Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Pharmacists (and others) w/ incapacitating moral scruples....

Original Date: Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:05 am

[Posted as reply in another group, in response to a member opining it
wrong to "coerce" pharmacists to fill prescriptions against their
moral beliefs.]
"I'm with you except for one thing: passing a law obligating
a pharmacist (or anyone else) to do something against their moral
principles is a NO-NO in my eyes. If the pharmacist won't fill
someone's script because of moral objections, then take it up
with the store manager and get someone else or some other company to
fill your script. Enough people going to the store manager or
another company about their script not being filled on moral
principles will ultimately result in removal of pharmacist X to a
different job.
To force an unwilling pharmacist to fill a script against
his/her moral code is just as bad as any other form of coercion.
As for me, I'm strictly pro-choice."]


If a pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions given to him
(and incidentally, I sincerely doubt that any female pharmacists are
having these "moral" dilemmas), than why the heck is he in the

A pharmacist is by definition the person who dispenses medications at
the express request/order or a physician. Call it enabling, whatever-
-that's their function, deal with it. They dispense drugs. They can
keep whatever suspicions or doubts or dislikes they want as to the
uses involved, but a valid prescription legally ought to be honoured--
or, information given as to another pharmacy that will not be so
(pardon the term) "obstructionist".

It is /not/ part of their job to second-guess either the physician's
judgement or the patient's needs, regardless of their own personal
beliefs. I live in Illinois, and I'm glad that Gov. Blagojevich
(yes, I can spell his name w/o looking it up) had the extreme
common sense to pass this measure telling pharmacists to fulfill the
logical duties of their job.


(Chronically and unmedicatedly intellectual :P )

Furthermore...... (I added)

Most consumers are sheep when it comes to complaining to stores and
getting any positive changes out of it. In some areas, going to
another pharmacy may be extremely difficult if not impossible. Free-
market economics are not always operating under free conditions,
contrary to the gospels of Ayn Rand.

And most of all, have you NOT NOTICED that this whole idea of
protecting "moral beliefs" in the workplace is basically a cover for
Christian right-wingers in any/all professions to refuse to do
their jobs without bias or prejudice, to withhold services and
information selectively according to their own opinions and not the
real needs of the patient, customer, client or student?

That means all medical personnel, high-school counselors (guidance
and school psychologists), librarians, public-school teachers,
police officers, and everyone else whose job description ordinarily
and properly states that they are not to let their own moral scruples
interfere with the actual job at hand, nor let them favour any person
above another in terms of attention or quality of care,
confidentiality, dignity, and civil rights.

Some people, in case you've forgotten, do not 'morally believe' in
civil rights.

All told, I'd rather 'coerce' them all to err on the side of putting
another's /needs/ above their own /preferences/. Anyone got a moral
problem with that?


No comments: