[marsh_of_mists]

What none of you seem to understand is that pharmacists are part of the medical establishment and the medical establishment is already, to a great extent, controlled by the government. Under the current system, this makes the profession of pharmacy in a nebulous position that does not seem to me to be entirely within the private sphere. Now, if you disagree with this system, fight to change it in one way or the other. Advocate deregulation of the medical establishment. Claim that pharmacists should be considered solely private merchants, and not recquire governmentally issued licenses to practice their trade. But the idea that pharmacists should be able to pick and choose which prescriptions they fill out runs entirely against the current system, for better or for worse.

[briant]

There are many pharmacist, doctors, grocers (the food industry is regulated), airlines and other venders who are regulated. This does not mean they have to be they same. You can go elsewhere.

You are the one who said the phamacists should do what the government says, or ban birth control pills. This is not what I am saying. You seem to want more governemt mandated restricction I want less. I.e. go to another phamacist, don't entangle him in your, what he sees as, sins, and don't argue that birth control pills have to be banned because phamacist x doesn't want to prescribe it.

[FormerACLUmember]

What you do not seem to understand is that men and women of conscience cannot do things that they know to be evil, no matter what your all-powerful, all-mighty government tells them to do.

Now it was required not so long ago by National Socialist and Communist authorities that doctors must, as a condition of their licensure and as a matter of law, execute ("euthanize") the weak and the infirm. You would have insisted the doctors do this because medicine in a government regulated industry, and we must do whatever the government demands.

[vbmoneyspender]

Now, if you disagree with this system, fight to change it in one way or the other. Advocate deregulation of the medical establishment. Claim that pharmacists should be considered solely private merchants, and not require governmentally issued licenses to practice their trade. But the idea that pharmacists should be able to pick and choose which prescriptions they fill out runs entirely against the current system, for better or for worse.

Do I understand your position to be that if you are licensed by the gov't to conduct business, then you shouldn't object when they place some stricture on how you conduct your business?

[Ronaldus Magnus]

But the idea that pharmacists should be able to pick and choose which prescriptions they fill out runs entirely against the current system, for better or for worse.

Your socialistic assumptions are simply wrong. Taxi cab drivers are also licensed by the government but they are not required to drive in neighborhoods they don't like. In the same way, law enforcement agents are not legally required to answer every call for help. This wasn't a case of discrimination against a racial group or some other protected class, it was a refusal to participate in an immoral action. No profession requires this kind of act of its members, including the military.

Furthermore, your desire to coerce a profession into engaging in behavior they object to is the realm of the legislature, not the governor or the judiciary.

[sittnick]

What none of you seem to understand is that pharmacists are part of the medical establishment and the medical establishment is already, to a great extent, controlled by the government.

Everything from supermarkets to furniture sales is "to a great extent controlled by the government"

Under the current system, this makes the profession of pharmacy in a nebulous position that does not seem to me to be entirely within the private sphere.

Neither is anything else that can be somehow classified as "interstate commerce"

Now, if you disagree with this system, fight to change it in one way or the other.

Uh, that's what we are doing right here.

Advocate deregulation of the medical establishment. Claim that pharmacists should be considered solely private merchants, and not recquire governmentally issued licenses to practice their trade.

That's a "straw man" and you know it. We could also outlaw abortifacients, which would be of questionable legality if not for ROE (GRISWOLD occurred during the era of hi-dosage estrogen pills), or we could simply acknowledge that a pharmacist's conscience should not be interfered with on such matters. In any event, the pharmacist must be allowed to use his professional judgement, which includes his moral judgement, in his profession. And no, the definition of profession is not quasi-governmental employee. The ABA and the old guilds were not governmental organizations.

But the idea that pharmacists should be able to pick and choose which prescriptions they fill out runs entirely against the current system, for better or for worse.

There are lots of ways to change the system, and one is to challenge it. I knew a med student at Yale-New Haven, a devout Italian Catholic (Italian as in, a citizen of Italy). There were 24 OB-GYNs in his class in the late '80's. He was the only one who stood his ground and refused to perform any abortions in his training. The rest of the students resented the heck out of him for it, because they figured that meant they "had" to do more. They didn't have the gumption to stand up to the current system. If the Bloombergs and Blagos of the world systematically rid the professions of those who have a disagreement with the "system," (Which has operated in these types of matters in this manner for only 40 years at the most, out of centuries) there will be no credentialed profesionals to challenge the system.

I'm sorry but pharmacists and doctors should not be junior Mengeles waiting for a reg to be changed.