I'm glad you posted this already...because I was gonna. I read it this morning in my copy of the Red Star.
I understand a pharmacist's moral reluctance to fill a prescription like that...but it's really not his call to make.
OTOH, if the pharmacist looked at the prescription and at the woman's allergies, etc on file at the pharmacy and said "I don't feel comfortable filling this because it may injure the customer", I'd agree with that.
Maybe this pharmacist needs to find a store where he can feel comfortable in his personal beliefs insteading of imposing those beliefs on someone else.
A pharmacist has every right to his moral beliefs, and should NOT be required to fill prescriptions that violate his fundamental values. The patient has the choice of patronizing other pharmacies.
I have been an ER physician for over 20 years. I have refused to prescribe the "morning after pill", even in cases of rape. It is my fundamental belief that abortion is murder, and that the morning after pill is a form of abortion. I have never run into any problem with my policy, but I would never back down under any circumstances. In the event of any legal action I would certainly know what organizations to turn to for legal/financial assistance.
You don't really have a CLUE as to the desperate need for pharmacists, do you?
Pharmacies are paying large dollars AND popping for cars just to get a recent-grad who can actually walk and talk.
Having said that, can't you come up with something more stimulating than "impose his views..."?
Like, for example, maybe the customer could go across the street?
I'd hope there would be more than one pharmacist, in which case the one who opposed could pass it on to one who didn't.
"I don't feel comfortable filling this because it may injure the customer", I'd agree with that. "
But aren't some forms of birth control abortifacients, i.e. they don't allow the formed embryo to implant into the lining of the uterus? In that scenario, the pharmacist could say that he "doesn't feel comfortable filling this because it may injure a living, growing child inside the customer", couldn't he?
How does this case differ from the case of an attorney who, when asked to defend a person accused of wife-beating, says, "I'm sorry, but I do not take cases where I am asked to defend accused wife beaters"??
Is that attorney "imposing" his beliefs on someone else?
Should he find another line of work?