True. I just don’t think that that argument alone really works, or rather that it works for both sides.
Of course I see the difference between moral and ethical obligations.
I don’t disagree with your point, however I think it’s valid to draw the relation between doctors and the procedures they are obligated to perform. All doctors should know how to perform an abortion. None of them should be forced to if it violates their moral framework. If you could get Plan B from a vending machine, then we wouldn’t have a problem here. But the issue is that you are not just theoretically affecting the psyches of the patient, you are also forcing a pharmacist to do something they morally object to. The people who are refusing to fill Plan B equate it with abortion, even though pharmacologically it is not an abortafacient. Why is it somehow noble to offend the morals of the pharmacist, but a travesty to offend the morals of the patient?
While I agree that pharmacists should be dispensing all medications that are prescribed in good faith and are not harmful to the patient (by way of facilitating an addiction or causing any sort of contraindicated reaction), I feel that it’s a dangerous proposition to limit the scope of when a pharmacist can say they feel uncomfortable performing a specific task related to their work.
I think the same for anything that forces someone to do something they morally object to in the “name of business”. The truth is, it’s kind of silly to say that if a person feels uncomfortable doing something that will actually occur 0.01% of the time during the course of their work time then they should stay out of that line of business. Honestly, I don’t take issue with the practice so long as the patient has viable alternatives to obtain the medication. The pharmacist is violating his ethical duty as a pharmacist which is to provide medication that was prescribed in good faith, so as to not violate his own moral value that it is wrong to be a participant in what he considers to be an abortion. If you can’t do it, move aside and let someone else who doesn’t feel the same way, if the way you feel isn’t in line with how the majority feels. If you are unwilling to allow anyone to perform the task, that’s when your morality is inflicting suffering on the lives of others, and is probably in violation of other moral guidelines not to do just that.
Better argument:
Plan B is a large dose of synthetic progestin,, a mimic to the hormone that the body produces when it is already pregnant. Because the woman’s body thinks it is pregnant, it does not ovulate. Therefore, this drug prevents pregnancy by preventing sperm from contacting an egg, by removing the chance for an egg to be present with viable sperm. The sperm in the female’s reproductive tract die out, a few days after copulation, and everything is good. The only time the drug would “fail” is if the woman had already ovulated when she had sex.
So the pharmacists can’t even stand on the “life begins at conception” bullshit because no conception happened. The pill is the moral equivalent of a condom, not a bent coat-hanger.
No, all doctors shouldn’t know how to perform an abortion. Doctors are specialists, and so the analogy breaks down. Pharmacists can question someone who brings in two prescriptions from different doctors that might conflict with each other, but he or she is not in the business of deciding whether a customer has access to a certain medication in and of itself.
But there are drugs designed to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, so I think your argument is of limited value.
While I prefer the new law to the old way, the solution I’d have liked would be for all licensed pharmacists to be required to post a sign announcing if they carry the Plan B pill or not. I and others could then decide not to give that store any business if we wanted. That way the market forces would come from all their trade, rather than the tiny percentage Plan B represents alone.
Well, for starters, they need a license to practice. And the government grants the license. And the government sets the terms of the license. And the terms include “dispense Plan B, or whatever else we tell you to.” The terms should also include “don’t be a jerk,” but apparently they don’t.
I think you grossly misunderstand what a pharmacy license is. It is not a mandate that dictates what behaviors you must abide by, those would be state pharmacy laws. A pharmacy license only enables you the legal authority to dispense medication.
Abortion /= advanced neurosurgery, it’s a pretty common procedure. You don’t need to specialize to have the skills to perform an abortion. They shouldn’t necessarily have practice in doing so unless they desired to perform them, but yes, they ought to know how to do it.
So should all doctors be forced to perform abortions?
I don’t think the pharmacist should seek another job, the person should seek another pharmacist. Let the market decide.
Sort of, but there’s a difference. Saying “all doctors should be forced to perform abortions” is like saying “all builders should be forced to build sheds”. A doctor could choose to take a job where performing abortions is not part of his regular duties; only in emergencies would he need to. But yes, doctors should be forced perform abortions in emergency situations, because that too is a part of their job duties.
