by J Robbins

Created on: July 11, 2008

Americans can agree that a main ideal of our Constitution is to protect the rights of all citizens. The more difficult issue is how to decide whose rights prevail when opposing rights are at issue.

Making that type of decision is left to the courts, often the Supreme Court. Pharmacists, by refusing to sell the morning after pill, are in essence denying Constitutional rights to others, a decision that is not theirs to make.

If we are to protect the rights for ourselves, it means we must defend the rights for others, even if it goes against our deepest convictions. What if a devout Muslim pharmacist refused to sell mouthwash knowing it contained alcohol? What if a devout Jewish pharmacist refused to sell medications that contained amounts of pork or shellfish products? What if a devout Hindu pharmacist refused to sell medications that contained animal products?

The people who come to buy the morning after pill obviously do not share the same religious beliefs or convictions as the pharmacist who wants to refuse to sell it. Religious freedom and tolerance is not easy. Democracy requires strength to honor and respect views and belief systems that are foreign and totally different from our own.

The pharmacist may believe a life is being taken by using a morning after pill, but our laws don't agree. There is no crime involved. The medication is legal and approved by our government. The same would apply for any of the above examples. Though grievously against the "laws" of each religion, none is against the laws of the United States. To live here in this country and enjoy its freedoms is to obey its rule of law.

The pharmacist has the right and the freedom to get a different job. That job might be strictly serving seniors, or catering to a strictly male clientele. They could choose to teach, or choose to use their license as a consultant. The options are there for them without preventing the rights of others to use the legal drugs of their choice or prescription.

Most importantly, people entering the pharmaceutical profession must realize at the start there is the probability they will be forced to handle medications they feel are unsafe or against personal principals to use. They can not set themselves up as judge and jury after the fact. The time to decide whether to obey a nation who governs by the rule of law is best made before, not after, entering the profession.

Learn more about this author, J Robbins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.