401
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 32:
Line 32: +
Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds? (view source)
Revision as of 03:59, July 5, 2008
, 03:59, July 5, 2008no edit summary
'''Yes!''' The pharmacist has no right to interfere in someone else's life. I may find vanity morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I should block your right to purchase Crest Whitestrips.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]]
'''Yes!''' The pharmacist has no right to interfere in someone else's life. I may find vanity morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I should block your right to purchase Crest Whitestrips.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]]
A pharmacist is meant to be a PROFESSIONAL and has a duty to his client to ensure the drug provided is proper treatment and has no bad interactions with other drugs prescribed and no safety concerns with a patients other conditions. They are a additional support and check on the Doctor. If the drug is legal and properly prescribed then the Pharmacist has a professional responsibility to provide it. If they can make choices on personal moral grounds then they could decide that an alcoholic should not get treatment, a women could be prevented from contraceptives and that sort of thing.
==No==
==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)
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)