I considered not answering this question because I don't like to get too political with my part of the site, but this just seems like a common sense thing. It's hard for me to say which is the worst: only giving contraception to a woman if she's married, believing that contraception is a form of abortion and refusing to dispense it, or holding prescriptions hostage, refusing to transfer them to another pharmacy. All of these things have been reported across the country. Dozens of states now allow pharmacists to refuse to fill any legal prescription that conflicts with their personal morals.
I respect other people's morals and ethics, but I can't support them when they lead to discrimination, as they do here. It's honestly surprising to me that somehow people even find this debatable. Either a pharmacist can apply their own morals to their job or they can't; allowing something in-between leads to a gray area full of slippery slopes. How ridiculous does it have to get? If a pharmacist wouldn't fill a prescription for an HIV positive, gay male because they didn't approve of their lifestyle, how would we feel about that? If they wouldn't dispense pain medication because they didn't believe in a type of surgery a person is recovering from, how would we feel about that? If they wouldn't give prescription to assist with erectile dysfunction because they didn't believe people above a certain age should be sexually active, how would we feel about that?
And what is a woman in a rural community, where there may only be one pharmacy, to do if she has her health care options denied? Some can afford to try another pharmacy in a nearby town, and some can not. For those that can not, this means that their legal right in choosing to control their own contraception by the method of their choice is no longer in their hands. In cases of emergency contraception, time is of the essence and a woman may have her attempt at responsibility denied by those that have nothing to do with her life.
Where are these pharmacists' morals when they are dispensing drugs that have well-known, terrible side effects? Where are their morals when the drugs they are dispensing cost an exorbitant amount of money, thereby eliminating a large percentage of the people who may actually benefit from taking them? Where are their morals when dispensing drugs from a company whose goal is not purely healthcare but rather an obvious financial gain?
This isn't an infringement on a business decision or their right to their conscience. The truth is that pharmacists can believe whatever they'd like. That's part of being an American, right? They can attend anti-contraception rallies, write their local paper about how wrong they believe it is to use contraception, teach their children how bad they believe contraception is, or whatever the case may be. However, since professionally they are licensed by the state, they must stick to U.S. medical standards which tell them to serve all people, regardless of race, religion, weight, hair length, astrological sign, lucky number, or anything else - including a lifestyle they don't approve of.
Current Reviews: 0
