Should pharmacists be allowed...

[Android Kaeli]

If I needed to use birth control or other types of medicine, I'd expect my pharmacist to fill the script out and keep their beliefs out of their line of work. They are more then free to believe what they want to believe but not everyone uses these types of medicines ( or any other for that matter ) for what they think they're being used for.

[Boozy]

Do we have the basic right to choose to align our actions with our beliefs, or should they be over-ridden - should we go against our basic beliefs to appease others?

It's not really that complicated. I like what Pepperrgirl said about it; if you have any beliefs that would prevent you from performing all your duties in a given profession, don't go into that profession.

If you're a PETA member, don't become a butcher.

If you're a Christian, don't become a rabbi.

And if you believe that you have the right to veto what drugs a woman can take, don't become a pharmacist.

[Cats]

It isn't the pharmacist's job to decide what the patient should and should not take for whatever reason...that is up to the doctor (unless they have a reason to believe it is a forgery, of course).

In any other line of work, if anyone else refused service to someone for another reason, such as race, gender, age, height, sexual orientation, personal beliefs, whatever, there would be lawsuits up the ass.

If one is so hell bent on their beliefs to impede on their job (and not just a "I personally don't approve, but I'll set aside my beliefs to agree to disagree" kind of thing, which I hold no grudge on anyone for having), then they need to find another line of work.

Personally, I don't know how someone goes through all that work training to be a pharmacist while still being so tight on such beliefs. You know WELL inadvance you're going to run into this stuff! Why would you want to be in a line of work where people are constantly going against your beliefs, even if you yourself refuse (and can't that be considered insubordination anyway)?

I can understand refusing something at work based on beliefs if it happens once in a blue moon (and there's a solution around it that doesn't screw others over either). But BC is something that comes across often enough that its going to be a problem.

[BroomJockey]

And if you believe that you have the right to veto what drugs a woman can take, don't become a pharmacist.

This raises an interesting point, to my mind. What if there were a common male contraceptive pill, or shot, or something dispensed by pharmacists? Would they have a problem with that, as well? Or is it just since women bear children, they're not allowed?

Then again, that might be too far from the actual scope of this thread.

[AdminAssistant]

Then again, that might be too far from the actual scope of this thread.

No, I don't think so, since the majority of these pharmacists are men, probably Christian conservatives who think that a woman's job is to get married and have babies. Why else would they want to discriminate against women in this manner?

[Rubystars]

Not all Christian conservatives think that. I do think that if a woman wants to get married and have babies then that's a perfectly noble thing to do and I think she should be shown respect for that decision. I don't think every woman is obligated to choose that path however.

[AFPheonix]

This raises an interesting point, to my mind. What if there were a common male contraceptive pill, or shot, or something dispensed by pharmacists? Would they have a problem with that, as well? Or is it just since women bear children, they're not allowed?

Then again, that might be too far from the actual scope of this thread.

The ones that I know don't seem to have an issue with ED meds or male hormones, either topical or IV.
ED drugs especially can assist with promiscuity, so it really is a bit of a double standard.

[Flyndaran]

Not all Christian conservatives think that. I do think that if a woman wants to get married and have babies then that's a perfectly noble thing to do and I think she should be shown respect for that decision. I don't think every woman is obligated to choose that path however.

Noble? I suddenly get images of a woman throwing herself ontop a baby right as it "goes off" and spews everywhere.

Over a billion years of evolution states that procreation is the norm, not some noble ideal achieved by few.

As intelligent creatures we have the option to live life without simply being breeding machines.
Kids are a plus-minuse "choice" that is great for some, and life ending for others. The event is neither wonderful nor horrible on its own. It just is.

[Rubystars]

Noble? I suddenly get images of a woman throwing herself ontop a baby right as it "goes off" and spews everywhere.

You certainly do have an active imagination!

[Flyndaran]

You certainly do have an active imagination!

When I think of noble I think of self-sacrifice not semi-selfish acts of biology mandated procreation.

[Rubystars]

When I think of noble I think of self-sacrifice not semi-selfish acts of biology mandated procreation.

A stay-at-home mom makes a full-time career out of raising quality people and maintaining a safe and loving home. In order to do that she makes sacrifices, such as giving up other career options. It's the fact that she sacrifices for her children which I find to be noble.

I don't have anything against moms who have another, outside job too, but I do think that stay at home moms deserve respect too.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I think the word 'legitimate' fits the bill better than 'noble'.

Noble implies that the action is not only uncommon, but superior to other courses of action.

Legitimate implies only that there is nothing wrong, and probably a measure of good in the action described, without comparative implications (better than X, worse than z, etc.)

Oh, and since I got into this one late, I'll agree with Rubystars that the pharmacy should make sure that there is someone who can morally dispense the medication that they choose to provide for those who medically need it. Unfortunately this means in some cases at least that the person presenting the problem by refusing medication in a free society because of their beliefs, will either have (forgive the expression) man up and deal with it, or quit and let someone better suited take the job.

The thing to remember here is that we live in a plural society. It's not about you when it comes to social services like this. Everyone is equally obligated to respect the opinions of others, even if those opinions are grossly wrong in the eyes of some. You're free to practice your beliefs whenever you want, but not if you deprive anyone of anything. That's the contract we sign as citizens (U.S. at least, not overly knowledgeable of European etc. law) in this country. Depriving someone of their medication is just that, no matter the grounds, and thus is against the rules.

Many say that being 'forced' to dispense the medication is inhibiting their beliefs. But this aspect comes down to the equality issue in that the alternative to giving the patient their medication is a far more serious infringement than merely doing something 'morally questionable'.

[BroomJockey]

A stay-at-home mom makes a full-time career out of raising quality people and maintaining a safe and loving home. In order to do that she makes sacrifices, such as giving up other career options.

*raises hand* I'd like to point out that no matter what path you choose, you sacrifice other options. Making the choice of career of stay-at-home mom isn't inherently noble, it's simply another valid choice. It's your values which impart nobility to the choice. And none of this is to do with the topic at hand. Which is about pharmacists. Can we nudge it back on track a bit, people?

[Rubystars]

Sure thing BroomJockey. Sorry if I contributed to drifting off topic. Ok here's another issue. What about if a state allows a terminally ill patient to get a prescription for lethal medication? Would a pharmacist be able to tell whether or not these drugs were for euthanasia purposes?

[AFPheonix]

A pharmacist would be able to tell if a script will be used for assisted suicide since we check scripts for proper dosing. However, the vast majority of the time patients get those meds from specialty pharmacies that dispense for that sort of thing. We're a very busy pharmacy, we do anywhere from 500-700+ prescriptions a day, and I have yet to see a script come through for a lethal dose of barbiturates. We don't stock those anyways, and it generally takes us about a week to get ahold of drugs of that class.
Doctors know where to send their patients for the stuff they need like that, just like they know to send their patients to us if they need something compounded or if it's after closing time at other pharmacies.

I've only ever heard of one event where a terminal patient brought in a script for a lethal dose to a standard retail pharmacy once in my 5 or 6 years doing this.