Hypothetical: I'm a pharmacists and my dad was a UAW worker in Flint, and the foreign cars put him out of work and destroyed my home town, so I have a moral objection to foreign owned companies competing with US companies. You come in and ask for Beyer asprin because you have a head ache, I don't sell it to you. What's up? Crazy right? Not all that different from what we're talking about.
How about dispensing drugs when the pharmacist thinks it's for an off label use (when the doctor prescribes the drug for a condition for which it's not FDA approved). Can't the pharmacist step in then too? Not his business.
A pharmacist is a licensed professional because the government has decided that the people need a minimum level of quality and availability of services. Part of availability means that if a pharmacist should be expected to be able to do it, every pharmacist knows how, but I don't think anyone fifty years ago, when pharmacy might have been even more technically demanding, ever thought members of the profession would be refusing to sell a particular drug.
“Not all that different from what we’re talking about.” If it were possible to rewach and pinch your spirit, I would reccommend you do that because you apparently have either an asleep spirit or a dead one since you cannot tell the difference in alive and dead ... treating to kill is not the same as treating to cure in order to sustain life. In your flawed calculus perhaps they are the same, hence you have a dead-soul to contend with before you will be able to differentiate keenly. You and ‘ethicist’ Charo have much in common. Aren’t you proud?
The pharmacist is not an order taker. It is his job that the drugs dispensed do more good than harm to the person obtaining them. They have a professional, personal and moral obligation to dispense drugs that do not harm the person receiving them. This includes quality, quantity, frequency,contraindications with other drugs, and there knowledge of the person. They are not pill counters and they have training in chemistry that doctors generally do not have.
The pharmacist has the same moral responsibility to the patient as the doctor. Making a pharmacist participate in a treatment that he disagrees with as harming the patient is an abuse of power.
The word is “professional.”
(And yes, I’ve had pharmacists refuse to fill ‘scripts without talking to me, just as I’ve had to go to the bedside to give insulin shots because the patient’s nurse was concerned about his blood sugar and refused.)
Do you want a person with no conscience counting out your pills?
You’re free to try to change my mind, but you’re not free to force my mind and hands to do what you want.
You can get what you want if it’s legal and you pay for it, but you do not have the right to force me to buy it, store it, and sell it to you.
If you have your way, the majority of US voters who object to abortion and physician assisted suicide as the intentional killing of fellow human beings will have no choice other than people they believe are unethical.
Yeah, that’s why some places don’t sell alcohol or tobacco and others do.
It’s a free country. Go somewhere else for what you want. If too many people go somewhere else, I’ll go out of business or change.
BTW, the majority of voters who hate killing *are* “the government.”
Precisely. The Big Government regulation being proposed by the administration is exactly like the Muzzie cab drivers who wanted to pick and choose which fares they’d accept (no booze, no seeing-eye dogs, maybe no “infidels” period) while hogging the spot at the front of the line so another cabbie couldn’t serve the spurned passenger.