With the existence of drugs like the morning after pill and other contraceptives, should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
Pharmacists should be required to fill all prescriptions because they agreed to those terms when they became pharmacists.
Pharmacists go through rigorous studies to become members of their profession. Throughout their schooling, they learn about contraceptives, the morning after pill, and other legal prescriptions. It is during this time that prospective pharmacists should look within themselves to determine whether or not they are comfortable dispensing these medications. These medications are legal, and a number of patients rely on them to stay healthy. If a doctor prescribes this medication, the pharmacist should dispense it as long at the pharmacist determines that it would not interact dangerously with any other drugs the patient is taking.
Posted by: AmusingTanner32Absolutely, it is their job. They can't pass judgment nor deny medication regardless of their moral stances.
A pharmacist has an obligation to dispense medicine. They have a license to dispense medicine. It is their job to pass out medicine to individuals regardless of their moral feelings about the medicine or the person or condition. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense the morning after pill for whatever reason, they can deal with the moral or religious dilemma this presents at a later time in a more appropriate circumstance
Posted by: PinkMychI agree that pharmacists should be made to fill prescriptions even if they do not morally agree that the drugs should be used. The government, doctors and the individual patient should be making those decisions.
Pharmacists should fill these prescriptions as their job requires. It is not their discretion which prescriptions to fill.
Posted by: SauBauerPharmacists should be compelled to fill any prescription a doctor writes for any drug that is legal in this country, because that is their job.
Pharmacists are in the business of dispensing medications. They are not in the business of imposing their personal moral beliefs on their customers. If they cannot stand to dispense contraceptives, they should find another line of work. To, in effect, compel a person to risk pregnancy because of another's idea of morality is, in itself, immoral, and contrary to the American tradition of personal freedom.
Posted by: SynonymousGlenn34Pharmacies have contracts that allow them to supply drugs to customers, which means they should have all prescription drugs available.
As a rule, I think business owners should have the right to sell or not sell whatever they like, but pharmacies are different. Pharmacies offer products that are government-regulated and are only available through a pharmacy. They are contractually obligated to offer prescription medication. Morals should not come into play.
Posted by: TownNoamYes, if you work for a pharmacy, then you have to do your job.
Everyone is entitled to his or her own beliefs. You should not force your beliefs onto someone else who may not feel the same way as you do. Just because you believe it is morally wrong to use certain prescription drugs, the person with the prescription may not feel that same way. And that person should not have to suffer because of your beliefs.
Posted by: Elliot Maxwell.I don't go into their churches and use my freedom of speech right so they should stay out of my personal business.It Is incredibly intrusive
Why should their rights trump mine in a public venue,they also have no right to make an assumption about any medication that my doctor has prescribed for me.The Bible also allowed slavery but you don't see that anymore.I have constitutionally guaranteed rights so why do theirs count more.Find A job where you can work and be religious that does not conflict with other peoples rights
Posted by: AnonymousIf a pharmacist can't do his or her job then they should find another job, period.
If a pharmacist can't, for personal reasons, dispense legal medications then they should get another job. Other people can't refuse to serve in the capacity of their jobs so why should pharmacists be allowed to. It would be like police refusing to wear a weapon because it violates their morals. They just wouldn't be police and if a pharmacist can't fulfill the duties of their job then they too need to find something else to do.
Posted by: 54IInfernoPharmacists should fill all prescriptions regardless of moral, or rather religious beliefs since they provide a service to free citizens.
A pharmacist is providing a public service as an employee of a business governed by the laws of this country. That means their moral beliefs, I mean religious beliefs because that is what we're talking about here, cannot in any way obstruct the freedom of a patron to be prescribed a legal medicine. If their religious beliefs hinder them from providing such a service then are not fit to work in a position that provides a service to the free general public.
Posted by: BrianDjYes because as the long the drug isn't lethal it's the patients' decision whether their morals allow them to take the prescriptions.
