View source for Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician.  However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma.  If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them.  They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level.  If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say.  If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck.  When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers.  You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience.  Of course he has that right.  The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired.  Again, I say: of course the employer has that right.  Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences.  If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat..... [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:''Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...''Ah yes, the Nuremberg defence. "I voz only follovink orders..." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats irrelevant. How about lawyers?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Lawyers decline to defend murderers who refuse to plead guilty. Lawyers may defend people accused of murder, who may or may not be murderers, There is a difference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)


(unindent) I suppose I should refine the premise somewhat.  A store has the right to sell or not sell  a given product, including any type of prescription drug.  If Drugstore X has a "no Plan-B" sales policy that's their right, just as they don't have to sell tobacco or adult magazines.  If they do offer it for sale, then there should be a way for a patient to get it filled during business hours regardless of who's on duty - Plan-B has a short time window of effectiveness, so telling a customer to come back later can have consequences.  A pharmacist who keeps a patient from getting a med when it's available is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, and should be fired.  The only legitimate intervention a pharmacist should be concerned with is drug interactions.  I don't want them deciding what I should or shouldn't take because of their personal values, whether it's Plan-B, morphine, etc. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And, as Bugler pointed out gods law, we live in a society of laws and one of them is that you can fire someone for not doing thier job. Gods law is irrelevant here. My employer could fire me for a transgression, gods law or not. Also, its the doctors that make these descions, not pharamcists as DinsdaleP points out.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==No==
Christian - or other religion - pharmacists who feel that the handing out of contraceptive pills would encourage or facilitate pre-marital or extra-marital intercourse are not only within their rights, but indeed fulfilling their moral and religious duties, in declining to co-operate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

A pharmacist is not a machine. He is a human being dispensing certain materials that, used improperly, are highly dangerous. If he has any reason to believe that a prescribing physician has failed to account for the dangers, moral or other, of any prescription, he has the right&mdash;he has the duty&mdash;not to fill that prescription.

Some of the very ones wanting pharmacists to behave as though they were little more than "automatic pharmacy machines" would likely be among the first to scream for the scalp of any pharmacist who had the bad luck, or the bad sense, to fill a prescription for Viagra (sildenafil/Pfizer) for an elderly man who then died of a [[heart attack]] in the arms of his illicit mistress that very evening. Or if those activists did not so scream, then his widow's [[attorney]] might.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Well said, Terry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::However, gentlemen, let me pose this question to you: do I, as an employer, have the right to make it clear to prospective employees that I expect them to fulfill certain obligations, and then to fire them if they fail to fulfill those obligations?  In short, if I hire someone with the understanding that he will fill all lawful prescriptions, and then he does not, should I be required to continue to employ him?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::God's law should have priority over that of Caesar. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)


::::I'm very uneasy with that line of argument, Bugler.  It sounds good in theory, but in practice, it leads to problems.  Should a Muslim pharmacist have the right to deny prescriptions based on religious faith, for instance?  What about an orthodox Jewish pharmacist who notes that certain medications technically violate the laws of Kosher?  And again, should I as an employer be required to employ those whose conscience prevents them from doing the job I want done?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)