Well, since that particular incident happened in a hospital in Seattle, the patient had lots of other options.
If it had happened in Republic , WA, there would have been no other pharmacy in town. (Heck, I’m not 100% sure Republic has one pharmacy.)
The remedy up until now has been “go somewhere else.”
ETA: That was for World Eater. Sorry.
My solution: if a pharmacist has conscientious objections to dispensing, then they must tell the state licensing board of those objections, and the state licensing board licenses all medical practitioners within the pharmacist’s catchment area to dispense those drugs instead.
Then you have no business being a pharmacist. The drugs that are prescribed are not your affair; they are between the patient and the doctor who treats him or her and you have NO BUSINESS inserting yourself in that relationship or moving to thwart treatement. If you can’t bring yourself to fill the perscription as written, find another job.
So, what’s the patient supposed to do while he’s waiting for a more open-minded pharmacist to find out that there’s an opportunity in your small town, find a place to open his pharmacy, get the appropriate legal permissions to operate his business, complete the necessary renovations, stock his pharmacy, and hire whatever additional staff necessary for operation? Just hope he doesn’t get any sicker?
Also, the above doesn’t work if there’s “any demand at all.” Rather, there would need to be rather high demand. If you’re the only person in your small town who needs a particular medication, and the rest of the population doesn’t have any problems with the local pharmacist, then there’s not enough of a customer base to lure an entrepenurial pharmacist into town.
The free market is a great solution to most problems of this sort, but not all. When someone’s health and well-being is on the line, it’s not enough to sit around and wait for the invisible hand to sort everything out. Sometimes, direct action is necessary to protect the lives of individual citizens, which is why we have governments in the first place.
What gets me is that, by refusing to dispense an abortion which may, theoretically prevent a fertilized egg from implanting but which usually works by preventing ovulation, these people make an unwanted pregnancy more likely. If a woman becomes pregnant because a pharmacist refused to dispense Plan B which would have kept her from ovulatiing, and then chooses to have an abortion, could one argue that the pharmacist is partially morally responsible for her abortion? Here’s a petard. Have fun.
Why should the Board make broad exceptions to dispensing requirements and the professional expectations of pharmacists, not to mention inconveniencing doctors and making work for itself, in order to accommodate a few pharmacists?
To me, this is akin to the Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to transport liquor or dogs (even guide dogs). If your beliefs will not allow you to perform the fundamental requirements of your profession, find another profession. Period.
And then you’d need to get another job, because you’d have demonstrated that you were incapable of performing the one you currently have.
Try this scenario out for size: a pharmacist in a remote community refuses to fill perscriptions for medications used in the treatment of HIV, because he believes HIV is a judgement from God. Should he be allowed to do this, even though it’s effectivly either a death sentence, or a banishment from the community in which the patient lives (because he’d need to move elsewhere to find a less prejudicial pharmacist)? Would you support the pharmacists decision in that instance, even though you disagree with it?
I concede the point. I just wouldn’t make a very good pharmacist, apparently. 
Do pharmacists provide what is considered an “essential service”?
I guess I’m just thinking about what it would be like if the fire department refused to put out the fire in someone’s house, simply because the occupants were atheists.
LilShieste
Is it, in your hypothetical, a time sensitive thing? If so, then I’d be more likely to agree with you. A weeklong wait for an anti-homo drug off the internet isn’t going to be the end of the world. But a weeklong wait (or even a two day wait) for Plan B is the difference between a pregnancy or not.
MerryMagdalen, thank you, I’d forgotten that it was still prescription for minors. I’m still not sure what that sentence means, though. Does it mean “get the prescription back from the pharmacist who took the paper but won’t fill the order”? Sloppy writing.
Jodi, I hear what you’re saying, and I’ve used that argument in other threads, as well. But OTOH, one never knows what will be invented next. OneCentStamp’s anti-homo drug is a good example - that’s not out now. There’s no real indication it’s possible. But it might be, someday, given the right political and cultural shift and technological breakthrough. Do I decide not to pursue an interesting and rewarding career because something that might or might not be invented down the road may be morally repugnant to me? Is there really nothing at all in the wildest imaginations of mad scientists that you’d have a problem with aiding?
In the end, I’m on the **Jodi **side. But **OneCentStamp **did make me think really hard for a moment there. 
Hey, I made myself think really hard for a moment there. I hate when that happens. 
Exactly. One of the most irritating facets of this argument is that Plan B is really time sensitive. People might not have the luxury of “going” somewhere else.
IMHO - them’s the breaks (i.e., yes). If I join the navy because it’s been my dream to fly a fighter jet, I take the chance of being called on to participate in a conflict. If I would have a moral problem using the weaponry in the fighter jet (that is, to shoot people), then I should probably reconsider making this decision.
There certainly might be. And if that time were to ever come, I would be confronted with a decision: do I continue in this line of work, and aid this repugnant action, or do I find a new job?
LilShieste
Honestly, I don’t think it’s that good an example at all. As much as I dislike the idea of “curing” homosexuality, if such a cure existed, and a person wanted to use it, it’s not up to me to determine wether or not they should take it. So long as they’re not hurting anyone else, what a person decides to do with their body is their business, not mine. To me, this is the basic principle underlying the gay rights movement, and I don’t get to violate that principle just because it leads to a result I don’t personally like.
That’s why I specified “latent homosexuality in children.” How would you feel about a parent buying it to use on their 13 year old for getting a stiffy in the locker room?
I agree, although you might note that in the original example it was a parent buying the anti-homo drug for his/her child. Frankly, though, I can’t imagine such a drug being approved for use on children, though.
If it was prescribed by the child’s doctor, and it was legal to give the drug to children, then what’s the problem? Chances are you’d have no idea whether the child wanted to take it or not anyway.
Yes, you should pursue another career if you can envisage that something morally repugnant will be asked of you. Even if you couldn’t envisage it and it blindsided you – you get another job, you don’t expect people to excuse you from doing the job you have just because suddenly you don’t like certain aspects of it.
It is not up to pharmacists to decide treatment or prescribe drugs. So whatever the doctor prescribes – the anti-homo drug, the drug that destroys short-term memory, whatever – you provide it because fundamental to your job is that you despense what is prescribed.
Actually, emergency contraception has been available without prescription in WA for years (its availability here has long pre-dated the national availability).
My guess is that the law doesn’t specifically refer to Plan B, but any drug at all.
You’re right, I did miss that. Not sure how it changes my position. Something I’ll have to think about, I guess.
Curse the luck.