What is the principled difference between forcing a soldier to fight in

[dsc]

Iraq and forcing a pharmacist who owns his pharmacy to stock birth control pills? Both have chosen to go into professions where they are usually expected to do the activities mentioned here. Both have conscientious objections to this particular activity. Why should the government be required to accept the first person's objection but be required to run roughshod other the second persons?

Note a principled difference isn't that I like the first person's conscience but not the second. What difference is there between the power we are giving government over the individual in the first and second instance? I see none.

[blogbear]

1. I Don't See A Difference Here Either But I See Too Much...

Government controls, regulation, and at times interference with the private sector of business..Don't forget that the notion of leaving business alone or at least relaxing 'SOME' controls over business is not new either..This does not mean that I condone abuse by business or want to see more white collar crimes. I am suggesting, however, that government can go overboard with controls and thereby stifle the notion of free enterprize when that entity is needed more than ever to stimulate an otherwise sluggish economy. Perhaps, more checks and balances with business could be used rather than rigid regulations.

[lynne]

2. The difference is in the relationship -

- as the soldier is a employee who voluntarily signed a contract with the military whereas a pharmacist who owns a pharmacy is a self-employed businessman.

If the pharmacist was an employee of a pharmacy that chose to dispense birth control, then he would be obligated to fill those RX's as a condition of his employment in the same way that a soldier is obligated to fight in Iraq as a condition of his employment in the military.

The pharmacy owner is under no contractual obligation to carry and/or dispense specific drugs.

[ProgressiveConn]

3. I wonder what kind of agreements they sign to become licensed

as I'm sure there is some kind of required license to distribute medication. There might very well be a stipulation in some states about them being required to "fulfill the health needs as sanctioned by the patient's doctor."

I have to claim ignorance of the entire regulatory structure in regards to pharmacies so I may be completely off base in assuming that it is as regulated as I think it is.

[lynne]

4. Oath of a Pharmacist -

Surprised that I found this. It is rather broad and open to interpretation but the language does not imply that a pharmacist is required by law or contract to dispense specific drugs.

OATH OF A PHARMACIST

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.

I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

Developed by the American Pharmaceutical Association Academy of Students of Pharmacy/American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Council of Deans (APhA-ASP/AACP-COD) Task Force on Professionalism; June 26, 1994

[Solon]

5. There is none, ultimately...

Soldiers are employees of the State, signing a contract for a limited time, usually, and must fulfill all the obligations in the contract. Pharmacists, even if they own their own stores, have to abide by a similar contract to get licensed, that includes filling all legal prescriptions by a licensed doctor, or transferring it to a pharamacy that has such a drug in stock, or ordering it, whatever is most practical. In this case, public health, and national security, both trump individual rights in specific areas of life. This excludes the draft of course, but then again, no Pharmacist is FORCED into the profession.

[lynne]

6. The PHARMACIST REFUSAL CLAUSE -

- applies to several states including Georgia, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Dakota, Maine, North Carolina and probably more.

If you google that phrase you'll find quite a few states where a pharmacist is actually protected in his right to refuse to fill a prescription. There is also state-by-state info with regard to the Pharmacist Refusal Clause at the NARAL website.


edit: to correct spelling