bolding mine
I’m highlighting this point, because I feel it may have been skimmed over. Pharmacists are in the medical profession, they aren’t “just” shopkeepers, and to put forth that they are is incorrect. This is why I feel that the Licensing board does have a lawful, ethical say in compelling medications to be dispensed if they are legally prescribed.
Fear Itself beat me to this.
Assisting her consists of handing over her prescribed pills - not butting into the purpose of those pills.
I agree that this would pretty much make this a non-issue. But then we’d be revisiting this debate later, when a pharmacist decides they don’t want to hand over Prescription X, because it makes them feel icky.
This only further exemplifies why I think this is a ridiculous problem.
Then they should probably have gone on to become a family physician or something, where they could avoid writing these prescriptions. Their job isn’t to decide whether or not a patient receives a medication. Their job is just to hand it over.
As someone else mentioned earlier, this would depend on the state laws governing who does this. Pharmacists are supposed to fill prescriptions, that were written by other doctors, for patients. Very clear cut.
Pharmacists have a responsibility - and an obligation - to provide people with their prescriptions. If they cannot handle that responsibility then they should not have become pharmacists.
LilShieste
It would be a poor analogy. Kosher restaurants are a specific type of restaurant. When one says, “kosher restaurant”, it is obvious that one should anticipate restrictions on what is served there. The plaintiffs in the case cited in the OP work at a pharmacy in a grocery store. There is nothing about “grocery store pharmacy” that alerts people to expect there will be restrictions on they may obtain there. If we were discussing “Catholic pharmacies”, then your analogy would be much better.
It’s not a moral judgment-it’s a LEGAL judgment.
That’s ridiculous, of course it’s a moral judgment. If it was simply a legal judgment, pharmacists would be losing their licenses and facing lawsuits left and right. Are they?
So, since their refusal to fill the prescriptions is based on a moral judgment, not an ethical one, forcing them to do something of an ethical nature that violates their personal morals is essentially the same thing you’re accusing them of doing.
No, it’s like having volunteer army where the soldiers get to decide on an order-by-order basis whether they will obey or not.
Next time we go to “war”, I hope the army we’re fighting works like that.
Apparently, some states are enacting conscience clause legislation. Like I said, if you depend on the whims of authorities, then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Poor thinking is my opinion. What will become of all the unwanted children born due to this in poor, remote areas of those states? Will the people who passed the law personally pay to raise them? Will all the pharmacies who refused to stock Plan B and fill prescriptions for it be made to pay child support? No, they won’t. So, we’ll be having more instances of microwaved babies, or other horrific abuse and neglect. It makes me ill!
Interestingly, if you read that page, Washington has had bills filed for the past two years that would provide a right of refusal for the pharmacist. It hasn’t passed either year.
Unfortunately, Florida does have a refusal clause.
But that’s a moral argument. I was just told a few posts above that a moral argument is irrelevant. The laws and licensing are between the pharmacist and The State. Of course, that was when the law suited them.
And ethically, I have no problem with it.
Morally, it makes my skin crawl, and if I lived in such a state, I’d be putting my daughter on the pill when she started menstruating and demanding that my son have a condom on him at all times and checking at random moments. If that meant hitchhiking to another state for the scrip and using an internet pharmacy that I’d do it, and be glad I had the time available to do so.
I’d also order up several dozen Plan B off the internet and illegally distribute them to women in my neighborhood who asked me for it. I’d become the old school herbalist/witch that lives just outside of town with slightly too many cats, who women furtively visit for love potions and abortifacients. If the gov’ment wants to play like we’re in the Middle Ages, I’ll play that game.
Wow. Pretty draconian measures to inflict on your own children just because you don’t like one particular law. I’m sensing some overblown outrage here… Are you sure you wouldn’t move to Canada? 
Why would that be illegal? BTW, it wouldn’t be a good to advocate doing something illegal in your posts-- I think it’s against the rules here.
As an OTC drug, that would not be illegal in many states.
