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
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIn the simplest terms of American freedoms, no pharmacist should, nor in fact can they be forced to sell the morning after pill. To do so violates the very principles this country is based on, not to mention the sanctity and necessity of observing religious beliefs in this country.
First and foremost, a pharmacy is a business. Now, in this country we have laws regulating what a business can and cannot sell, how they can sell it, and other sundry regulations generally meant to protect the populace. The government does not, as a rule, and should not ever; state that business MUST sell a product in order to conduct its business.
Such a law is protectionism for a product, and is acceptable only in the extreme cases required to break up monopolies that would have destroyed the markets and ruined free trade and capitalism as we know it today. To force a private company to offer a specific product, particularly one that is not a necessary medicine, as in this case, is idiocy and a violation of a businessman's rights as an American citizen.
Further, religious beliefs and practices are protected under American law so long as they are not a hazard to the general population. So if a Pharmacists wishes not to sell the morning after pill because he feels it violates his personal beliefs, so long as he is a private pharmacist and not one employed by the government, he has the right to refuse to stock the product.
It's that simple. Now people may argue that it is a service the public needs. It's not. People got along fine for centuries without the morning after pill. And odds are if one pharmacist isn't carrying it, that another, in the interest of good business, will carry it, and so take in all the profits that the competing pharmacist loses by honoring his religious belief. Supply and demand tells us that where there is a demand, someone will supply.
Therefore, there is no need to force pharmacists to sell the morning after pill. If one pharmacist won't, another will, and so the demand will be met. If this is an inconvenience to someone, because perhaps they have their prescriptions with the pharmacy not selling the morning after pill, then perhaps they should change pharmacies.
It's simple really. The government should never impose upon a private business what it must sell. A product is either legal for sale, or it isn't. If it is legal, then carrying that product is up to the private business. To force a business to carry product violates the founding principles of this country.
Learn more about this author, slim'n'none.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
No medical professional has the right to exert their religious preferences on their clients and patients. The pharmaceutical industry especially cannot afford to allow its practitioners to delay or refuse treatment of clients due to the perceived use of any medical device, be it a pill or a syringe.
There are many religiously controversial medications and methods of treatment for many types of ailments which modern science if slowly finding an answer to. The contraceptive RU 486 or "the morning after pill" as it is commonly referred to is one such medication. While its primary use may be as a contraceptive which can prevent fertilization and implantation of the female ovum, it also has other uses of medicinal value.
Throughout the ages, many scientific advancements were considered dangerous and anti religious to many different beliefs. How could anyone get treatment if a pharmacist were to base their practice on whether or not they felt the medications that their clients were seeking were spiritually healthy for them? Especially when complete access to the patients full medical records, not just their medicinal record, would have to be available for examination before the pharmacist decided who could have what medication? What would they have women do, fill out a morality survey to insure the medication wasn't being used in what they considered an immoral way? Would we all have to sign a waiver saying we are not alcoholics before being allowed to buy over the counter cough syrup?
There was a time in this country when women could not buy simple contraceptive measures over the counter. Women were ostrasized and embarassed in public when attempting to buy birth control pills even when perscribed by a docter, and even could not buy condoms over the counter. That time has passed. The RU 486 pill is just another in a long line of controversial medications. The controversy over access to birth control of any kind caused by certain factions that would seek to limit womens reproductive freedoms. The same people who think that teaching kids about std's is the same as telling a teenager to have sex. But that's another point altogether. The fact that the medication is used only as occasional usage for emergency contraceptive situations seems to be ignored for the fear that women will use this medication as a regular form of birth control.
Anyone with any common sense would realize that if a woman is self concious enough to want to prevent ovum implantation in her uterus she is probably already using birth control. This medication is used as a back up plan should regular birth control fail or no birth control methods be used such as cases of rape where access to planned birth control measures were unavailable. What is a woman who does not want to become pregnat to do if here birth control is recalled for not being effective? Why should the woman be forced to gestate and mature to birth a child that is neither wanted nor planned for when there are many methods of preventative measures, RU 486 being one of the least intrusive.
The medication is also used for a variety of other medical issues. Which is why without a survey and a complete examination of a womans medical records, there is no way that a pharamasict would be qualified to make the assumption as to what the medication is to be used for, let alone protest giving it to the client based on thier own religious beliefs. I seriously doubt that if such requirements were given to clients that many pharmacies would stay in business for long, given how America is a very private society conserning their personal records.
As long as medication is legally applied for with a proper prescription, or through general access by the public of safe over the counter medications which are federally approved, the pharmacist only has the duty to fill the prescription, and if they offer a medical records service, which most do, check to make sure any new prescriptions for their clients wont interfere with existing medications or allergies. Even this is considered a courtesy by the medical industry as no pharmacy claims to be a complete expert on your medical conditions. Guess why? Because pharmacists are not your regular medical physician. They have at most a rudimentary view of your medical issues. Their opinion is expertly qualified when seeking information about medications, they are not experts on diagnosing your symptoms to prescribe the correct medications or treatments for your ailments.
If a pharmacist has a problem with providing a customer with any medication that is specifically prescribed by a Doctor or in general deemed safe for the general public by the FDA, then they are in the wrong field.
Learn more about this author, Nora Carver.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Politics, News & Issues (Other)
- Should the federal government give assistance to American auto makers?
- Should there be a time limit on collecting reparations?
- Should the state of Connecticut tax plastic bags at the grocery store?
- Is the Mexican Mafia a threat to the United States?
- Should mines be subject to stricter safety standards and more rigorous inspections?
- Is the Fairness Doctrine a muzzle to silence conservatives?
