Pharmacists suing over having to dispense morning after pill?
I just read this article, and am shocked.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070727/ap_o...
I would like to believe that ANY professional would not let their personal beliefs get in the way of their work. It is my belief that they can decide for themselves whether or not to use this pill, and to do their jobs properly at work.
Whether or not you think abortion is right or wrong, are these pharmacists failing to uphold their duty of care to their patients/customers?
I know abortion is a touchy subject, so please, everyone be kind.
thanks
Answers:
It is their job to provide a service to the public.
They dispense narcotics, birth control, hormones, sedatives and any number of items that many of us can take objection to. However it is the job they signed up to do.
How would you feel if in a crisis your scientologist pharmacist denied you antidepressants? Or you Jehovah's Witness Pharmacist refuses to get you human blood derived "factors" to treat your hemophilia? Imposing your personal beliefs on another person with regards to heath care and medication is a slippery slope.
Its ridiculuous.
I wish I had the right to pick and choose which parts of my job that I wanted to do, and which ones I could ignore or refuse to do because of moral issues.
If these pharmacists don't like it, they are free to quit the company they work for and open up their own private pharmacy and dispense the drugs that they agree with.
However, I wish them a load of good luck, considering all the big corporate pharmacies (Target, Wal-Mart, Rite Aid, Walgreens, etc.) in each city now.
I bet they sell plenty of Viagra and Cialis
It's a classic moral dilemma. When the pharmacist began his studies, he probably did not even consider that he might some day be required to dispense a drug that he finds morally reprehensible. The right thing, under these circumstances, would be for the ethical pharmacist to find a new line of work or to move someplace where the government polcy allows him to refuse to dispense a medication.
Personally, I don't agree that life begins at fertilization; I believe that life begins at conception, i.e., implantation, and Plan B prevents implantation. But this is beside the point.
Let us suppose that suicide becomes legal. Let us suppose that the government mandates that anyone who has a terminal medical condition can have an MD prescribe a gentle poison and have the 'scrip filled at a pharmacy. This represents a political judgment that we have the right to select the time and manner of our decease, and that doctors and pharmacists are the delivery system for that policy.
Again, a pharmacist with an ethical objection to dispensing drugs that are intended to kill should either leave the profession or relocate to a country where the policy is different.
This is the nature of democracy. We abide by decisions that are made authoritatively, whether we agree with them or not. We can wage a battle in the courts, to set the decision aside, or in the legislature, to get a new decision made. But we invite the collapse of our whole way of life once we arrogate to ourselves the right to disregard an authoritative decision.
I totally agree with the first answerer. I wish I could just ignore the parts of my job that I don't like.
That is like a lawyer not representing someone adequately becuase of their beiliefs.
Or a doctor not giving a blood transfusion.
Or a police officer refusing to help a pregnant teen being beaten because she had sex before marriage.
Please. Whats next, they aren't going to prescribe the pill either or sell condoms?
If they are that adamant about their beliefs they should quit and go to seminary college.
It's a free country.. sort of.
Even though I don't believe what the pharmacists did was right, I don't think it was ethical or moral, and I consider it quite holier-than-thou; America is a free country with freedom of religion.
If they own the business, they should be allowed to not stock medications that they don't want to stock. If they did not own the business and they refused to provide the drug, they would be using someone else's property to satisfy their own end (Stealing). That would be just another hypocrite breaking the 10 commandments.
The good thing is that legitimate companies like Wal-Mart, CVS, and Walgreen's, are taking over the retail pharmaceutical market. These yokel ma and pa pharmacies don't possess the purchasing parity of the big boys. They'll get under sold and then we won't have to worry. Big companies generally don't discriminate since all of our money is green.
The issue here is not, like one writer answered, whether or not the pharmacists are part of a chain or whether they are private. That does not matter, the state law applies to all pharmacies. In my opinion any law that requres someone to go against their moral beliefs is unconstitutional. Like any store, a pharmacy should have the right to decide what goods it is offering. You don't see a law that is requiring stores to carry condoms even if they find them morally reprehensable, why force a pharmacy to carry a drug? Doctors can choose not to perform abortions, why can't a pharmacist have the same option if they believe the morning after pill is abortion?
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: