morals_, about what drugs a customer should be able to take, which is what the root of those “conscience” refusals is, but doctors cannot make a personal decision, informed by their _medical knowledge_, about how to properly brief a patient and receive a truly informed consent before a procedure. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/23 "2011-05-14T04:05:13Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > The “conscience clause” laws don’t merely apply to emergency contraception, but to your run of the mill everyday birth control pill as well. That makes it even more stupid and malicious. ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/24 "2011-05-14T04:06:00Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > There’s a stunning hypocrisy in people suggesting that pharmacists should be able to make a personal decision, informed by their _morals_, about what drugs a customer should be able to take, which is what the root of those “conscience” refusals is, but doctors cannot make a personal decision, informed by their _medical knowledge_, about how to properly brief a patient and receive a truly informed consent before a procedure. I don’t get your comparison. A pharmacist is providing a service. They aren’t doing anything “to” you. You ideally just pay them for a service, leave, and self-administer. A doctor is doing something to you that would be a crime if you didn’t consent to it. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/25 "2011-05-14T04:09:18Z")
If the pharmacist owns the pharmacy he or she is working at I could see the legal (though not the ethical reason) the law should allow him or her to decide not to fill abortion related persciptions. A business owner should have a reasonable expectation of being able to make whatever decisions they want to make about their business. However, if the pharmist is an employee the situation changes. At that point the pharmacy owner is the one that should be making the decision of whether or not they want to keep the anti-abortion pharmacist on their payrole. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/26 "2011-05-14T04:32:13Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I concur with what seems to be the consensus here. The OP commits a fallacy of equivocation. The fetal description law is mandating how an action (in this case providing an abortion) must be done if one chooses to engage in it. The pharmacists refusing to give birth control are simply refusing to take part in a certain action. The two actions are not of the same type. I think you’re framing it the wrong way. I base my opposition to the “pharmacy conscience” laws on the fact that “becoming a licensed pharmacist” is the choice that matters, and by making that choice one accepts the professional duties that come along with it. > [@classyladyhp](#): > > So why not give the pharmacist the choice to do what he wants to do with his own body? Certainly the pharmacist can choose to not continue his career (or even acquire his pharmacy degree and license in the first place) at any time. However, it’s been clear for some time that the government and society have an interest in regulating the behavior of people who aspire to certain professional titles. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/27 "2011-05-14T05:38:26Z")
‘Pharmacist’ is a privileged profession. You can’t hang up a shingle and start selling pharmaceuticals. Nobody is forced to be a pharmacist. But people who need medications are forced to obtain them from a pharmacist. If the pharmacists moral values come in to play, he could refuse to fill a prescription based on anything. What if he believes arthritis is punishment from God for immoral behavior? Should he refuse to fill a prescription on that basis? There was another thread on this subject, and there are two important points to repeat from there: Most pharmacists work for someone else. Why should the government dictate the terms of an employee’s responsibility in this case? If you work for someone else, try going to work and refusing to do your job on moral grounds, then come back and tell us how it worked out. How is the government supposed to decide what moral grounds are? If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription, the government is your recourse, and then the government must mandate morality in order to resolve the matter. My conclusion: If you don’t want to fill prescriptions, don’t become a pharmacist. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/28 "2011-05-14T06:29:20Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Most pharmacists work for someone else. Why should the government dictate the terms of an employee’s responsibility in this case? If you work for someone else, try going to work and refusing to do your job on moral grounds, then come back and tell us how it worked out. I’m confused. Who is arguing that the government should dictate the terms of an employees responsibility in this case? While I certainly think it should be legal for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense certain medications, I don’t have any problems with said pharmacist being fired over it. > [@](#): > > How is the government supposed to decide what moral grounds are? If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription, the government is your recourse, and then the government must mandate morality in order to resolve the matter. I don’t really understand what you mean by this. You pose the problem of the government trying to decide what is moral and your solution to the problem is to have the government make the decision. It’s perplexing. > [@](#): > > My conclusion: If you don’t want to fill prescriptions, don’t become a pharmacist. My conclusion: If you the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription go see another pharmacist. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/29 "2011-05-14T06:43:47Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > If you work for someone else, try going to work and refusing to do your job on moral grounds, then come back and tell us how it worked out. Okay. When I was a security guard, I was asked if I had a problem working a gig at an abortion clinic; I did not. Another gig was holding striking workers back from buses of scabs. No one asked if I had a problem helping defeat the purpose of a labour union, but I said I wouldn’t do it and why, and no problems arose from that either. I think both of the laws under discussion in this thread are atrocious and they make me glad I’m not subject to them or my tax money is not going toward supporting them. > [@](#): > > My conclusion: If you don’t want to fill prescriptions, don’t become a pharmacist. Works for me. Both matters concern a patient and her doctor and are no one else’s business. At all. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/30 "2011-05-14T06:50:01Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > My conclusion: If you the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription go see another pharmacist. Which is fine if your city happens to have 3 CVSs 8 Walgreens and two Walmarts, but if you’re a frightened 16yo kid with no car living in Podunk IA and the next pharmacy is 100 miles down the road, then you’re SOL. ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/31 "2011-05-14T06:52:57Z")
