Should pharmacists be allowed...

[The Shadow]

...to refuse to dispense things like birth control, EC and RU-486 if it's against their religious beliefs?

For the last few years, we've been hearing a lot of stories about such pharmacists, especially in the U.S. And the now the Louisiana state legislature wants to pass legislation that would protect them from losing their jobs over it. :mad:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/20/ap6445339.html

Out of all the people who wait tables for a living I wonder how many of them are vegetarians? My guess is quite a few. What do these folk do, I wonder, if they have a customer who orders something like steak or ribs -- "I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't do that because I'm a vegetarian and therefore by serving you meat I would be going against my personal beliefs."

Yeah, I'm sure that would go over real well. :rolleyes:

I think it's pretty obvious where I stand on this issue. If they're not prepared to do their godamned jobs, they need to find another line of work. It's as simple as that.

[AdminAssistant]

A pharmacist is there to provide his patients/customers with medicine that they need that has been prescribed by a doctor. It's the doctor's decision whether or not the patient gets the medicine, not the pharmacist.

[Nyoibo]

I don't have a problem with them not filling the prescription, as long as there's someone else that the patient can get the medication from, otherwise I'm gonna work in a pharmacy and claim I'm a Practical Darwinist.

[AFPheonix]

I absolutely despise when I get a pharmacist in that is tweaked by Plan B or diabetic syringes. Thank god it's over the counter now, I can just elbow on by and sell it.

I'm of the opinion that if you want to be a stinker about dispensing birth control, then you get to start your own business that can cater to people who think like you. If you work for a chain store, then you damn well dispense the orders that come to you, unless of course the doctor wrote the prescription badly, the patient is getting too many of something from other doctors/pharmacies, forged script, etc. If you are the only game in town, then you get to dispense the drug whether you think someone's a hussy or not.

It absolutely fries me that this is always over birth control or some other med targeted at women. It's never ED drugs, it's never over drugs that mediate things like cholesterol that would be alleviated by healthier living. Where's the militant hippies who refuse a morbidly obese person their Lipitor because they have a moral problem with enabling someone who overeats? No, it's always puckered conservatives fixated on other people's genitals.

Hell, I've seen some elderly women getting BC pills lately, they're using them as hormone replacement therapy.

Sorry about my rant, it's partly due to one pharmacist that we have work at least once a week who is a goddamn religious spaz.

[Rubystars]

I don't have a problem with birth control or emergency contraception because I think these medicines prevent abortions. I do have a problem with abortion medicine and I would not hand something out like that.

I think if someone's religious beliefs are against something they shouldn't be forced to dispense it. If the manager of a pharmacy decides to dispense a particular medication, they should have another employee that can do it so the person with moral or religious objections doesn't have to. Usually when I go to a pharmacy there is more than one employee working there.

I would be extremely upset if I had been raped and then a pharmacist refused to give me emergency contraception, so I understand both sides of the issue. I just think both sides can be accomodated without anyone's rights being violated.

[Peppergirl]

It's very simple:

If you have religious convictions that would prevent you from doing any aspect of your job, then you should seek another profession.

I'll make the comparison like this:

I'm a travel agent. Back in the days where I did vacation and leisure travel (as opposed to corporate/emergency travel that i do now), we had several clients who booked 'gay-friendly' cruises and packages.

That said, if I were anti-gay (which I'm definitely not), would it be okay for me to refuse to book these packages? Or to pawn them off on a co-worker based upon my personal beliefs? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.

It would be my responsibility to seek alternate employment. A job in which my personal beliefs would not prevent me from doing MY JOB to the best of my ability.


How in the world this is even a question is BEYOND me.

[AFPheonix]

I don't have a problem with birth control or emergency contraception because I think these medicines prevent abortions. I do have a problem with abortion medicine and I would not hand something out like that.

I think if someone's religious beliefs are against something they shouldn't be forced to dispense it. If the manager of a pharmacy decides to dispense a particular medication, they should have another employee that can do it so the person with moral or religious objections doesn't have to. Usually when I go to a pharmacy there is more than one employee working there.

I would be extremely upset if I had been raped and then a pharmacist refused to give me emergency contraception, so I understand both sides of the issue. I just think both sides can be accomodated without anyone's rights being violated.

There may be more than one employee, but except for very busy pharmacies, there's only one pharmacist on duty at a time, with perhaps a small overlap in the middle of the day. Techs cannot get a script ready without a pharmacist checking our work.
If it's a small town, there may only be one pharmacist on duty all day, period. Those pharmacists' customers are the ones we need to keep in mind whenever this debate comes up. If you don't live in a large population center, it's not like you can go to the next pharmacy down the road when the next town over is very far away and you need the drug pretty quickly.

Further, pills used as abortifacients like Misoprostol are also used for other purposes as well. How can a pharmacist make a call not to dispense a drug that, say, causes contractions if they think they're using it to abort when in fact it's also used after a woman has miscarried and they're making sure all tissue is out so she doesn't go septic?
That's the thing. It's not like your diagnosis is written on the script typically. We don't know very often what you're using the drug for specifically, although pharmacists will often ask during counselling so they can help counsel you better on how to use the med properly. Pharmacists who don't dispense based on reasons other than patient welfare are absolutely engaging in malpractice in my opinion.

[Rubystars]

You're making a good point there AFP that someone might need a particular medicine for a legitimate reason, such as clearing out a miscarriage, and there might not be anyone else who can fill the prescription. I think in those situations when the pharmacist doesn't know, they shouldn't assume that it will be used for nefarious purposes. If a pill has only one use, then I think maybe the pharmacy manager should always make sure the person on staff is able to dispense it if they choose to carry that medicine.

[AFPheonix]

That's expensive and not particularly expedient, especially in the case of the aformentioned small pharmacies in small towns where there is only one pharmacist.

Besides, if it's something like RU-486 that we're talking about, that is more often than not dispensed in a clinical setting because patients need to be monitored. It's not like you get sent home with the pill and a roll of paper towels or something like that.

[Rubystars]

I don't understand why pharmacists object to contraception or emergency contraception. I would like to meet someone who doesn't want to dispense these medications and talk to them about it a little bit. Here's what I would ask them.

1. Is it better for a woman to use contraception and prevent an unwanted pregnancy, or is it better for the woman to get pregnant and then have an abortion which is much more dangerous for the woman (and of course it kills the developing child)?

2. If your religion objects to members of your religion using contraception, does that necessarily apply to members of other faiths? (sort of like how Muslims aren't allowed to draw pictures of Mohammed, but other groups should be able to if they want to).

3. Why would you not want to protect a rape victim from pregnancy and give her Emergency Contraception? It doesn't abort the baby. If a conceptus has implanted, then it will not abort it, but if it hasn't implanted yet, technically pregnancy has not begun.

4. Are you aware that most conceptus do not implant anyway if nature is left to its course?

It'd be different for me if someone deliberately took a human embryo and killed it, but in this case you're just preventing pregnancy from developing and merely increasing the already high odds that a conceptus won't implant. EC is not abortion.

[AFPheonix]

Because some numbnuts completely ignore the reams of data out on birth control and instead state that it and Plan B causes abortion.
That's why. They feel that conception is part of God's plan and they don't want to be "interfering" with it.

Never mind the fact that we interfere with "God's Plan" every time we fill any kind of script. That ibuprofen we just handed out? we just interefered with God's plan for inflammation to cause pain and swelling on that patient.
Furosemide? It was God's will that that person had high blood pressure and swollen ankles.

The pharmacists that hold these opinions go through years of school, tons of biology, and they still manage to hold onto their beliefs. The stupidity is staggering.

[Rubystars]

I wouldn't necessarily call them numbnuts. I respect it if someone feels queasy about selling something. I just think that if they feel that way, that the pharmacy should make sure that there is a pharmacist there that can take care of the patient.

As for the years of biology, here's what baffles me. I can't understand how some people can go through all those biology classes and still emerge as young earth creationists. Those are the ones who don't make any sense at all to me.

[AFPheonix]

If they were honest about why they didn't want to dispense, then fine. I could respect that. I simply cannot respect a professional who ignores repeated studies that proves their stances wrong. It's intentional ignorance.

