I've written about this before, but there's another article on it, so...
this article in the Washington Post.
No, I'm sorry, but this is FUCKING INSANE. If you have such serious objections to something that might be required in your job that you wouldn't want to do it, FIND ANOTHER JOB.
A vegetarian working in food service would be fired outright if he refused to serve a customer meat; a teacher in a public school would be dismissed for refusing to teach the curriculum, as for example those who refuse to teach about the theory of evolution; a software developer would be fired for refusing to support his company's clients.
The last one is based on personal experience. I once worked at a place where one of our clients was an organisation whose politics I absolutely disagree with. And I had to implement the application that would help them do something I disagreed with. But I did it, because it was my job. It's what my company paid me to do. If I had had enough of an issue with it, I would have started looking elsewhere. It's the way the system works.
So no, pharmacists do not get the choice of which medications to fill prescriptions for or which patients to serve. If someone comes in with a prescription for something that the pharmacy offer it is their job to fill it. Period.
Conscientious objectors are exempt from military service. But if they chose to serve anyway, they would not be exempt from certain tasks, like shooting people. Similarly, someone who didn't want to perform all the duties expected of a pharmacist should not be a pharmacist.
I'm convinced people are deliberately trying to get in to these positions so they CAN try to impose their will on the public.
We should not be making special allowances for this kind of unacceptable behaviour.
No, I'm sorry, but this is FUCKING INSANE. If you have such serious objections to something that might be required in your job that you wouldn't want to do it, FIND ANOTHER JOB.
A vegetarian working in food service would be fired outright if he refused to serve a customer meat; a teacher in a public school would be dismissed for refusing to teach the curriculum, as for example those who refuse to teach about the theory of evolution; a software developer would be fired for refusing to support his company's clients.
The last one is based on personal experience. I once worked at a place where one of our clients was an organisation whose politics I absolutely disagree with. And I had to implement the application that would help them do something I disagreed with. But I did it, because it was my job. It's what my company paid me to do. If I had had enough of an issue with it, I would have started looking elsewhere. It's the way the system works.
So no, pharmacists do not get the choice of which medications to fill prescriptions for or which patients to serve. If someone comes in with a prescription for something that the pharmacy offer it is their job to fill it. Period.
Conscientious objectors are exempt from military service. But if they chose to serve anyway, they would not be exempt from certain tasks, like shooting people. Similarly, someone who didn't want to perform all the duties expected of a pharmacist should not be a pharmacist.
I'm convinced people are deliberately trying to get in to these positions so they CAN try to impose their will on the public.
We should not be making special allowances for this kind of unacceptable behaviour.