Posted on 10/05/2008 12:12:12 PM PDT by forkinsocket
A woman was refused the "morning-after pill" by a supermarket's duty pharmacist because it was against his religious beliefs.
Ruth Johnson, 33, who has two children, including a month-old baby, had not been using her usual method of contraception with her fiancée.
She went to the Tesco dispensary in Hewitts Circus, Cleethorpes, Lincs, and asked an as assistant for the pill Levanelle.
Miss Johnson was told it could only be dispensed by the locum pharmacist who was called to speak with her.
She said: "He came out from behind a screen and told me that he would not be allowing me to buy the pill from him because he had a right to refuse to sell it on the basis of his personal beliefs.
"The pharmacist was of Asian origin so I asked him if it was because of his religion and he replied 'Yes'."
Miss Johnson, from Cleethorpes, was left feeling ashamed and worried and complained to the store manager who told her they couldn't force the pharmacist to sell the product.
She said: "I asked him if a Jewish or Muslim checkout operator could refuse to sell pork or alcohol or if a Jehovah's Witness could refuse to sell birthday and Christmas cards."
Her concern is that the policy could deter teenage girls from seeking the morning-after pill.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Ooops, shouldn't that read where the BIGGER person's begins? You seem to miss the point that many people see 2 humans in the abortion debate. You take the position that one of them's rights trumps the other's. That doesn't go along with your definition of the libertarian position. (btw, not all libertarians are pro abortion).
My son is a Pharmacist Intern. He will be a pharmacist in another 18 months. He is anti-abortion. Just because a liberal doctor wants to recommend an abortion, should my son be force to perform it?
It is pretty obvious you think pharmacists are there to do the bidding of doctors. They are not. The two professions have been separated for centuries.
That happens sometimes.
I suggest you check out a good bridge and see if it will provide you the relief you so desperately seek.
We need numbers here.
Absolutely NOT!
He is not obligated to fill a prescription for an abortion drug, period. Just because a doctor prescribes it doesn’t mean he has to fill it. The doctor sometimes doesn’t know the history of the patient and that is why they need to work TOGETHER.
The person wanting the drug can go to another pharmacy and they know it. Some people just want to force the pharmacist to do what they want done. DON’T DO IT! Those same people don’t care about you they care about what they want NOW.
It’s always the same people too. Ask any pharmacy.
Absent such regulation, which no profession has asked for, you'd probably be dead (long ago).
Last time you checked you didn’t check all that closely. Science has progressed quite a bit since you learned it out in the street. Get with the times. Frankly I’m tired of your primitivism being given free reign.
No it doesn’t. Note that peach pits have a rather high level of cyanide. Cyanide is poisonous to human beings. We do not outlw peaches. Risks are tolerated in life.
Sure it does, particularly that guy. He’s quite annoying.
I mean, like, this is a relatively new thing ~ freedom, laws, etc. Used to be it was my small band against yours. We had no laws that kept you out of our barbeque pit I'll assure you, so arguing there's some magic in adults that should immunize them is garbage.
Let's hear the rationale, and tie it into such concepts as "law". Otherwise we might as well listen to the wind blowing through the trees than to read your stuff.
It's an irrelevant point. In fact, it's got quite a bit in common with those "your mamma...." challenges.
“Ruth Johnson, 33, who has two children, including a month-old baby, had not been using her usual method of contraception with her fiancée.”
Someone ought to tell her to give it a rest.
I’d like for you to stay on topic. The only question before us is whether or not an old whore should be able to flank around licensed pharmacists.
I haven't been on FR much lately, it's good to see you posting.
“He's a pill-pusher. Neither he nor the Catholic nor anyone else may substitute their judgment for the decision of the patient and her prescribing physician. It's none of his damned business.”
The pharmacist in question earns his living by dispensing medication, so by definition, this is his business. He, like all other health care professionals, is required to operate under the fundamental ethical principle of non-malfeasance—first do no harm. If he feels that a medication will be used to deliberately cause harm to a human being, then he has an ethical duty to refuse to dispense it. The article is sketchy on the pharmacist’s motivation, but this is certainly one concern involved with the medication involved, given that it can act as an abortifacent.
“There's a difference between”n an unimplanted fetus and a living, breathing human being.
This would actually be an embryo-it’s isn’t considered a fetus until eight weeks. Both the embryo and the fetus are living human beings, from a biological perspective. They are unique members of the human species, and they are living organisms. More to the point, they are human organisms, aka, human beings. You are correct that there are big differences between human beings at different stages of their development, for example, between an embryo, a newborn infant, and an octagenerian. Those differences do not change the fundamental identity of the organism as a human being. The drug in question, Levonorgestrel, can directly prevent the embryo from implanting in the mother’s uterus, thereby intentionally bringing about it’s death. Obviously this is a very grave matter for any healthcare professional to consider when deciding whether or not to prescribe this drug.
“Considering how much religion kills, yeah, I have a problem with religious people imposing it on others. Especially one which teaches that its ok to kill people for God.”
The pharmacist is asserting his right not to take part in a practice which might kill a child. If this is his primary motivation, then he, like you, may be motivated by the value of not taking part in cultural practices which deliberately take human lives. Moreover, although presented as a religious issue in this case, an atheist or agnostic pharmacist might refuse to dispense this medication because his study of bioethics has lead him to the same conclusion. Religion isn’t necessary to reach the conclusion that providing “Plan B” is unethical. If you feel that deliberately causing an innocent person’s life to end is unethical, then this medication is problematic.
This case highlights the right of conscience, which is sometimes a battlefield in healthcare. A classic case is that of Dutch physicians who refused to do the bidding of the Nazis. They actually got away with it. Others health care providers may be less successful in making their claim. Should this man be compelled to do something that he believes is unethical? An anesthesiologist may refuse to assist in sterilizations or gender reassignments, and a fertility specialist might refuse to inseminate an unmarried lesbian. Surgeons may refuse to undertake female circumcisions for African women. I don’t know if there is an analogous situation in your profession, but inevitably, there are clashes in healthcare around ethics—and around the issue of abortion, these conflicts are particularly dangerous. The fights can be very vicious and heavy handed. A healthcare professional in this country does not take a stance like the pharmacist in this article without expecting potentially extreme consequences. This is the professional equivalent of refusing to give up your seat on the bus. The individuals who does so may be putting their career on the line by asserting right of conscience, and pro-abortion health care workers are not above trying to make an example of people. Abortion is not an academic issue, it is a matter of life and death, and that’s how the battles are fought.
This will become more important if Senator Obama is elected President, because he has said that the first piece of legislation he will sign is the Freedom of Choice Act. The act is designed to remove all barriers to abortion. Some of the proponents involved in pushing this legislation intend for it to remove financial barriers, such as a ban on tax-payer funding for abortion. They may also try to push to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. Should that happen, the medical ethical principles may be very similar as those underlying this case.
Again, it's good to see you posting, and I hope you are well. -iq
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.