If a pharmacist or doctor doesn’t want to do something, that is their right. If they don’t provide the service that the NHS requires, then the NHS does not have to do business with them. They are entirely free to try to make their living in the private sector. Few pharmacists will manage that. Sometimes, Big Government _is_ the solution. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/32 "2011-05-14T07:05:46Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > Which is fine if your city happens to have 3 CVSs 8 Walgreens and two Walmarts, but if you’re a frightened 16yo kid with no car living in Podunk IA and the next pharmacy is 100 miles down the road, then you’re SOL. You’re telling me this frightened 16 year old kid was able to see a doctor and get a prescription in this same Podunk, IA town but it’s suddenly the pharmacist that she has trouble with. Sorry, I’m having a hard time buying it. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/33 "2011-05-14T07:22:09Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I’m confused. Who is arguing that the government should dictate the terms of an employees responsibility in this case? While I certainly think it should be legal for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense certain medications, I don’t have any problems with said pharmacist being fired over it. Then it is meaningless. A pharmacist can already be fired for refusing to fill a prescription. > [@](#): > > I don’t really understand what you mean by this. You pose the problem of the government trying to decide what is moral and your solution to the problem is to have the government make the decision. It’s perplexing. I’m saying that the government shouldn’t address morality in the law. The government is also the arbiters of the laws they make, and if a law is based on morality, the government becomes the arbiter of morality as well. > [@](#): > > My conclusion: If you the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription go see another pharmacist. Others have mentioned that there isn’t always another pharmacist available. The government does not appoint pharmacists based on demand. The privilege is established by credentials that aren’t based on local needs. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/34 "2011-05-14T07:40:41Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > You’re telling me this frightened 16 year old kid was able to see a doctor and get a prescription in this same Podunk, IA town but it’s suddenly the pharmacist that she has trouble with. Sorry, I’m having a hard time buying it. A prescription gets phoned in for Plan B by the doctor without ever seeing the patient. There’s no point to seeing the patient as there’s nothing to be tested for that early on. I don’t know about Indiana, but in my state, Plan B is dispensed over the counter from the pharmacist, with no prescription, for anyone 17 and older. Sixteen and under requires a prescription (which will likely be phoned in). ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/35 "2011-05-14T13:26:46Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > A prescription gets phoned in for Plan B by the doctor without ever seeing the patient. There’s no point to seeing the patient as there’s nothing to be tested for that early on. Ignorance fought. Thanks a bunch! ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/36 "2011-05-14T13:39:25Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **classyladyhp** , if you’re quoting another poster, do not alter the text inside the quote boxes. It’s misleading and we don’t allow it on the SDMB. I’ve edited your post to take out the text you attributed to **Don’t Call Me Shirley**. My apologies to you Marley23. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/37 "2011-05-14T15:38:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The point - obviously - is that laws like this and the so-called “conscience” laws for pharmacists are nothing more than attempts to persecute women. An interesting opinion, but one that is not based on factual evidence. > [@](#): > > As soon as the subject of men being subject to the same persecution comes up, suddenly it’s “one of the stupidest things I’ve read”. Nope. It’s a complete _non sequitur_, and makes no logical sense. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/38 "2011-05-14T16:24:45Z")
> [@Amasia](#): > > I don’t get your comparison. A pharmacist is providing a service. They aren’t doing anything “to” you. You ideally just pay them for a service, leave, and self-administer. A doctor is doing something to you that would be a crime if you didn’t consent to it. The comparison is this: Indiana law demands action from doctors – a politicized “informed” consent that isn’t medically sound – and punishes them when they don’t comply even though compliance runs entirely counter to patient needs. Indiana law at the same time protects inaction from pharmacists and provides insulation from punishment for them when said inaction isn’t approved of by their employer and leaves patients’ medical needs unmet. In both cases, the legislature has chosen to politicize medical care, in both cases they’ve done so at the expense of women’s access to reproductive medicine. The hypocrisy comes here: we’re meant to see the _moral_ perspectives of pharmacists as sacrosanct and unassailable, but the _medical_ (and ethical) perspectives of doctors as questionable and needing political interference. That doctors are trained in medicine (and ethics) and pharmacists have no standard training in “morality” is of no concern. That doctors’ medical (and medical ethics) training and knowledge are specifically directed toward attaining the best possible outcome for patients and pharmacists’ moral training is not available for anyone’s review, let alone assessment of its perspective toward patient outcomes, is of no concern. There’s really no way to boil down the logic behind such laws except “if it makes it harder for women to do something we don’t like but can’t make outright illegal, we’re for it.” We can say that it’s not about women, it’s about other things, but the women are the ones who are affected, negatively, by the legislature thinking that they know more than doctors and patients what patients actually need. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/39 "2011-05-14T16:49:23Z")
Does anyone have a link to the actual law? I’m wondering if a doctor can say: “The IL state legislature has determined that human life begins at abortion, and I am required by law to inform you of that determination”. Then, if the patient asks the doctor what she thinks, she can say she does not agree with that determination. or just “no comment”. Or does the law require the doctor give the patient some state-approved pamphlet, and not necessarily say anything at all to the patient about the “human life” issue. It would be nice to see the actual law that we’re debating so arduously. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/40 "2011-05-14T17:47:04Z")
OK, I found the law (or at least the Senate version of the law). There is just one line that says a physician must tell the patient, orally, that “human physical life” begins at conception. I see no reason that the physician can say what I proposed, above, and both be in compliance with the law and not violate his or her own personal beliefs. That is not to say I think this is a good law. I think it is a terrible law. But it doesn’t make anyone do anything that violates his or her own belief system (other than the belief system that the state shouldn’t make you do “x”, and that’s not relevant). [Link.](http://media.courierpress.com/media/static/IN0457.1.pdf) Warning: PDF. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=3)