Should pharmacists be forced to violate religious beliefs by selling the morning after pill?

Yes

5 of 85

by David Milkes

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

I must disclose that I am not addressing the "abortion pill" like RU-486; this title refers to "morning-after," which is also called emergency birth control or "day-after," so that is where I am focusing my argument.

A pharmacist has a job like everyone else, chosen at his or her free will. Most likely the pharmacist has attended school specifically for this profession. He is aware that his job is to dispense medication. The only reasons to deny such medication are suspicion of a fraudulent prescription, exceeding the refill frequency dictated by the physician or a violation of state law, such as a minor filling the prescription.

Patient s are entitled to receive the medication they request from any outlet if it is physically possible. The case may be made that a patient can go to another pharmacist to buy the morning-after pill, but just one less available pharmacy is too few. More pharmacists will be emboldened to select drugs and other products according to their personal principles. One can easily see many pharmacies one day without any contraceptives at all. They could also refuse to sell antibiotics to paranoid parents with children who just have the cold. If the short-sighted doctor prescribed it, the pharmacist has no business overruling the prescription.

I liken this to magazine shops that sell pornography. Women often work the register and one would expect either gender to as quickly sell a Hustler as a Time. Any woman who felt uncomfortable with the magazine selections would probably not be working there at all. She would not have the luxury of refusing to sell just the naughty ones.

I have also faced dilemmas related to my employment. Many jobs in my field and geographical area are filled by pharmaceutical companies. I had decided long ago that I would not work for one of them because I disapprove of some of their practices. I also turned down an employer who works military contracts. In both cases, I was aware beforehand of the goals of the employers.

Even before the morning-after pill was heard of, pharmacists were filling prescriptions for chemical contraceptives. Many people object to traditional birth control on religious grounds; the pill prevents ovulation and protects the uterus from sperm penetration, which does not actually terminate a pregnancy but still inhibits the natural process of procreation. There was no broad public discussion of conscientious pharmacists during the four decades the pill was available.

There is no justification for an uproar with this new drug. The only difference between the traditional pill and the morning-after pill is that the former has estrogen and progestin, while the latter only provides progestin. Thus it is only effective for 72-120 hours after intercourse. The problem that pharmacists might have with the morning-after pill is one of perception; the name and use of the drug seem to imply it kills a fetus that could not be stopped pre-emptively with another form of contraception. On the contrary, the same process is at work.

I am certainly not advocating threatening pharmacists with legal action or employment intimidation. But the requirement that I believe they have to serve the public is indeed a de facto "forcing" of violating one's belief. That is why I encourage such people to withdraw from the profession rather than suffer the turmoil in their heart.

Learn more about this author, David Milkes.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.