That pharmacist I was ranting about earlier is a young earth creationist, and an evangelical. She's been bringing books for people to read >.<
If I see her bring anything again, I swear, I am going to buy a copy of The God Delusion and leave it for her.

[Rubystars]

Maybe you could read each other's books and then discuss them, but I don't know if she'd be able to do that or not. I used to debate with creationists in a chat room a lot and one of the things I learned is that most of them don't have the vaguest idea what evolution is or how it works. That's why they're so against it.

Transitional fossils like Lucy and Acanthostega were what really convinced me, in addition to adaptive radiation. I was really happy because I got to see Lucy when she was in Houston and I left a note in the book at the Museum where guests could leave comments.

[Slytovhand]

TBH, I'm a little conflicted on this issue, because it basically gets into the nuts and bolts of what it is to be a human being living in a society with other human beings - what do you have to give up (and keep) as an individual to fit in with the others.

Do we have the basic right to choose to align our actions with our beliefs, or should they be over-ridden - should we go against our basic beliefs to appease others?

I can understand a person deciding on a career to help other people, and choose to do so by being knowledgable about drugs and their effects, and get themselves qualified to dispense them (and be sought for advice, etc), but still hold onto particular beliefs and attitudes. After all, is it so different for a Christian/Muslim/Zen Monk to want to help people get closer to XYZ to help sort out their lives (cos it's done great for them and the people they know), and thus become a qualified counsellor...and push people in that direction (subtley, of course).

We all have our particular beliefs, and we all act in certain idiosyncratic ways based on those beliefs - and they all effect people around us... (including the belief that using various drugs on the body is ok...)...

So - dunno! Not sure how I feel about it... Should the pharmacist have to give up a career because it contradicts other people's beliefs?? Should the people change their beliefs to coincide with the pharmacists??

[Peppergirl]

So - dunno! Not sure how I feel about it... Should the pharmacist have to give up a career because it contradicts other people's beliefs?? Should the people change their beliefs to coincide with the pharmacists??

Further up the thread (no one commented), I remarked that as a travel agent...would I have the right to turn away a gay couple going on a gay cruise if I were anti-gay? Also, would I have the right to pawn the couple off on another co-worker (thus, creating work for them), if my beliefs prevented me from helping them?

By the same token, if I was booking someone to fly somewhere to get an abortion, would I have the right to refuse to book them if I were pro-life?

I just can't wrap my head around this.

[AdminAssistant]

Yeah. With my insurance plan, it's much cheaper for me to get my pills at the student health center's pharmacy than other places in town. What if the pharmacist there refused to give me my pills? Should I have to go across town and pay more? It's just ridiculous.

[AFPheonix]

Maybe you could read each other's books and then discuss them, but I don't know if she'd be able to do that or not. I used to debate with creationists in a chat room a lot and one of the things I learned is that most of them don't have the vaguest idea what evolution is or how it works. That's why they're so against it.

Transitional fossils like Lucy and Acanthostega were what really convinced me, in addition to adaptive radiation. I was really happy because I got to see Lucy when she was in Houston and I left a note in the book at the Museum where guests could leave comments.

I've seen books like hers before, I grew up as a conservative evangelical so I totally understand where she's coming from. I was similarly brainwashed. Most of the books of that ilk are intentionally misleading and propaganda.
Further, it's not appropriate to be evangelizing at work like she does, and I've complained to my pharmacy manager and she shrugs. It's not like I'm a fan of Dawkins or anything, frankly I think he's an asshole, but so help me, I will go out and buy his crap and give it to her if she pulls it again.

[daleduke17]

I don't have a problem with birth control or emergency contraception because I think these medicines prevent abortions. I do have a problem with abortion medicine and I would not hand something out like that.

Then, if you were a pharmacist, you should be terminated from your employment and possibly have your pharmacist license (if there is such a thing) pulled.

If the manager of a pharmacy decides to dispense a particular medication, they should have another employee that can do it so the person with moral or religious objections doesn't have to.

And you want to pay how much more?

Usually when I go to a pharmacy there is more than one employee working there.

