This is just wrong. If the pharmacist does not OWN the pharmacy they have 2 choices. Quit, or dispense drugs as the owner sees fit.
I wonder if that same druggist sells condoms and Viagra????
Sounds like simple theft to me.
Not exactly a Christian virtue.
So9
Consider this pharmacist's choices when he had the woman's prescription in his hands. Obviously, if he gave it back to her, she'd just have it filled somewhere else. Now they're punishing him for not giving it back to her!
They’re in the wrong business or they need to start their own.
It's this kind of thing that gives credence to the leftists' aguement the right is a bunch of conservative freaks. Very embarassing to me, a conservative Republican if there ever was one.
Well, I guess I would defend the right of a businessman to only trade in products he approved of. On the other hand though, he would lose my business and if he refused to hand me back my prescription slip after I gave it to him I'd beat the s--t out of him. People's health depends on their prescriptions being filled and a pharmacist who refuses to return a prescription so that the customer can get it filled elsewhere should be criminally liable. Many women are on birth control pills for health reasons other than birth control.
Missing a single pill because of a pharmacist is no worse than missing a pill because you forgot one on your own. It's also not as bad as being on certain antibiotics. It's just another excuse for a lawyer to sue.
Fine. The pharmacist is no one's slave. If his customers don't like the services he offers, they can choose another pharmacist.
In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her.
Um, that's called stealing. Stealing is moral????
That pharmacist is a plain retard. Their job is to fill a prescription. If they disagree with their job on the moral or religious grounds, why not just quit. All those fanatics achieve is to supply some extra ammo to the left.
1: Law Med Health Care. 1992 Fall;20(3):220-3. Related Articles, Links
Do pharmacists have a right to refuse to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs?
Weinstein BD.
PIP: Some pharmacists opposed to abortion on moral ground are concerned by having to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs like mifepristone (RU-486). The issue of the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill such prescriptions depends on the model of the physician-pharmacist-patient relationship. The libertarian model of pharmacy practice holds that physicians, pharmacists, and patients are bound only by the contract that they freely negotiate with one another, thus the pharmacist has no moral obligation to fill a prescription for mifepristone unless he or she has expressly contracted to do so. The American Pharmaceutical Association's 1981 Code of Ethics does not specify what a pharmacist ought to do in particular circumstances. The right to refuse is strongly supported by the principles of nonmaleficence and respect for autonomy. These are principles of the libertarian model of the pharmacist-patient relationship but are also present in the guild or societal models stressing the duty to avoid harming others. Justification for pharmacists right of refusal appeals to their autonomy rights as members of the moral community rather than the profession of pharmacy. Since the professional right to autonomy is not absolute, moral consideration circumscribe it: it is difficult to argue that a pharmacist who believes that homosexuality is immoral has the right to refuse to fill a prescription for AZT. Even if a person who presents such a prescription is homosexual there is no causal relationship between filling a prescription for AZT and participating in a homosexual act. At the opposite end the libertarians reject the notion of even a basic right to health care. A woman in the above situation would not have a right to the abortifacient drug, so a pharmacist has no duty to dispense it. According to the technician model of professionalism, the pharmacist's personal values do not matter, so a pharmacist has a duty to provide the service.
PMID: 1434764 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Contraception is not the only reason BCP's are prescribed.
The DU's freaking out about this, citing it as the next nail in their coffin. I think the pill is one of the greatest goods that came out of the 20th century: people who are unqualified to have children didn't have children. Less suffering, no murder of unborn children. If republicans started waging a war on the pill, I'd vote dem in that election cycle.
Birth control pills?
Now if it had been over abortion pills that'd be a different story.
He's in the wrong profession. There are many drugs that may cause moral delimmas. Narcotics come to mind.
How about an analogy? A person goes to S-mart to buy a 12-gauge double-barrel Remington. At the sporting goods counter he hands over his driver's license for the paperwork/age verification/etc. purposes. The clerk believes guns are evil, and refuses to sell one. He also suspects the customer will just go somewhere else to buy one, so he refuses to return the driver's license.
I don't understand why this pharmacist is working for CVS in the first place? Did he not know well in advance what his store has in stock, BCPs, condoms, etc? Did he expect never to dispense certain drugs he strongly, morally opposes? If he has certain principles he will not betray, why does he work for a company that goes against his principles? Taking a job and knowing there will be a serious conflict with your boss is just fixin' for a fight.
Bingo. Maybe she's more cut out for a job at the local Christian book store.