Why? The pharmacist has not fulfilled the duties of his job. It’s like saying that if a fireman decides hey, he’s not going to climb the ladder, we should just say oh well and choose a different one. He has not fulfilled the duties of his job. What you are saying, in fact, is that far from allowing market forces to do their work, we should *subsidize * people by allowing them to pick and choose which of their duties they’d like to fulfil, with no repercussions. Your position hurts both companies and customers, a remarkably even-handed approach. 
The Plan B pill is time-sensitive. In order for it to work properly and effective it needs to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse (I think). That’s something to keep in mind, IMO.
In a situation like this - someone is seeing two different doctors and ends up with two prescriptions that they shouldn’t be taking at the same time - what’s the pharmacist’s legal obligation? Obviously they have at least a moral obligation to warn the customer (“You should probably call your doctor, as you shouldn’t really take X and Y at the same time”), but are they legally required to do anything?
Already dismissed in this post.
Exactly. If I do that as an engineer, I’ll be sanctioned and possibly have my license revoked. Professional ethics aren’t some nebulous idea that’s debated endlessly by college students and stoned slackers - they’re the codified obligations that you agree to uphold as a prerequisite for being a part of that profession.
If your personal morals don’t jibe with the ethics of your chosen profession, you’re going to have to choose between them. But it’s unreasonable to expect that that choice won’t have consequences.
If the employer/owner of the pharmacy is fine with the pharmacist refusing to dispense the drug, then I have no problem with the pharmacist being allowed to refuse to dispense the drug. It’s a rare situation that another pharmacy is unavailable. Even if it is, the drug can be purchased online and has a shelf life of two years. Sex involves responsibility. Part of that responsibility is ensuring that an unwanted pregnancy doesn’t occur.
If your pharmacy sends a letter to every woman of childbearing age within 50 miles stating that they won’t be stocking contraceptives, then maybe, just maybe, the burden would be on those women to keep a stock of Plan B on hand. In the real world, it’s just not unreasonable to expect to be able to find it at my local pharmacy when I need it.
(And by “my”, of course, I mean the single pharmacy that serves six podunk towns in the middle of nowhere. I’m lucky, I’m a city girl. If Walgreen’s pisses me off, I’m at the CVS across the street before you can say “hormonal rage”.)
(emphasis mine)
But can you really say that the pharmacists refusing prescriptions for emergency birth control are making any sort of medical judgment? They themselves tend to put it strictly in terms of their moral judgement - a very different kettle of fish.
Even if we grant that there are medical grounds for refusing a particular pill, I don’t agree that the pharmacists have the ability to judge that. The decision to take a certain medicine is made between a doctor and a patient, with full consideration of the patient’s medical history and their current situation. Pharmacists do not have a doctor - patient relationship with their clients and lack the full context of the client’s situation.
Pharmacists only know what a patient is taking (and then, only what the patient has received from their particular store.) They don’t know why, or what else, or why not this other thing. They don’t know the big picture and they’re never going to learn it in a few minutes at the public counter.
That’s my big concern about the dissenting pharmacists. You can’t tell a person’s full medical situation just from looking at a (possibly incomplete) list of drugs. Without access to the full information, I believe that they should respect the doctor - patient relationship and not intrude with their own ideas.
If they have concerns about drug interactions then they should contact the doctor in question. Anything more than that is beyond the scope of their knowledge.
I agree, which if you read my first post to this thread you’ll see where I differentiate between a pharmacist refusing on moral grounds to fill a prescription, and a pharmacist denying a patient medical care. These are not the same issue, but they’re being lumped together as though they are. I agree that they have no business deciding whether a patient has access.
I do however believe that they should have the right to decide whether that access is from them personally. And if their objection constitutes denying the patient access entirely (by reason of them being the only capable person within a reasonable distance to provide it for them), then I think their first obligation is to the health and safety of the patient and their second obligation is to their personal moral framework, so long as they are the only one that can give the patient access to that type of healthcare.
Two things:
First, the scope of this debate is much wider than this specific drug. If the pharmacist believes that dispensing some other, more vital drug violates his religious beliefs, such as HIV medications, should he be allowed to do so? It may be rare that no other pharmacy is available, but it does happen, and an arrangement needs to be made so that, even in those cases, no one is denied their medically necessary treatment because of the politics of their pharmacist.
Second: rape.
Would you have problems with a pharmacist refusing to sell condoms or contraceptive pills? There is no difference other than when you use it. Plan B does not involve even a theoretical abortion, like RU486. If you are pregnant when you take it, you stay pregnant.