Saturday, March 11, 2006
"Conscientious" Pharmacists Refuse Viagra to Unmarried Men.
Also refuse birth control to unmarried women.
Meanwhile, Christian Scientist Pharmacists refuse to dispense all medicine to patients, claiming that "purity of spirit" is only real cure.
Elsewhere, health-conscious pharmacists in Southern California refuse to dispense diabetes medicine to overweight patients, citing "lack of proper diet and exercise."
Next thing you know, firemen will be forced to rescue people from burning buildings even if they "conscientiously object" to the morals of those trapped. Policemen will have to arrest criminals even if they don't think particular crimes should be illegal--and public defenders will have to defend the accused even if they suspect they're guilty!
What will happen to society then?
Good grief.
With all due respect, the sole claim that pharmacists have to being called "professionals" is their expertise in dispensing medicine. Any decision-making in the process is limited to the technical aspects of doing that job.
In a free society there is no room for a third "opinion" between a doctor and a patient.
Pharmacists are licensed to dispense medicine, not moral judgments. In that regard they are like every other professional: they're expected to perform their jobs, and in doing so to distinguish between the "professional" and the "personal". They exercise judgment only as far as it is needed to do their work or comply with the law.
That's the way it is for professionals: professional duty is distinct from the personal. Lawyers, for example, cannot drop clients who fail to pay their bill; the courts don't allow it.
The supposed right of "conscientious objection" for pharmacists is a phony one concocted by the anti-choice movement. It's nothing more than yet another attempt to remove or block the legal choices of American women.
201k applauds those companies who are willing to defend and protect the proper professional conduct of pharmacists in the face of an assault contrived by fanatical crusaders who would force their religious beliefs on all Americans.
Meanwhile, Christian Scientist Pharmacists refuse to dispense all medicine to patients, claiming that "purity of spirit" is only real cure.
Elsewhere, health-conscious pharmacists in Southern California refuse to dispense diabetes medicine to overweight patients, citing "lack of proper diet and exercise."
Druggists want right to say "no" to certain medicationsPoor Allison! First she's forced to go to pharmacy school, then she's forced to fulfill prescriptions written by doctors.
By Cara Solomon
Seattle Times reporter
...more than 100 people showed up at a state Pharmacy Board meeting in Kent on Friday to speak emotionally about highly charged social issues -- from abortion to gender discrimination and even assisted suicide.
At the heart of the debate is a proposal put forward by the pharmacy association, a private trade group, that would allow pharmacists to act as "conscientious objectors" when faced with filling prescriptions that go against their moral or religious principles and require them to provide patients with other "options."
The Pharmacy Association in Washington said there members are confused about their rights. Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and the Northwest Women's Law Center point to a collection of state statues that they say strongly "implies" a pharmacist's duty to dispense medication regardless of their religious views. But there is no state statute that specifically deals with the issue.
Gov. Christine Gregoire sent a letter opposing the proposal to the Pharmacy Board.
"This issue goes far beyond women's access to contraception, but appeals to the right of all patients to have their prescription filled without judgment or discrimination," wrote Gregoire.
But some at the meeting said that forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions against their religious beliefs was also a kind of discrimination.
"For me to go to work, and leave my heart and my morals at home, I can't do it," said Allison Pham, 23, a student at the University of Washington's School of Pharmacy.
Next thing you know, firemen will be forced to rescue people from burning buildings even if they "conscientiously object" to the morals of those trapped. Policemen will have to arrest criminals even if they don't think particular crimes should be illegal--and public defenders will have to defend the accused even if they suspect they're guilty!
What will happen to society then?
Good grief.
With all due respect, the sole claim that pharmacists have to being called "professionals" is their expertise in dispensing medicine. Any decision-making in the process is limited to the technical aspects of doing that job.
In a free society there is no room for a third "opinion" between a doctor and a patient.
Pharmacists are licensed to dispense medicine, not moral judgments. In that regard they are like every other professional: they're expected to perform their jobs, and in doing so to distinguish between the "professional" and the "personal". They exercise judgment only as far as it is needed to do their work or comply with the law.
That's the way it is for professionals: professional duty is distinct from the personal. Lawyers, for example, cannot drop clients who fail to pay their bill; the courts don't allow it.
The supposed right of "conscientious objection" for pharmacists is a phony one concocted by the anti-choice movement. It's nothing more than yet another attempt to remove or block the legal choices of American women.
201k applauds those companies who are willing to defend and protect the proper professional conduct of pharmacists in the face of an assault contrived by fanatical crusaders who would force their religious beliefs on all Americans.