Some people believe the morning after pill is the abortion pill but as far as the pharmacist is concerned there are parts of every career that a person may not like but it's part of the job and its legal. The pharmacist is there to dispense medication not be a moral representative and pass judgment.
Posted by: N4nClarI believe pharmacists should do the work they are paid to do regardless of their morals and/or beliefs.
Pharmacists are just like every other worker out there. They are wage earners contributing to the Capitalistic system. Abortion rights were fought for and the courts ruled in their favor. If Pharmacists feel so strongly they should write their elected governmental officials or choose to use their time protesting and gathering followers to get the laws reversed.
Posted by: NoakBePharmacists should be obligated to fill prescriptions even if they do not go along with their morals because it is their job to do so.
Pharmacists chose their profession for a reason and they chose it knowing what types of prescriptions they would have to fill which includes contraceptives. They are pharmacists and not preachers. It is their job to take what the doctor orders and fill it as long as it fits the proper health guidelines. If they can not do this in an unbiased way, then they have not right to stay in that profession.
Posted by: eyeslikethatFilling prescriptions is a pharmacist's job and the pharmacist's moral stance shouldn't interfere with doing one's job.
If a prescription is perfectly legal and a patient has a legitimate need to take the medication prescribed, the pharmacist has an obligation to fill the prescription, regardless of his or her moral stance. If it is truly a moral dilemma, perhaps the pharmacist should be looking for another line of work.
Posted by: UnknownClaud41Even though it may be morally wrong, it is the doctor who prescribed such drugs and it is not for the pharmacist to decide on the patient's medical being.
Pharmacist became pharmacist to fill prescriptions that were prescribed by a medical doctor. The medical doctor prescribed such drug because his or her studies convinced the doctor that such prescription would be in best interest of the patient's physical and mental health. The pharmacist must swallow his or her pride, regardless of personal thoughts, and fill the prescription.
Posted by: M4rcHaro
I believe vendors should continue to enjoy the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, especially when competing vendors are free to take that business.
I live in a town of less than 10,000 residents, yet I still have access to three convenient pharmacies. Even if all three choose to refuse selling me a questionable product, I still live a short drive away from a larger town that likely has a willing pharmacy. I believe most people are so situated. Thus, those pharmacies should still be allowed to sell as they wish since competition suggests someone will sell what I want. It's a matter of freedom to operate a business as the owner sees fit. The fact that a customer may have to travel out of his or her way to fill a prescription does not necessitate forcing pharmacies to act against their wishes. My only caveat involves life or death situations. For example, a pharmacy should not be able to refuse my request for insulin.
Posted by: PhysicalLucien50Pharmacists should not be forced to do anything that goes against their moral conscience.
Pharmacists, and doctors as well, should not be coerced into doing anything they find morally objectionable. The government should not ban the use of those drugs, but people who have the desire to use them should find another pharmacist who does not mind providing them.
Posted by: baskcenNo.
If they fail to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong and whoever is going to them wants those things anyway, a logical consequence will be the people will look elsewhere for the prescriptions. That way, if you agree such drugs are morally wrong you can find a pharmacist who agrees with you and will not prescribe such drugs, and if you want the drugs you can find someone who'll give them to you.
Posted by: AlwaysMoreThanYouYou cannot force someone to go against their conscience.
It is a violation for someone's rights to force them to provide something which they orally oppose. This is why the HHS mandate is so bad, it forces organizations to violate their conscience or be shut down. As for an individual pharmacist, he will probably lose his job for doing so but ha has to do what is right rather than what he is told to do against his conscience.
Posted by: BennyWPharmacists should not be required to fill prescriptions for drugs they believe to be morally wrong, because it would violate their constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Pharmacists should not be required to fill prescriptions for drugs they believe to be morally wrong, because it would violate their constitutional right to freedom of religion. The government does not have the power to tell the people what they must do. It only has the power to tell the people what they are prohibited to do, in the interest of society.
Posted by: jackprague94