« I Desperately Need This | Main | Hillary Behind War Against DeLay? »

April 14, 2005

More Capricious Pharmacists

I’m still wondering why it’s so terrible to allow pharmacists to not fill prescriptions if they have moral objections to what they will be used for. Yes, I understand that it might inconvenience people who want to get their prescriptions filled right away. But … so what? Did humanity create government to prevent people from being inconvenienced? Are we going to start forcing every single gas station owner to put condom dispensers in the bathroom? Or how about we force every single grocery store to carry organic health food. Wouldn’t want anyone to have to drive a few extra miles for expensive carrots.

Now a bill has been introduced in the House and Senate by Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

House and Senate backers unveiled a bill dubbed the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA) on Thursday. It would allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription only if the prescription can be passed to and filled by a co-worker at the same pharmacy.

I guess you better not ever work alone if you have a moral objection to contraceptives or the morning-after pill. Forget about opening your own small business.

"What have we come to in this country?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat and House sponsor of the bill, said Thursday morning at a rally on Capitol Hill. "We are merely saying, 'let the laws in this country stand.' Let a woman be treated with dignity. When she has a prescription from her doctor, that privacy should be respected."

I’d like to know what we have come to in this country when we try to force people to do something they think is immoral. Let a pharmacist be treated with dignity, as a real person with valid morals, instead of a pill dispenser. If our hypothetical woman wants her privacy respected, then she can go to another pharmacist. (Not that I really see how it’s disrespecting her privacy to not sell her something.)

"Nobody has a right to come between any person and their doctor," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and co-sponsor, said Thursday. "Today they might not fill prescriptions for birth control pills. Tomorrow it could be painkillers for a cancer patient. Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease."

I’ve never heard of a pharmacist being morally opposed to painkillers or AIDS medication, I doubt it’s going to start popping up once the government “allows” them to not sell something. It’s not like crazy religious nuts people are getting morally opposed to more things lately. (It might seem that way, but only because they keep coming up with more things for people to be morally opposed to.) What is this, a slippery upslope argument?

But even if they did, that still doesn’t convince me that the government should be dictating to people what they are forced to sell and what morals they are allowed to have affect their actions. Amazing, I know, with these strongly reasoned arguments they’re coming up with.

Posted by illuminaria at April 14, 2005 08:19 PM

Comments

Wal-Mart has a policy against selling these products in any of its pharmacies. How would it affect them?

Forget the conscience argument, what happened to free enterprise? What if the product/service in question is not profitable to carry? What about a doctor who won't prescribe it, or who won't perform abortions? What next, forcing doctors to do procedures? Liposuction as a constitutional right?

If a pharmacy carries it and the pharmacist doesn't want to fill it, then this is a management/labor issue regarding job description, a private business matter. If the pharmacy doesn't want to carry it, this is no different from going to Taco Bell, asking for Coke, and being told they only serve Pepsi.

Posted by: dweeb at April 15, 2005 11:47 AM