426
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 35:
Line 35: +
Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds? (view source)
Revision as of 22:21, October 28, 2008
, 22:21, October 28, 2008→Yes
*'''Yes'''. If Christian pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and keep their jobs, then Buddhist soldiers can refuse to fire at people and keep their jobs. Jehovah's Witness surgeons can refuse to perform a blood transfusion, and keep their jobs. You know what your job is going to entail, if you're not prepared to do it, don't take that job. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 21:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
*'''Yes'''. If Christian pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and keep their jobs, then Buddhist soldiers can refuse to fire at people and keep their jobs. Jehovah's Witness surgeons can refuse to perform a blood transfusion, and keep their jobs. You know what your job is going to entail, if you're not prepared to do it, don't take that job. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 21:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
*'''yes''': I think it's important that pharmacists who have moral objections be allowed to do what they can to avoid something they object to, but if it comes down to it, the doctor prescribed a medication based on his or her best understanding of the situation. I have read stories of Pharmacists refusing to give women Birth Control, but they do not know *why* the woman needed it. there are medical conditions that require birth control, including some that are very serious like debilitating crams and blood loss. Conditions which have nothing to do with a woman having sex or not, or wanting a child or not. If arrangements can be made, say another pharmacist, they should get to say "you do it". but if no alternative exists, their job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 18:21, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
==No==
==No==