60
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + + Line 51:
Line 53: + +
Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds? (view source)
Revision as of 01:59, November 13, 2008
, 01:59, November 13, 2008no edit summary
*'''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)
*'''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)
==No==
==No==
:::::But wasn't that the whole principle behind "render unto Caesar...", that you can have dual obligations? Anyway, it's the ''doctor'' who is supposed to be ensuring a medication is appropriate for a patient, and aside from interaction-checks, a pharmacist is not supposed to second-guess the decisions of doctors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::But wasn't that the whole principle behind "render unto Caesar...", that you can have dual obligations? Anyway, it's the ''doctor'' who is supposed to be ensuring a medication is appropriate for a patient, and aside from interaction-checks, a pharmacist is not supposed to second-guess the decisions of doctors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Going back to Terry's original point, a pharmacist could not be sued for dispensing a prescribed drug (Viagra in your example) to a patient, even if the patient died as a result of a side-effect of that drug, unless the pharmacist was negligent (that is to say, unless the pharmacist dispensed his viagra script at the same time he dispensed a nitrate to the guy, and he died as a result of an interaction between the two that the pharmacist should have picked up on but did not.) Giving Viagra to a really old guy might have been a bad call on the behalf of the old man's doctor, and it's possible the doctor could be sued for malpractice over it -- but the pharmacist could not be sued for it. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Pharmacists cannot be forced to fill any prescription, period. Nor can any person be forced to do anything that violates their freedom of conscience. Like consciensuous objectors that aren't required to serve in a position that might require them to kill another person. Or medical personel put into a position that requires them to participate in the killing of an unborn baby or the euthanasia (assisted suicide) of another person. That's if you live in the United States of America of course.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Pharmacists cannot be forced to fill any prescription, period. Nor can any person be forced to do anything that violates their freedom of conscience. Like consciensuous objectors that aren't required to serve in a position that might require them to kill another person. Or medical personel put into a position that requires them to participate in the killing of an unborn baby or the euthanasia (assisted suicide) of another person. That's if you live in the United States of America of course.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)