And how many can actually dispense meds? Just because you work in a pharmacy doesn't mean you can dispense meds. If so, then I could have dispensed meds when I worked at Kroger.

[Slytovhand]

It's not like I'm a fan of Dawkins or anything, frankly I think he's an asshole, but so help me, I will go out and buy his crap and give it to her if she pulls it again.

Don't use Dawkins.

Use Davies.. he's walking the middle path, so can seem to be 'respectable' by both sides. Basically, 'God' created the universe, and then let it unfold for the next 16 billion years (he doesn't define 'God' though...so no particular religious overtones). And thus, it melds good science with ok theology.



Peppergirl, I think you can see why I didn't comment on your hypothetical. I don't think you should have the 'right' to refuse, but I'm not sure that someone should have the 'right' to force you to otherwise... for sufficient reasons. Anti-gay...no, crossing a line. Abortion, while there's still a line, it's in a different place.

Well, that's my opinion... for now... I might change it sometime soon :p

[Greenday]

Honestly, I feel it comes down to this: if you refuse to do your job, you don't deserve your job. It'd be like me joining the infantry, but saying I refuse to kill or something. Or like becoming a cop, but refusing to arrest people for drugs. It's your job, either you do it or you should be fired.

[Peppergirl]

Honestly, I feel it comes down to this: if you refuse to do your job, you don't deserve your job. It'd be like me joining the infantry, but saying I refuse to kill or something. Or like becoming a cop, but refusing to arrest people for drugs. It's your job, either you do it or you should be fired.

Amen and thank you! :D

[guywithashovel]

To expound upon what Greenday said, I'll say this. If you are against Plan B, contraceptives, or any of these other pills/treatments/etc. that social conservatives are so up in arms over, then simply do not use them. But don't use your status as a pharmacist to tell other people what they can and cannot take.

Note to social conservatives: Please keep your laws, religious beliefs, and regulations off our bodies, out of our medical decisions, and out of our bedrooms. Thank you.

[McDreidel09]

I would be pissed if a pharmacist refused to take care of my birth control just because it is birth control.

I don't use it as a contraceptive. I use it to regulate my body and hormones.

If some aspect of your job is against a personal belief, you have two choices either 1) Deal with it and do your job or 2) Find employment elsewhere.

You can still keep your core values. You are not giving up your morals by dispensing medication that is against your beliefs. If you practice the morals yourself, does it matter what others do?

[joe hx]

of course, if your pharmacist won't give out the meds, you can always go to another one...

what about doctors? should they be able to not prescribe birth control, for birth control, if they don't believe in it? should pro-life doctors be required to perform abortions?

[Rubystars]

I don't think a doctor should be forced to perform elective abortions, but a doctor should be absolutely obligated to perform an abortion IF it will save the mother's life, as in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

[Flyndaran]

of course, if your pharmacist won't give out the meds, you can always go to another one...

what about doctors? should they be able to not prescribe birth control, for birth control, if they don't believe in it? should pro-life doctors be required to perform abortions?

Many places have only one easy to get to pharmacy, so itsn't so cut and dried.

A doctor should prescribe what is in the patient's best interest regardless of thier hangups.
Abortion surgery is a specialty. I don't see how those not trained in them should perform them. Though I would hope an E.R. doctor would perform it if necessary to save the woman's life as not killing people is kind of in the job description.

[Greenday]

I don't think a doctor should be forced to perform elective abortions, but a doctor should be absolutely obligated to perform an abortion IF it will save the mother's life, as in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

There's a huge difference between the two you are talking about. A doctor that normally performs abortions chose their job. So a pro-life person choosing not to perform that surgery wouldn't have to deal with that.

As for doctor's not prescribing birth control, no, I don't think a doctor should be allowed to be a OB/GYN if they refuse to prescribe it.

[Rubystars]

I think birth control is usually a good thing and I don't think an OB/GYN should refuse to prescribe it either.

[Flyndaran]

I think birth control is usually a good thing and I don't think an OB/GYN should refuse to prescribe it either.

But isn't it a horrible unnatural affront to natural heterosexual sex?
I say that only half-seriously.