I was a 17 year old mother (while using birth control, I hasten to add). My love for my unexpected son does not mean that I want him or his sister to get themselves in the same situation. I plan to protect both of them until they are old enough to make their own informed choices. Right now, there’s nothing much I need to do about it beyond education: the legality of Plan B means that if my daughter has a broken condom, makes a poor decision, or is raped on the El, I can still help her prevent a pregnancy that might otherwise result. If that option is taken away, I will do the next least-invasive medical thing required to achieve the same result - preventing pregnancy until she’s old enough to make the informed decision to have a child. As for my son, that’s mostly my gender equity angel whispering in my ear that my daughter isn’t the only one I should help to protect.
It’s the same notion behind “forcing” our kids to go to the dentist while they are underage. I’m responsible for their medical well being until they are of a certain age, and I will do that. (Would I force my daughter into an abortion, I hear some of you asking? No. If she is of an age and emotional or political inclination to desire a child, that’s fine. But if she doesn’t want to get pregnant (as I assume being raised by me she won’t, until she’s older), it’s my job to assist her in that. If she wants to get pregnant, she’s going to have to do something active like stop taking the pill.)
If all contraceptives and abortion were made illegal and/or prohibitively difficult to obtain, then yes, I would bloody well vacate the country.
You’re right, except I think I made it clear that it would be an act of civil disobedience, and I did clearly label it as illegal in my post. That’s not anywhere near instruction or exhorting others to break the law, which is what I understand to be against the rules. If a mod rules otherwise, I won’t argue, though.
A Q?
Do you feel the following statements should be viewed differently legally:
Dispensing this product violates my personal moral code.
Dispensing this product violates my personal religious beliefs.
The State and the pharmacy board represent the pharmacists and the citizens. As long as we live with a representative democracy-style government, which we do, the people and the pharmacists are negotiating these terms and coming to agreement. There is no coerision as the real world thinks of it. I know I can’t keep you from hijacking my thread, but I will not be responding to you further here.
ETA: And to answer some hypotheticals, I would fight hard against the poorly thought out “I don’t have to dispense anything I don’t want to” clauses. And I would never live in a state filled with people willing to restrict choice as much as some…you’ll not see me in South Dakato for instance.
Obviously, they don’t. I’m a citizen.
It doesn’t look like the people in Colorado agree with the people in Arizona.
Could you possibly be more of a dick? Your topic is about forcing morality on people, and that is exactly what I have been discussing. Don’t use me as an excuse for your inability to formulate a coherent argument.
Like I said, we do already. Soldiers should not obey an immoral order.
But we have a volunteer army, just as we have volunteer pharmacists. None of the volunteers should be expected to obey an immoral order. As I also mentioned earlier, becoming a doctor is voluntary, but I have not heard anyone argue that doctors should not be able to decline to assist in an execution. IOW, being a doctor is like being a pharmacist or a soldier - all are volunteers, but none give up their right to make moral decisions. Just the opposite - the Nuremburg trials established the obligation of soldiers to disobey legal but immoral orders.
What we are discussing is whether or not we can establish certain kinds of pharmacies that don’t dispense Plan B. As has been mentioned, pharmacists have to deal with the appearance of certain kinds of drugs all the time. It would be foolish to expect one set of laws to fit every possible circumstance.
It would be begging the moral question to insist that pharmacists (or doctors, or soldiers, or any other citizen) have forever given up their moral rights by virtue of their having been licensed.
“I was only following orders” is not a good enough excuse.
(Apologies in advance if this Godwinizes the thread.)
Regards,
Shodan
Wouldn’t the morality of the order be determined by an authoritative body, though? I know very little about the military, but I assume that someone refusing an order due to it being immoral would face a board of inquiry at some point, who would rule on the matter. The soldier’s own moral views do of course matter when they make the decision, but it would be the board in question’s concept of morality which renders that disobeying acceptable or not.
I’d agree that soldiers and so on don’t give up their right to make moral decisions, but they do give up their right to make decisions based on their own moral compass and not get court martialed/fired.