Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould pharmacists be forced to violate religious beliefs by selling the morning after pill?
Results so far:
| No | 41% | 409 votes | Total: 990 votes | |
| Yes | 59% | 581 votes |
No
by Daniel Hauge
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesA persons' stance on this issue should have nothing to do with their views on whether or not the morning after pill is moral, or compatible with their religion. Unless you believe the morning after pill should be outlawed entirely, this argument simply comes down to the issue of freedom of business. There are two major contexts in which this issue could arise. Either an individual employee of a pharmacy refuses to sell the pill, or the owner of the pharmacy (perhaps a pharmacist or the only employee) refuses to stock and (thus sell) the pill.
Let's say a pharmacist is an employee of a pharmacy that sells the morning after pill. Yet that individual pharmacist has made a personal decision to not sell the pill to any of this pharmacy's customers. Regardless of the reasoning behind this decision (whether it's moral, religious, or otherwise), this pharmacist should have every right not to be forced to do so. On the same token, this pharmacy should have every right to fire him or her for this decision. If the business has decided they wish to sell the morning after pill (which is a perfectly legal business decision), there's no reason they should be obligated to hire (or not fire) people who refuse to do the job they wish to hire them for.
A common argument against this is that the pharmacist's freedom of religion would be violated. What if the manager of the pharmacy believed in a God that commanded him to do all he could to prevent against unwanted pregnancies? Wouldn't his freedom of religion be violated if he was forced to hire people that refused to do this? If freedom of religion is granted to one employee, it should be granted to all employees. Additionally, if a police officer refused to fight crime because prosecuting criminals was against his religion; or a doctor refused to cure patients because he believe one shouldn't "interfere with God's will", it would be ridiculous to argue they should be allowed to keep their job due to freedom of religion. The exact same principle applies here, only on a smaller scale.
Another context of this same issue is that of the pharmacy as a whole refusing to sell the morning after pill. This could be because the owner of the pharmacy refuses to sell the pill, there is only one pharmacist employed and he or she has refused to sell it, or a single pharmacist is the owner and sole employee. In any case, the issue here is whether or not the government should be allowed to force a business to carry a specific product. Nobody in their right mind should believe that the government should be permitted to FORCE various business to sell products or offer services they do not wish to.
The government regulates and intervenes in business' decisions far more than it should already. Even if one agrees that government regulation is a "good" thing, this issue goes far beyond that. Prohibiting certain business actions or regulating them for safety are violations of their freedom as well. However justified or not they may be, their intention is to protect consumers from potentially harmful business behavior. For one, actually forcing a business to sell a specific thing, is a far more extensive violation of their freedom than regulating the services and products they DID decide to offer. Secondly, forcing them to sell the morning after pill in no way makes their business safer (which is the justification for government regulation).
What happens if the government forces a pharmacy to sell the morning after pill, a woman has medical problems after taking it and then sues the pharmacy for some sort of liability? I highly doubt the government is gonna step in and pay their legal bills and potential losses. People are inevitably going to be harmed and sue (as with any other product) and some will win thousands or millions of dollars (no matter how ridiculous the claim). It would be the height of injustice for the government to force a business to sell a product they do not wish to sell, and then force them to pay up when they're sued for doing so.
In conclusion, a business should have the right to hire or fire employees based on their willingness to do the job they are hired for and the right to not sell a product they do not wish to sell. A pharmacist should have every right to not partake in an action they believe is immoral, however a pharmacy should not be FORCED to employee regardless of what actions they decide they will or will not do. There's nothing stopping the pharmacist from seeking a job at a pharmacy that will tolerate his refusal. Freedom is what this country SHOULD be all about. Forcing a person or organization to act a certain way to accommodate another's freedom, simply takes away one person's freedom in the name of someone else's.
The freedom of all people and businesses to act how they wish should be protected equally, so long as they are abiding by the law. Forcing people by law to engage in moral actions they disagree with would be a horrifying violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion and a gross obtrusion on freedom overall. Freedom is really all it comes down to.
To anyone that might disagree with me...I hope the government passes a law forcing you to do so!
Learn more about this author, Daniel Hauge.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
The concept of religious objection to prescribing the 'morning after' pill (technically incorrect, as it can in fact be prescribed up to 72 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse) is absolutely risible. The pill generally works in one of two ways, which both depend on where a woman is in her menstrual cycle at the time of taking it. One of the effects it can have is to delay the release of an egg from the ovary, the other to prevent a fertilised egg from being able to implant in the womb. In law, "life" is recognised as starting at the point where a fertilised egg implants into a womb lining, and so the pill in no way acts as an abortifacient.
There are those who believe that life begins at the point of fertilisation, and this is a belief to which everyone is entitled. HOWEVER, people involved in the supply and provision of medicines have an ethical duty to provide a standard of care to those people who come to them as patients. Decisions regarding medications should be conducted in the interest of the *patient*, and not in the moral highground being assumed by the person doing the prescribing. All too often, women are met with an attitude where obstruction to services is commonplace and nowhere is this more apparent than where sexual health is concerned. Confused arguments, religious preaching and downright blatant misinformation are time and time again used to delay a woman accessing the support she needs when she needs it, and, frighteningly, it seems that more and more professionals from more and more areas of work are using the religious objection argument to basically *neglect their duty*.
You want to be a pharmacist, or a doctor, or a nurse involved in family planning? Great, I applaud you, very commendable. But before you sign that letter of acceptance of the job offer, you make damn sure that you agree to carry out the role that is required of you. You are a servant of the public, their lifestyle and decisions/mistakes being made are NOT yours to judge. Your job is to prescribe and administer that which is in the best interests of the patient in front of you. The one who has come to you for help at an intensely vulnerable time. You are entitled to your opinion, but they are entitled to expect to receive support and help when they seek it.
The 'morning after pill' is actually referred to as 'emergency contraception' in the profession. The word emergency is there for a reason. Would you stand in front of an ambulance and prevent it leaving the station because you disapproved of where it was going? The women needing the pill are, on the whole, scared, worried and anxious, knowing that a pregnancy at that point in life would be a bad thing for them. They are not, as is often reported, ignorant, uneducated, irresponsible people with no thought for anyone other than themselves. THAT, it would appear, is the domain of those who would deny them what they need.
Learn more about this author, Daniel Davis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Politics, News & Issues (Other)
- An Inconvenient Truth: Good PR for Gore, or a fact-based analysis of environmental affairs?
- We should end the practice of daylight saving time
- Should the salaries of all Illinois state employees be available for public viewing on a Web site, as suggested in a bill in the General Assembly?
- Will Roland Burris, once he is seated in the U.S. Senate, be able to win the confidence of the people of Illinois?
- Should the US government fund new lines of embryonic stem cells?
- Should the US continue to provide foreign aid to the Palestinians?