[Android Kaeli]

If I needed to use birth control or other types of medicine, I'd expect my pharmacist to fill the script out and keep their beliefs out of their line of work. They are more then free to believe what they want to believe but not everyone uses these types of medicines ( or any other for that matter ) for what they think they're being used for.

[Boozy]

Do we have the basic right to choose to align our actions with our beliefs, or should they be over-ridden - should we go against our basic beliefs to appease others?

It's not really that complicated. I like what Pepperrgirl said about it; if you have any beliefs that would prevent you from performing all your duties in a given profession, don't go into that profession.

If you're a PETA member, don't become a butcher.

If you're a Christian, don't become a rabbi.

And if you believe that you have the right to veto what drugs a woman can take, don't become a pharmacist.

[Cats]

It isn't the pharmacist's job to decide what the patient should and should not take for whatever reason...that is up to the doctor (unless they have a reason to believe it is a forgery, of course).

In any other line of work, if anyone else refused service to someone for another reason, such as race, gender, age, height, sexual orientation, personal beliefs, whatever, there would be lawsuits up the ass.

If one is so hell bent on their beliefs to impede on their job (and not just a "I personally don't approve, but I'll set aside my beliefs to agree to disagree" kind of thing, which I hold no grudge on anyone for having), then they need to find another line of work.

Personally, I don't know how someone goes through all that work training to be a pharmacist while still being so tight on such beliefs. You know WELL inadvance you're going to run into this stuff! Why would you want to be in a line of work where people are constantly going against your beliefs, even if you yourself refuse (and can't that be considered insubordination anyway)?

I can understand refusing something at work based on beliefs if it happens once in a blue moon (and there's a solution around it that doesn't screw others over either). But BC is something that comes across often enough that its going to be a problem.

[BroomJockey]

And if you believe that you have the right to veto what drugs a woman can take, don't become a pharmacist.

This raises an interesting point, to my mind. What if there were a common male contraceptive pill, or shot, or something dispensed by pharmacists? Would they have a problem with that, as well? Or is it just since women bear children, they're not allowed?

Then again, that might be too far from the actual scope of this thread. :shrug:

[AdminAssistant]

Then again, that might be too far from the actual scope of this thread. :shrug:

No, I don't think so, since the majority of these pharmacists are men, probably Christian conservatives who think that a woman's job is to get married and have babies. Why else would they want to discriminate against women in this manner?

[Rubystars]

Not all Christian conservatives think that. I do think that if a woman wants to get married and have babies then that's a perfectly noble thing to do and I think she should be shown respect for that decision. I don't think every woman is obligated to choose that path however.

[AFPheonix]

This raises an interesting point, to my mind. What if there were a common male contraceptive pill, or shot, or something dispensed by pharmacists? Would they have a problem with that, as well? Or is it just since women bear children, they're not allowed?

Then again, that might be too far from the actual scope of this thread. :shrug:

The ones that I know don't seem to have an issue with ED meds or male hormones, either topical or IV.
ED drugs especially can assist with promiscuity, so it really is a bit of a double standard.

[Flyndaran]

Not all Christian conservatives think that. I do think that if a woman wants to get married and have babies then that's a perfectly noble thing to do and I think she should be shown respect for that decision. I don't think every woman is obligated to choose that path however.

Noble? I suddenly get images of a woman throwing herself ontop a baby right as it "goes off" and spews everywhere.

Over a billion years of evolution states that procreation is the norm, not some noble ideal achieved by few.

As intelligent creatures we have the option to live life without simply being breeding machines.
Kids are a plus-minuse "choice" that is great for some, and life ending for others. The event is neither wonderful nor horrible on its own. It just is.

[Rubystars]

Noble? I suddenly get images of a woman throwing herself ontop a baby right as it "goes off" and spews everywhere.


You certainly do have an active imagination! :eek:

[Flyndaran]

You certainly do have an active imagination! :eek:

When I think of noble I think of self-sacrifice not semi-selfish acts of biology mandated procreation.

[Rubystars]

When I think of noble I think of self-sacrifice not semi-selfish acts of biology mandated procreation.

A stay-at-home mom makes a full-time career out of raising quality people and maintaining a safe and loving home. In order to do that she makes sacrifices, such as giving up other career options. It's the fact that she sacrifices for her children which I find to be noble.

I don't have anything against moms who have another, outside job too, but I do think that stay at home moms deserve respect too.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I think the word 'legitimate' fits the bill better than 'noble'.

Noble implies that the action is not only uncommon, but superior to other courses of action.

Legitimate implies only that there is nothing wrong, and probably a measure of good in the action described, without comparative implications (better than X, worse than z, etc.)

Oh, and since I got into this one late, I'll agree with Rubystars that the pharmacy should make sure that there is someone who can morally dispense the medication that they choose to provide for those who medically need it. Unfortunately this means in some cases at least that the person presenting the problem by refusing medication in a free society because of their beliefs, will either have (forgive the expression) man up and deal with it, or quit and let someone better suited take the job.

The thing to remember here is that we live in a plural society. It's not about you when it comes to social services like this. Everyone is equally obligated to respect the opinions of others, even if those opinions are grossly wrong in the eyes of some. You're free to practice your beliefs whenever you want, but not if you deprive anyone of anything. That's the contract we sign as citizens (U.S. at least, not overly knowledgeable of European etc. law) in this country. Depriving someone of their medication is just that, no matter the grounds, and thus is against the rules.

Many say that being 'forced' to dispense the medication is inhibiting their beliefs. But this aspect comes down to the equality issue in that the alternative to giving the patient their medication is a far more serious infringement than merely doing something 'morally questionable'.

[BroomJockey]

A stay-at-home mom makes a full-time career out of raising quality people and maintaining a safe and loving home. In order to do that she makes sacrifices, such as giving up other career options.


*raises hand* I'd like to point out that no matter what path you choose, you sacrifice other options. Making the choice of career of stay-at-home mom isn't inherently noble, it's simply another valid choice. It's your values which impart nobility to the choice. And none of this is to do with the topic at hand. Which is about pharmacists. Can we nudge it back on track a bit, people?

[Rubystars]

Sure thing BroomJockey. Sorry if I contributed to drifting off topic. Ok here's another issue. What about if a state allows a terminally ill patient to get a prescription for lethal medication? Would a pharmacist be able to tell whether or not these drugs were for euthanasia purposes?

[AFPheonix]

A pharmacist would be able to tell if a script will be used for assisted suicide since we check scripts for proper dosing. However, the vast majority of the time patients get those meds from specialty pharmacies that dispense for that sort of thing. We're a very busy pharmacy, we do anywhere from 500-700+ prescriptions a day, and I have yet to see a script come through for a lethal dose of barbiturates. We don't stock those anyways, and it generally takes us about a week to get ahold of drugs of that class.
Doctors know where to send their patients for the stuff they need like that, just like they know to send their patients to us if they need something compounded or if it's after closing time at other pharmacies.

I've only ever heard of one event where a terminal patient brought in a script for a lethal dose to a standard retail pharmacy once in my 5 or 6 years doing this.

[Rubystars]

Ok thanks AFP. So now the question is, how would you feel about it if a pharmacist refused to fill that prescription on a moral basis? The other medicines we talked about have purposes meant to help the health of the people who are receiving them, or prevent problems (such as preventing an unwanted pregnancy from occurring). Suicide drugs are another aspect to this altogether, because they are meant to end the life of the patient, not improve the patient's quality of life.

[AFPheonix]

I could understand why a pharmacist would be squicked about dispensing that. I personally, although I am a tech, would not have a problem, as I stand firmly behind the the assisted suicide law we have in our state. I believe that letting someone end their life peacefully can be better than allowing them to suffer for no reason.

However, since dispensing a lethal dose of meds can be viewed as harming the patient, I could understand why a pharmacist would choose to hand the hardcopy back. That is quite different from a pharmacist refusing to fill something that isn't designed to kill the patient, like birth control.

[BroomJockey]

Suicide drugs are another aspect to this altogether, because they are meant to end the life of the patient, not improve the patient's quality of life.
I'd say, there's people who argue it is improving the quality of life of the patient, if they're to the point where a doctor is prescribing suicide pills. But moving on to the refusal argument...
That is quite different from a pharmacist refusing to fill something that isn't designed to kill the patient, like birth control.

I'd say it isn't different. The argument usually is "I think Birth Control is against the will of God," or some such similar, while against suicide could be "it's interferring in God's plan." Very similar. Same rules apply. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense a drug which is legally prescribed, then they're not doing their jobs if they're not either getting another pharmacist to fill it, or tell the person where they can get it filled. If they're not doing their job, for any reason, they should be fired. If I told my manager back at the theatre that I refused to play a film with drug-use featured in it, I'd be fired on the spot. Why should they get to pick and choose what aspects of their job they fulfil? They knew what the job entailed before they ever took it.

[Greenday]

I'd say it isn't different. The argument usually is "I think Birth Control is against the will of God," or some such similar, while against suicide could be "it's interferring in God's plan." Very similar. Same rules apply.

I'd argue that God wants me on birth control then so get with it already.

[AFPheonix]

I'd say, there's people who argue it is improving the quality of life of the patient, if they're to the point where a doctor is prescribing suicide pills. But moving on to the refusal argument...


I'd say it isn't different. The argument usually is "I think Birth Control is against the will of God," or some such similar, while against suicide could be "it's interferring in God's plan." Very similar. Same rules apply. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense a drug which is legally prescribed, then they're not doing their jobs if they're not either getting another pharmacist to fill it, or tell the person where they can get it filled. If they're not doing their job, for any reason, they should be fired. If I told my manager back at the theatre that I refused to play a film with drug-use featured in it, I'd be fired on the spot. Why should they get to pick and choose what aspects of their job they fulfil? They knew what the job entailed before they ever took it.

In this case, it would not necessarily be religious ethics. Although I fully support humane euthanasia, I can also see how it is an ethical minefield. I can fully see how a pharmacist, regardless of their religion or lack thereof would not consider dispensing medication that kills a patient on purpose to be for the good of the patient.
After all, we regularly call doctors when they don't pay attention to how they've carried a decimal on some doses, since that could easily kill a patient, or if they prescribe something that the patient is allergic to.
Also, as I've stated, there are specialty pharmacies that cater to patients that choose the route of assisted suicide. Almost all patients are directed to those pharmacies by their doctors.

[BroomJockey]

I can fully see how a pharmacist, regardless of their religion or lack thereof would not consider dispensing medication that kills a patient on purpose to be for the good of the patient.
After all, we regularly call doctors when they don't pay attention to how they've carried a decimal on some doses, since that could easily kill a patient, or if they prescribe something that the patient is allergic to.


Sorry, I shouldn't have brought religion in to my response, it was just the quickest way I could see to illustrate my opinion. Reasons behind the ethics are technically secondary when the result is the same: refusal to dispense medication as prescribed by a trained medical professional. Calling to verify is one thing, and a good thing, as incorrectly prescribed meds are dangerous. But if you're living somewhere that allows assisted suicide, you know that before you even go to study as a pharmacist, same as you know about birth control, and that should factor in to whether you take a job or not. It's not a secret condition you don't find out about until you're hired. If you're not willing to do it either move to somewhere it's not allowed, tell your interviewer upfront so they can factor it in to the decision to hire you, or keep a list of places that will fill the prescription handy. People who repair sewer pipes for a living don't get to complain about dealing with human waste, and pharmacists shouldn't get to pick and choose what aspects of their job they'll comply with, no matter the basis for their objection. If you're unwilling to compromise your ethics for a job, don't take a job that's gonna put you in that position.

[AFPheonix]

In this case, the ethics are fuzzy. And there are lists of pharmacies that will dispense. I live in Oregon, the first state to allow physician assisted suicide. You just simply don't see those scripts willy nilly because patients and doctors alike see that the ethics are tricky there, and steer people to pharmacies that cater to those kinds of patients, or doctors get the meds themselves to dispense to the patient.

There are also many of those scripts that go unfilled, simply because it can be a relief to the patient to know that they CAN go through with it if they wished, and that gives them enough strength to keep going.