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

No

1 of 29

by Valentine Logar

• 

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

Naturally, no individual should be forced to go against his or her conscience in matters of commerce. Under our laws, each person is guaranteed the rights to worship and pursue his or her personal religious beliefs without interference. Each person is also guaranteed the right to the pursuit of happiness and the pursuit of lawful business or vocational opportunities as part of that pursuit.
In later amendments, no person can be discriminated against because of their Race, Gender, Religion, Disability, and Veteran Status. These protections against discrimination ensure that personal choices regarding religious beliefs will not prevent a person from obtaining legitimate employment in their chosen profession.

The US Bill of Rights provides for the specific freedoms of the State, the Federal government, and the individual. The specific Amendment of the Bill of Rights that is pertinent to this debate, it is the First Amendment and reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Based on this a person is free to follow any religion they choose without interference from the government. Further the government may not establish a common religion as the standard for the country, thus we are not a Christian nation as some claim instead we are a nation of many religions with a secular government.

Finally, one other component of our national framework necessary to this discussion is the Declaration of Independence. In the preamble of this hallowed document, it is stated:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As far back as 1884 with the landmark Butchers Co. vs. Crescent City Co. the courts have determined; "The right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment."

The courts have said repeatedly however that the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are unalienable based upon the Declaration of Independence. While the courts continue to revise and build upon previous precedence, one overriding standard remains; every single citizen of this country is free to determine how they will earn their living within the parameters of their personal beliefs and religious rules. The one thing that these same people are not free to do is impose their religious beliefs on others.

Now to the crux of the matter does an employee have the right to refuse to perform any part of their assigned duties because of personal convictions or religious beliefs? The answer is absolutely and unequivocally NO, they do not have this right. The consequences for refusing to perform duties for which you are paid is the loss of employment. This is true no matter what your employment situation is, whether pharmacist, bank teller, waitress, or military personnel. You are hired and paid to perform a job and your employer assumes that you will undertake the duties of that job, all of them. When you agree to the terms of employment, there is usually a list of responsibilities and duties and generally not a clause that says "except for those things that go against your principles". While it is illegal to discriminate against a person because of their religion, it is not illegal to refuse to hire a person if their personal convictions will interfere with their ability to carry out the duties of the position.

If you are a private business owner, you may refuse to dispense specific pharmaceuticals including birth control and the morning after pill. It is your business and your right to decide based upon your personal religious beliefs and convictions what you will sell. If it is your conviction that to interfere in procreation is wrong than it is well within your right to not sell prophylactics, whether over the counter or by prescription. Advertising a pharmacy based upon religious principles is certain to attract a specific clientele that subscribes to similar beliefs as you. As a business owner, you would be free to hire a person who would agree to perform the duties of the position of pharmacist, which could include not dispensing prophylactics or advice on their use to any customer.

There is one other issue that should be undertaken in this discussion and that is one of ethics and commitment. The pharmacist follows a Code of Ethics and takes an oath, similar to the oath a doctor takes upon graduating from school to take up their profession. Nowhere in this oath does it state that the Pharmacist should place their values above those of the patient. Nowhere in this oath does it state that the pharmacist is the judge of the patients needs. In fact, the two things I found most interesting about the Code of Ethics were numbers one through three in which the relationship between the patient and the pharmacist is discussed. Nowhere is the pharmacist to place their own moral or religious values above that of the patient, in fact in number 3 the pharmacist is reminded to respect the patient's personal and cultural differences. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is based upon the pharmacist Code of Ethics they do not have the right to refuse to dispense any drug, including prophylactics or the morning after pill.

To close it seems that there are three separate components of the argument. The first is can an employee refuse to carry out the duties of their position based on their personal religious convictions; the answer to this is absolutely not. The second argument is can a private business owner determine what will be sold in his place of business; the answer is absolutely yes. The final argument is should a pharmacist be held to their Code of Ethics and their Oath; this is a more difficult answer as the pharmacist is not a doctor and they are not in truth putting a patient at risk through their refusal unless they are they only pharmacy in town.

Should there be professional boards that review these breaches of ethics and potentially strip licenses from those who refuse to live up to their Oaths and their professional Codes of Ethics? I would say yes, a person who is not fully able or willing to carry out their professional duties should find a profession that will not challenge their personal beliefs. Clearly when a pharmacist places their personal beliefs above those of the patient they seem to be in conflict with the oath they took and in conflict with their Code of Ethics. However, should a pharmacist be forced to violate religious beliefs, well no certainly not. They should however seek a different vocation if they cannot serve the public they have taken an oath to respect and provide services to without judgment.

http://www.uspharmd. com/pharmacist/Pharm acist_Oath_and_Code_ of_Ethics.html

http://caselaw.lp.fi ndlaw.com/cgi-in/get case.pl?friend=usato day%23f13&court= us&vol=111&i nvol=746

http://www.loc.gov/r r/program/bib/ourdoc s/DeclarInd.html

http://memory.loc.go v/cgi-bin/ampage?col lId=llsl&fileNam e=001/llsl001.db& ;recNum=144

Learn more about this author, Valentine Logar.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.