http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070727/ap_on_he_me/refusing_prescriptions
This is a clear case of the state interfering in the personal lives of these pharmacists, and say that they MUST defy their moral standards. It has always been the accepted norm in a free society that an establishment has the right to refuse service (except in the case of blatant discrimination).
Where are the people on the "pro-choice" side who decry "government involvement"? Is their objection only in the case where abortion is restricted?
2007-07-27 09:26:35 · 12 answers · asked by †Lawrence R† 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
For Jeanne B: The question then becomes, "If a person cannot bring his moral beliefs into his job, i.e., conduct his job in an above board, honest manner, than just how powerful are his beliefs?
2007-07-27 14:19:11 · update #1
For CharityG: If legality is the main criteria, don't we creep into the territory of countries that we fought because they said the same thing?
2007-07-27 14:21:02 · update #2
Government should be involved as we are a nation founded on Christian principles. absolutely, but not the way things are today. BEcause today they dont side with the ways that are of the Lord, they side the other way. There are no longer moral absolutes for these ppl. its their right to do as they please, but they dont give Christians that same right. No phrmacist should be forced to do somehting they KNOW is wrong, by giving out a pill to end a life. Its murder to end life. Yet the govt okeyed abortion and now we can legally kill all those babies we dont want, and yes they are babies with human dna in them even before birth. yes it is a baby. But we can kill them. and if we have a parent too old and we dont want to mess with them, we can help them committ suicide too. My child cant go to school and talk about Jesus, but an athiest child can celebrate Hallowween with the teachers invovled and talk about demons and witches all day long. Its only the Christians they want to silence. No worry, just keep believing truth and living it, as Jesus is coming soon, and He will deal with all of those. Those that wont hear and obey Him, are lost i cant tell a woman she cant have an abortion and kill her baby, as its her right, but she can tell a pharmicist he MUST give someone that pill to end life. Freedom is only for those that dont believe in this world today. BUt, Jesus is coming soon and we will take back all the devil has stole from us Just keep standing, living and speaking truth,and KNow it will soon all be over as Jesus comes to rapture His children home. Oh yeah, much to celebrate. we have no reason to fear, but they do. We can only pray they choose JEsus in time. amen
2007-07-27 10:56:19 · answer #1 · answered by full gospel shirley 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Not in this case, Lawrence. Here the pharmacist wants to professionally assert his beliefs onto patients. The most important job description of a pharmacist is to dispense medicine.
Many of the medicines, concidered "safe" on the market today, can kill, if taken in that way. Should a pharmacist then refuse to dispense all medicines that may end a life? If they refuse to do that, they aren't pharmacists. I'm sure in pharmacies that employ many pharmacists one may ask another to dispense that medicine instead, with no issue being raised. But, if working alone, the pharmacist does not have the right to refuse. Period.
This is similar to the case of someone who is disabled and wants a particular job. The Americans with Disabilities Act says if the person can perform the essential function of the job, the duties that someone else can do, that the disabled person can not do, will be assigned to others, and the disabled person will get the job. But, if the disabled person cannot perform the essential function of the job, then they will not be awarded the job. Do you see the correlation?
2007-07-27 16:49:10 · answer #2 · answered by Jeanne B 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What about the rights of the person that needs an FDA-approved prescription medication that their doctor has requested for them?
Perhaps the pharmacists are in the wrong line of work if they have moral objections to dispensing certain medications.
It is my opinion that the state must become involved in this case in order to protect the people who need the prescription.
Those pharmacists don't know the circumstances for which the person needs the medication and it is not their job to pass moral judgement on the prescription-seekers.
2007-07-27 17:33:20 · answer #3 · answered by nova_queen_28 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This is further proof the "freedom of choice" is a phony phrase. It only applies to abortion. Lefties don't want people to be free to choose anything else. Why shouldn't a pharmacy owner have the "freedom to choose" which products he or she wants to sell? If the demand for abortion drugs is that great, other "pro choice" pharmacists will provide the drugs and make more money than the guy who is following his conscience. Let's be "pro choice" on everything, not just abortion.
2007-07-27 17:41:15 · answer #4 · answered by Jeff A 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If I can refuse to sell you a ham sandwich, then I should be able to refuse selling Plan B. I've done some research on Plan B, though, and I believe it's not an abortifacient.
As far as I can remember, it doesn't kill fertilized eggs, it just stops sperm from fertilizing the egg. Maybe I'm wrong. A lot of new stories on abortion and the pill aren't always correct.
2007-07-27 16:35:49 · answer #5 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
To quote from your article:
''Under the new state rule, pharmacists with personal objections to a drug can opt out by getting a co-worker to fill an order."
SO- the woman gets her needed meds and the morally upright pill roller is vindicated- win-win.
Same deal as doctors who won't do vasectomies.. they refer to someone who will.
2007-07-27 20:35:54 · answer #6 · answered by sirbobby98121 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The government has no right to regulate what a pills he can and can not sell. It's his right as a bussiness owner. THAT SAID he darn sure well knows that a host of other drugs out there can cause mis-carrige and abbortion. The fact that he doesn't wanna carry the morning after pill is purly political.
Resist tyranny.
2007-07-27 17:16:50 · answer #7 · answered by rustyrale 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I find it hard to believe that a drug dealer has any moral standards. Their lively hood is made from providing temporary solutions via drugs.
It is not their place to make a medical or moral judgment about the pills they provide.
Now they could on the other hand remind the customer that a side effect of the pill is that it could kill unborn children.
2007-07-27 16:46:07 · answer #8 · answered by heThatDoesNotWantToBeNamed 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Murder is a moral decision. I may decide that murdering someone effectively solves my problem, let's say this person bullies me and interferes with my right to the pursuit of happiness, can I murder them now? Of course not. The government does legislate morality. And it provides provisions for religion too, the government nor can the company compel her to do something against her religion.
2007-07-27 16:35:59 · answer #9 · answered by Pfo 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well, traditionally, elected politicians do excell in the area of morality. Right?
2007-07-27 16:51:27 · answer #10 · answered by Beardog 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