It is the constitutional right of any business owner to refuse their service to any customer as long as the basis for their refusal isn't racially based. An underling, acting outside the will of his superior, may not do so and if he does consequences should be enacted, but ultimately the decision lies with the owner.
Pharmacists have an obligation not to get between a patient/doctor decision. Pharmacies can choose not to carry certain drugs but not dispensing a drug that you have in stock in good faith to a patient is a disservice to the medical system and disservice to the patient. Unless there is a serious medical issue that needs to be taken up with a doctor (drug interactions in particular), a pharmacist can't put their own personal beliefs on their patients. If they had likely objections to the sorts of medicines they would be dispensing, they should get a job at a place that doesn't dispense the drug or they should really have reconsidered becoming a pharmacist. With birth control making up such a large portion of your pharmacy sales, why would you enter a field that you have issues with and why does the patients health have to be risked all because the pharmacist has some Jesus juice in his blood?
When any person goes into business they do so knowing that they have the right to uphold their own morals.
If a pharmacist is willing to take a cut in his earnings to maintain a moral highground, it is not the responsibility of any governmental power to take that right away from him.
People in need of any medicine are likewise free to take their business elsewhere.
Most cases involving pharmacist refusal to dispense are at national chains where they stock the drugs and would normally dispense the drugs. No, nobody can force you to stock a certain drug but certainly there should be no legal protections for a person who willingly refuses to fill a prescription based on their own moral beliefs. If the pharmacy does carry the drug, they have an obligation to fill as the morals of the pharmacist have no bearing on the morals of the patient.
the point is that hitmen are not in anyway alleviated of guilt because it's employer's wish for the mark to die, it is still their fault too.
The morals of the pharmacist are their own. Acknowledging that evil exists and making money on it's occurrence, just because the person who commits it doesn't believe it is evil, is not upholding one's morals.
The pharmacists are not disallowing any given patient from receiving any medicine they desire. they are merely exercising their constitutional right.
It would be more like a gun dealer becoming liable for deaths. Acknowledging that evil exists, a gun dealer knows that a certain percentage of people are going to use his products to harm. If he can't handle that fact, he should have picked a different profession because it is the REALITY of the situation.
Their should be no constitutional protections for pharmacists that refuse a drug they have in stock because of their moral belief. Often times, a drug has multiple purposes (just like guns) and they are there to provide that resource.
They should be fired by their companies and have no legal recourse to fight it. Getting between a patient/doctor decision isn't about what is legal, it's about what's right. Denying a prescription based on your morals is a cop out and it is selfish because you don't know what the doctor and the patient discussed and you don't know how the medicine will necessarily be used.
It would be more like a gun dealer becoming liable for deaths. Acknowledging that evil exists... Often times, a drug has multiple purposes (just like guns) and they are there to provide that resource.
The morning-after pill has no other use, therefore the analogy does work because the pharmacist knows for a fact that the 'gun' will be used to kill someone.
They should be fired by their companies and have no legal recourse to fight it. Getting between a patient/doctor decision isn't about what is legal, it's about what's right. Denying a prescription based on your morals is a cop out and it is selfish because you don't know what the doctor and the patient discussed and you don't know how the medicine will necessarily be used.They aren't getting between the doctor and patient: 1) Doctors rarely prescribe the morning-after pill and 2)They are merely refusing to do it themselves. It is not as if they are ripping up the prescription sheet and disallowing the customer from going to the next store
( ... )
Reply
Reply
If a pharmacist is willing to take a cut in his earnings to maintain a moral highground, it is not the responsibility of any governmental power to take that right away from him.
People in need of any medicine are likewise free to take their business elsewhere.
Reply
Reply
If the pharmacy does carry the drug, they have an obligation to fill as the morals of the pharmacist have no bearing on the morals of the patient.
Under this thinking: Hitman aren't responsible, just the people who pay them are.
Reply
Reply
the point is that hitmen are not in anyway alleviated of guilt because it's employer's wish for the mark to die, it is still their fault too.
The morals of the pharmacist are their own. Acknowledging that evil exists and making money on it's occurrence, just because the person who commits it doesn't believe it is evil, is not upholding one's morals.
The pharmacists are not disallowing any given patient from receiving any medicine they desire. they are merely exercising their constitutional right.
Reply
It would be more like a gun dealer becoming liable for deaths. Acknowledging that evil exists, a gun dealer knows that a certain percentage of people are going to use his products to harm. If he can't handle that fact, he should have picked a different profession because it is the REALITY of the situation.
Their should be no constitutional protections for pharmacists that refuse a drug they have in stock because of their moral belief. Often times, a drug has multiple purposes (just like guns) and they are there to provide that resource.
They should be fired by their companies and have no legal recourse to fight it. Getting between a patient/doctor decision isn't about what is legal, it's about what's right. Denying a prescription based on your morals is a cop out and it is selfish because you don't know what the doctor and the patient discussed and you don't know how the medicine will necessarily be used.
That's why your analogy doesn't work.
Reply
The morning-after pill has no other use, therefore the analogy does work because the pharmacist knows for a fact that the 'gun' will be used to kill someone.
They should be fired by their companies and have no legal recourse to fight it. Getting between a patient/doctor decision isn't about what is legal, it's about what's right. Denying a prescription based on your morals is a cop out and it is selfish because you don't know what the doctor and the patient discussed and you don't know how the medicine will necessarily be used.They aren't getting between the doctor and patient: 1) Doctors rarely prescribe the morning-after pill and 2)They are merely refusing to do it themselves. It is not as if they are ripping up the prescription sheet and disallowing the customer from going to the next store ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment