Quantcast

Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

☆ElenaDiamond☆ 2012/07/08 12:50:07
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal
prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B,
puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they
do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient
relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they
consider immoral.

abortion pill
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Rick James 2012/10/15 21:33:41
  • Rick James 2012/09/04 16:04:25
  • Brosia 2012/07/28 00:12:51
    Yes they should.
    Brosia
    They do take an oath to " maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical and legal conduct" which some take to mean that they don't have to do something they find unethical. I take it to mean that it is illegal for them to refuse to fill a prescription that was written by a doctor, who has the whole story about why the medication is required. A pharmacist is not a doctor and should be forced to fill all prescriptions that are asked of them. If they feel like it would be against their faith to do so, they should remember that they are simply doing their job, and they can pray for that persons soul later.
  • Nimitz 2012/07/15 06:09:06 (edited)
    No they should not.
    Nimitz
    We got another tough one here! I answered "No they should not" because private pharmacists have the right to operate their practices however (misguidedly) they see fit insofar as they follow the standards of the profession.

    Conversely, a pharmacist who works for a publicly traded (government) corporation doesn't have a choice. He or she has to do what his/her boss tells him/her to do--up to and including, ultimately, the government. Don't wanna sell the Morning After pill on account of religious reservations? Fine. Start your own pharmacy or find another line of work.
  • Revkae 2012/07/15 05:39:42
    Yes they should.
    Revkae
    +1
    Their doctor has prescribed these scripts, The pharmacist is guilty of personal prejuidice, which should never enter into a business backround. Now, if there have been a number of deaths from a particular medicine, I believe he can petition to have another pharmacist fill the order.Or he/she/they can go to work for a pharmaceutical agency that holds his same ideals.
  • Red Rose 2012/07/14 04:20:54
    Yes they should.
    Red Rose
    People who want that need to be ale to get it from their nearest pharmacy.
  • thepastord 2012/07/13 13:36:35
    Yes they should.
    thepastord
    +1
    They need to mind their own business.............. Part of the job requirement, if the had concerns, they should have been a meat cutter! Oh, wait, they might not be able to....... Might be a member of Peta!

    Pardon the expression, but WTF! I'm real tired of this kind of crappola.........
  • being me 2012/07/10 08:45:26
    Yes they should.
    being me
    +2
    It's their job. If it's a problem for them then they need to seek a new profession.
  • La 2012/07/10 07:09:43
  • sjalan 2012/07/10 01:22:43
    Yes they should.
    sjalan
    +3
    The prescrition of medicine is between the doctor and the patient. A pharmacist is by law the licensed dispenser of prescription medications. PERIOD. A prescription presented MUST be dispensed or they become subject to disiplinary action by the state.
  • elijahin24 2012/07/09 18:37:54
    Yes they should.
    elijahin24
    +6
    It isn't the place of the pharmacist to determine what is or isn't moral for others. I heard a great analogy for this: A person has a right to be Amish. A person also has a right to apply for a job as a bus driver. But if your religion prohibits you from driving a vehicle, you do not have the right to get that job, and use your religion as a reason that you can't do it. If you want to be a pharmacist, you know going in, that that job may involve giving Viagra to an unmarried man, or birth control to teenaged girls. And yes, you may have to give someone the abortion pill. This is the job you chose. If your morals prohibit you from doing the job, you need to find a different job.
  • Archer ~ The Limit Break of... 2012/07/09 17:27:39
    Yes they should.
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +5
    I'll make an amendment to this - they should fill the prescription if they are the only person capable of filling it IN THAT OFFICE, AT THAT TIME.

    If there is someone else who does not morally object that can fill the prescription, then by all means, they should be the ones filling it. BUT a prescription is a prescription, and it is NOT their place to decide whether or not a person needs it. For all they know, they could be *saving* a life and allowing for more lives to later be created. They don't know that. They don't know, because they are not the person's doctor, do not know their history, do not know the situation.

    They are there to fill the prescription and make sure that it doesn't conflict with any other medications the person is on. End of story.
  • Heptarch 2012/07/09 17:03:12
    Yes they should.
    Heptarch
    +5
    They're there to do a job. They're not there to push their morality onto others. If you work in a public service job, you don't have the right to determine what is moral and what is not. You abide by the law.
  • Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum 2012/07/09 17:00:47
    Yes they should.
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +4
    It's not their job to be the morality police. If they can't do their job, they should be fired.
  • Diane Spraggs Yates 2012/07/09 14:25:11 (edited)
    No they should not.
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +4
    Freedom of reglion and anything forced on citizens is bad!!!!!! Go to a drug store who has no problem with it !
  • Melicio... Diane S... 2012/07/09 15:43:13 (edited)
    Melicious Kiss of PHAET
    +7
    And if it is the only drug store in town? It is not the pharmacist's job to dispense morality.

    Edit: Nice block. Your loss. Do your job, or don't go into that field. Nobody should have to go to another town because a person cannot do their job.
  • Diane S... Melicio... 2012/07/09 15:48:41
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    another town!!!!!
  • Archer ... Diane S... 2012/07/09 17:28:44
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +3
    And if the nearest 'other town' is four hours away, and by then it might be too late? It's happened. If you live in a town that has only one pharmacy, then there's a good chance you're pretty far away from other towns.
  • Diane S... Archer ... 2012/07/09 17:40:04
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    Why not open a drug store then !
  • Red Rose Diane S... 2012/07/14 04:22:42
    Red Rose
    +1
    In time to get plan B before it is too late, seems unlikely.
  • Diane S... Diane S... 2012/07/09 15:51:39
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +1
    It is not a Socialist Country yet we have rights go to another town or another drug store !
  • Scream 2012/07/09 10:27:38
    Yes they should.
    Scream
    +5
    If your job is filling prescriptions then you need to complete that job. If your personal morals get in the way of that then it's time to consider a new job.
  • starguide 2012/07/09 03:13:57
    Yes they should.
    starguide
    +7
    if they cant do there job,, let the pharmacy find them a differenr area to work in... or they can quit..of fore them for not doing the job they were hired for,, no unemployment insurance will be given for that reason
  • Melicious Kiss of PHAET 2012/07/09 01:32:43
    Yes they should.
    Melicious Kiss of PHAET
    +9
    If they can't handle doing the job in an unbiased fashion, as is required of them, they should work in a different field. It's not their job to judge, or force morality. It is their job to fill a prescription, they do not know a person's circumstance and frankly it's not their business.

    I wonder, for the people who answered no... what if it were against their religion to fill a cancer drug? Would your answer still be no?
  • Flowers 2012/07/09 01:00:07
    Yes they should.
    Flowers
    +8
    Why would they care? They are doing a job, they aren't taking the medication so I don't see why there would be a problem.
  • charles_1 2012/07/09 00:52:15
    No they should not.
    charles_1
    +3
    What if instead it's a prescription for medical pot, or a Dr kavorkian suicide prescription if that ever becomes legal. As more things become legal that many may find morally objectionable we have to allow them to be a conscientious objector and not to sell the medications they find morally objectionable.

    It's no different than conscientious objector status in the military.
  • MsTlynne charles_1 2012/07/09 03:30:13
    MsTlynne
    +12
    They should do the job they are hired to do or find something else to do, just as objectors shouldn't be in the military. What did they think we do in the military, have tea parties?
  • Singerar charles_1 2012/07/09 04:45:24
    Singerar
    +7
    If a Doctor writes the prescription and it's legal, they have an obligation to fill it.
    Pharmacist don't handle pot, and Oregon is the only state which offers assisted euthanasia.
  • charles_1 Singerar 2012/07/10 00:21:31
    charles_1
    +1
    And if your religion prohibits assisting suicide, and you live in Oregon, and studied to be a pharmacist before that was legal, what now. Move. Change professions.

    If we are going to be multicultural then we need to allow for these differences and understand this sort of thing will come up.
  • Live Fr... charles_1 2012/07/11 14:59:23
    Live Free Or Die
    I think legal assisted suicide is a lot different than dispensing the day-after-pill as in one case you are dealing with a living, breathing person and in another you are dealing with a fertilized egg and in most cases not even a fertilized egg, just a period.

    If you want to say it's a person, fine, but medically speaking it isn't anything more than maybe a potential person, depending on whether conception has occurred. Btw, there is no test to determine either way right after sex.
  • charles_1 Live Fr... 2012/07/11 18:06:25
    charles_1
    I am aware of that. But some people feel differently. I don't even agree with them. And science's answer is certainly not clear. If we are going to have all this tolerance of all these different cultures and views, then we have to allow for these kinds of things. Otherwise it is always some group shoving their personal belief's down some other group's throat. I don't see the big deal allowing people objector status when we do it for so many other groups for similar reasons. Everybody needs to be tolerant of everybody, and sometimes that means you just shop at another store so someone doesn't need to violate their own beliefs to service you.
  • Live Fr... charles_1 2012/07/12 01:32:53
    Live Free Or Die
    Actually, the science is very clear where the day-after-pill is concerned, as I explained above.

    Thus, I don't think denying medication on religious reasons without moral or ethical considerations should be tolerated.
  • charles_1 Live Fr... 2012/07/12 04:03:13
    charles_1
    First, not having a test is an invalid argument. But whatever.

    Science is not clear about when "human Life" begins, thus there is a valid moral stance on this issue. I've heard all the arguments, they are all based on arbitrary and contrived definitions and considerations. Reasonable people are going to have differing opinions and differing beliefs. And legal definitions are just as controversial.

    If you take the scientific definition of "life" and the scientific definition of "human being" a valid argument can be made based in science that human life begins at fertilization. If you throw in more nebulous issues like thought, or feeling, or ability to survive outside the womb, or "potential" to have these things you can arrive at different conclusions, but those are hardly scientific and delve more into the philosophical. And these issues are a very slippery slope. A recent ethics article argues that after birth abortions (infanticide) should be allowed.

    http://jme.bmj.com/content/ea...

    Their argument potentially suggests killing perfectly healthy toddlers, maybe up to a few years old, before they become self-aware and can think a bit to establish a goal. If this position were to be adopted by society, and it might, people should be allowed to refuse to participate. Especially...



    First, not having a test is an invalid argument. But whatever.

    Science is not clear about when "human Life" begins, thus there is a valid moral stance on this issue. I've heard all the arguments, they are all based on arbitrary and contrived definitions and considerations. Reasonable people are going to have differing opinions and differing beliefs. And legal definitions are just as controversial.

    If you take the scientific definition of "life" and the scientific definition of "human being" a valid argument can be made based in science that human life begins at fertilization. If you throw in more nebulous issues like thought, or feeling, or ability to survive outside the womb, or "potential" to have these things you can arrive at different conclusions, but those are hardly scientific and delve more into the philosophical. And these issues are a very slippery slope. A recent ethics article argues that after birth abortions (infanticide) should be allowed.

    http://jme.bmj.com/content/ea...

    Their argument potentially suggests killing perfectly healthy toddlers, maybe up to a few years old, before they become self-aware and can think a bit to establish a goal. If this position were to be adopted by society, and it might, people should be allowed to refuse to participate. Especially nurses and doctors who entered the field before society made killing toddlers legal. No doctor should be forced to euthanize a 6 month old baby if that practice was unethical when they entered the field. No pharmacist should be forced to provide a prescription for a drug to kill a 1 year old because someone makes it legal. This philosophy if extended may allow killing grown people as long as they are unconscious, sleeping, or in a drug induced state and just "potentially" might wake up in the morning since at the moment of murder they did not have any conscious "aims".

    You might think these things too far fetched. But the suggestion to allow infanticide is in the Journal of Medical Ethics. This is a totally serious suggestion they are making. You might even support it, I don't know, but you reference the "potential person" and that is exactly the argument in the JME. In a few generations it might be just like taking out the trash to take your 6 month old to the doctor for euthanasia because you are tired of taking care of a baby. The people in the future might look back at us as unenlightened trolls because we didn't allow killing 6 month olds, or 1 years olds, or 3 year olds; it's hard to tell where the new line will be drawn.

    The issue is that morals and ethics will vary in a multicultural society especially since people are changing the moral code so fast, so we need to allow for that and let individuals opt out of some of these situations where there are valid arguments supporting multiple moral positions. And especially where the moral code shifts after they have entered the field.
    (more)
  • Live Fr... charles_1 2012/07/13 13:14:42 (edited)
    Live Free Or Die
    The science is very clear. Human "life" starts at conception. It's the question of when you become a person that is not as well defined. Scientifically, the unborn child is both a developing human-being and a parasite on the mother's body because it is part of her body - that sounds cold, but that's reality - some side on the life of the child to be, and others on the side of the woman's right to control her own body and reproduction.

    I am speaking of the science where the Day-After-Pill is concerned. At that stage (the day after sex) it is more unlikely that the egg will have been fertilized. Moreover, even if it was fertilized, it has not reached the stage of being a fetus, which by medical definition is what an unborn child is.....In fact, it isn't even in the embryonic stage, just a blastocyst. There is no scientific evidence to support that we are persons at conception (only potential persons), but there is a ton of evidence that in order to be born as a person we must become one first. Since infanticide was more common before abortion became safe I don't believe they were more moral back then. If the pharmacist has a right to object to prescribing and the woman has a right to medical treatment, how do we bridge that gap? Just saying, "they can go across the street" is not a good answer if there is no other place close by as time is of the essence - 2-3 days at most after sex - to use the Day-After-Pill.
  • A Found... charles_1 2012/07/09 05:17:16 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    +6
    Yours would be a world of confusion and conflicts. Imagine going into a pharmacy and finding the owner was an Adventist and stocked no antibiotics. Going down the street to another store you found some antibiotics but the Mormon pharmacist refused to fill the prescription for a codeine based cough syrup. Further across town you found a Walgreen but they had decided to only stock "holistic products", herbs and leaves of exotic plants. Sorta like Animal House, don't you think?
  • Warren ... A Found... 2012/07/09 17:05:39
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +2
    Good point. Also, this could lead to discrimination against religious people, even those who were willing and able to act fairly. Employers would be reluctant to hire someone who could legally refuse to the do the job without fear of being fired. This would backfire against the religious community.
  • charles_1 A Found... 2012/07/10 00:16:56
    charles_1
    Different stores have different policies. It's not hard to figure out. I use the phone. It's really easy. Not complicated at all. I can resolve which stores have the products I want, what time they are open, what price they charge, directions to the store, all over this marvelous modern technology. And if I don't like a store's policy, I go somewhere else.

    Like the chick-filet...church going owner..not open on sunday...and the world did not come to an end. And the pharmacy up the street, not open 24 hours, had to find a different one for that midnight prescription fill.

    I don't find variety objectionable.
  • Warren ... charles_1 2012/07/09 17:02:51
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    If you object to doing a job, then you lose your job. Pretty simple.
  • charles_1 Warren ... 2012/07/11 18:10:08
    charles_1
    +1
    So when the president objected to doing his job enforcing immigration laws and unilaterally said he's just not going to do it you believed and still believe he should be impeached right? Pretty simple, for not doing his job enforcing and executing the laws. That is his job. You object to doing a job, then you lose it... That would be consistent, so I'm just wondering.
  • Warren ... charles_1 2012/07/11 19:23:31
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    Dude... You're on the wrong poll. Next time check the topic before you post, or start your own poll.

    troll
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/16 07:43:21

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals