Pharmacists Refusing to Fill Prescriptions for Vitamins, Antibiotics
Josh Feit writes at The Stranger:
[S]omeone at the Swedish pharmacy said she was “morally unable” to fill a Cedar River patient’s prescription for abortion-related antibiotics. Cedar River’s complaint quotes its Renton clinic manager’s May 17, 2005, e-mail account: “Today, one of our clients asked us to call in her prescription... to Swedish outpatient pharmacy. [We] called the prescription in... and spoke with an efficient staff person who took down the prescription. A few minutes later, this pharmacy person called us back and told us she had found out who we were and she morally was unable to fill the prescription.” [...]
The complaint also includes an incident from November 2005 in Yakima, in which a pharmacist at a Safeway reportedly refused to fill a Cedar River patient’s prescription for pregnancy-related vitamins. The pharmacist reportedly asked the customer why she had gone to Cedar River Clinics and then told the patient she “didn’t need them if she wasn’t pregnant.”
If the government allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for vitamins and antibiotics because the prescriptions were written at a place like the Cedar River Clinics, a women’s health and abortion provider, then no public service will be safe in the future. Outrageous ideas about bus and taxi drivers refusing to make stops for women at or near abortion clinics won’t be so outrageous anymore.
The Christian Right is seeking nothing less than the domination and control of all American society. They can’t get what they want through the democratic process, so they are seeking to undermine that process by gaining for individuals the right to refuse to do their jobs in a way that prevents others from exercising their constitutionally protected choices. The Christian Right can’t criminalize the choice, so they are trying to make the choice impossible.
Christian Right & Christian Nationalism:
Christian Right and Abortion:
Comments
We have had a slight problem pertaining to religious types not filling in perscriptions for morning after pills, but it was usually from a handful of Muslim chemists and certainly isn’t accepted or acceptable. I always say, if you have a conscience objection to something, don’t get involved in it. I am a vegitarian and would not get a job in a slaughterhouse then turn away the vehicles carrying the animals on the ground it is immoral or whatever!People should learn to LIVE and LET LIVE or else it’s just possible their own rights might be removed by someone who gains more power than them.
You say “the government” in this article like it was the same as in the previous pharmacy protest articles. Yet if I recall correctly, all the others were US and this took place in Sweden. While they both seem to have the same roots, you need to phrase it a bit more clearly. When I first read this I thought you just didn’t notice that it took place in Sweden.
How about something like “Sweden taking a page from the US” or something?
No, they all take place in America. The “Swedish” place is “the Swedish Medical Center outpatient pharmacy in Seattle,” according to the original article. I don’t know why it’s a “Swedish” medical center, but I’m sure it makes sense to people there.
That’s the sensible thing to do. If you haven’t read it yet, this short piece on William Jennings Bryan might interest you. He resigned his government post rather than violate his pacifist principles. It’s strange that such a strong fundamentalist would be setting a better example for moral public behavior than contemporary evangelicals.
Seems like your expecting the populace in general to operate
on an atheistic belief system.
The pharmacist didn’t want to do
something they thought was immoral.
Would you like to be legislated
into doing the same? however, i
don’t agree with the pharmacist’s
decision. the antibiotic was for
the an adult whose was not pregnant.
the presciption should have been
filled. it was not an abortifactant,
and neither is the morning after pill. i can see moral issues with
abortifactants.
religious freedom is germaine to
united states law. a right-wing
pharmacist should have the same
constitutional freedoms as any
other citizen. i think you, like
the pharmacist are both pushing
your agendas, as does everyone else.
i do respect your right to your
beliefs, but it does seem like a
double standard.
I expect pharmacists to operate on the basis of their professional responsibilities, not make medical decisions for others on the basis of personal religious dogma.
Pharmacists don’t have the option of substituting personal religious belief for professional medical advice.
If I couldn’t ethically fulfill the standard duties of some job, I’d find a new job. That’s what these pharmacists should do.
So, it sounds like you are OK with forcing the pharmacist to do their job in some cases, but not in other cases. It sounds like you are only OK with giving the pharmacist an objection when you agree that they have a legitimate ethical objection, but not when you don’t think they have a legitimate ethical objection.
Now how is this position better than mine? Why is it better to only allow accommodations when they fit with your personal judgment than to disallow any accommodations which prevent patients from getting appropriate medical care?
I agree. My position is that no medical professional, whatever their religion or politics, has the right to make medical decisions on the basis of personal religious dogma.
My agenda is that medical professionals have an obligation to serve the health interests of patients, not their personal religious and political ideologies. My agenda is that people who need medical care should get it and should not be concerned that they will be unable to get that care if someone in authority judges them as too “sinful” to deserve it.
What, exactly, is your agenda?
A double standard is where you apply one set of standards to one situation or group and another set of standards to another situation or group. Please point to where I do this.