Changes

*'''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)

*'''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)

*'''Yes''': I know this debate has been pretty quiet for a while, but I wanted to chime in anyway.  I can understand why a good Christian pharmacist would be reluctant to dispense things like plan B, but I believe that someone who chooses to become a pharmacist should be prepared to dispense all drugs that their employer desires them to that are presented by patients with legitimate scripts.  If a pharmacist has a moral objection to Plan B (or condoms, or anything else,) they should find a pharmacy that chooses not to stock those items.  I do not think that employers should be required to hire people who cannot fulfill the duties of their position -- and even though religious belief is a protected class, it's okay (at least under US and California law) to discriminate against protected classes if their membership in that protected class interferes with their ability to do what you are hiring them for. You don't have to hire a Muslim to be your butcher if your facility processes pigs, nor do you have to hire a Hindu to be your butcher if your facility processes cows.  You don't have to hire a Scientologist to be a neurologist in your hospital if his religious belief causes him to believe all migraines are psychosomatic, nor do you have to hire a devout Christian Scientist if you work at a blood bank.  You [b]can[/b] do any of these things if you desire -- but legally requiring an employer to do so infringes on their rights.  (If I ran a pharmacy, I would not force my pharmacists to fill any scripts they weren't comfortable with, though.  I just think employers should have the option to do so.)  [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)   

*'''Yes''': I know this debate has been pretty quiet for a while, but I wanted to chime in anyway.  I can understand why a good Christian pharmacist would be reluctant to dispense things like plan B, but I believe that someone who chooses to become a pharmacist should be prepared to dispense all drugs that their employer desires them to that are presented by patients with legitimate scripts.  If a pharmacist has a moral objection to Plan B (or condoms, or anything else,) they should find a pharmacy that chooses not to stock those items.  I do not think that employers should be required to hire people who cannot fulfill the duties of their position -- and even though religious belief is a protected class, it's okay (at least under US and California law) to discriminate against protected classes if their membership in that protected class interferes with their ability to do what you are hiring them for. You don't have to hire a Muslim to be your butcher if your facility processes pigs, nor do you have to hire a Hindu to be your butcher if your facility processes cows.  You don't have to hire a Scientologist to be a neurologist in your hospital if his religious belief causes him to believe all migraines are psychosomatic, nor do you have to hire a devout Christian Scientist if you work at a blood bank.  You '''can''' do any of these things if you desire -- but legally requiring an employer to do so infringes on their rights.  (If I ran a pharmacy, I would not force my pharmacists to fill any scripts they weren't comfortable with, though.  I just think employers should have the option to do so.)  [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)   

==No==

==No==