10.22.08
The Right of Pharmacists to Refuse to Dispense Birth Control Prescriptions
Here is a news item about a pharmacy that just opening in my county where the plan is that they refuse to sell birth control, candy and sodas. http://wwrn.org/article.php?idd=29388 I don’t know, but do pharmacies sell cigarettes anymore? I wonder if this place will similarly refuse to sell those? Surely cigarettes are a larger vice than candy, soda and - dare I say it? - SEX! I have a brother who once owned probably the only convenience store in the world where there were no cigarettes for sale. That was his belief - that the use of cigarettes places an undue burden on society and thus is immoral. At tremendous cost to his bottom line, he refused to sell them. Selling cigarettes was against his principles and he stuck by them. I have to say I agree with him about the burden use of cigarettes places on society and applauded his efforts in standing by his principles. I was not however similarly enthusiastic about his decision to go into a business where a huge percentage of the profits are dependent on the sale of something he so strongly disapproved of.
In the same way I applaud the pharmacist’s decision to refuse to sell over the counter items that go against his principles - provided that includes refusal to sell cigarettes as well! In my opinion if a store wishes to refuse to sell any item directly to a customer, that is totally fine - no one else’s business but that of the owner. So if they don’t want to sell candy and sodas and NON-PRESCRIPTION birth control items, I say fine that is their prerogative.
But in the case of prescription items, it becomes no longer the simple case of a business selling a product to a customer, but a complicated affair involving the patient’s doctor and even their health insurance. The “sale” is not in the hands of the pharmacist. The morals and principles of the pharmacist here really have nothing to do with it. A patient comes in, having already decided with their doctor that birth control is the best thing for them. Maybe the health of the mother is such that more children would cause a risk. Maybe the parents are not emotionally able to do a good enough job raising the children they already have. None of this is the pharmacist’s business. His job is merely to fulfill the orders of the doctor in behalf of the patient. It is not about the pharmcist’s religion or his morals! It is about the patient and the doctor’s judgment.
Now, I happen to know that this particular pharmacy is in an area where most inhabitants have several cars in the family and can easily take their prescription to another drug store - probably not more than a mile away. So this pharmacist is really not hurting potential customers with his refusal to fill a doctor’s Rx.
What his policy represents is an attempt to disrupt the delivery of medical care at a step in which, so far as I know, he is not supposed to play a decision-making role. How far could we take this concept? Suppose firemen refused to put out fires in blue houses because painting a house blue was against their religion? What if the grocery store refused to sell baby formula because it’s owners believed it is better for a mother to nurse her baby?
The real clue in where the people running this pharmacy are coming from is in the quote taken from the story: ”This pharmacy is a vibrant example of our Holy Father’s charge to all of us to wear our faith in the public square,” said Loverde (the local Bishop, on a visit to the store,) who sprinkled holy water on the shelves stocked with painkillers and acne treatments. “It will allow families to shop in an environment where their faith is not compromised.” The only type of person who would feel the need to take that mission to the extent of controlling people’s health care choices is a Faithful, a Stage Two. The only type of person who would feel their own faith could be compromised by the actions of others is a Faithful or Stage Two person. Anyone in the other stages would care a lot more about keeping to their own priciples and allowing others to do the same.
I really do not know whether a pharmacist has the right - legally, professionally or morally - to refuse to do a portion of a pharmacist’s job due to religious principles. But I do know that birth control has been around longer than the professional life of most of today’s pharmacists. Just as I wondered why my brother would chose to open a convenience store when a huge portion of the profits come from an activity he refused to particpate in, one wonders why a person would chose pharmacy as a profession when a significant part of their job entails dispensing products that go against their faith!
KonstantinMiller said,
July 6, 2009 at 3:54 pm
You know so many interesting infomation. You might be very wise. I like such people. Don’t top writing.