David Boaz and Judy Waxman debate the issue of pharmacists and contraception/abortion for Legal Affairs.

I’m still befuddled as to why this is even an issue. Do people on the pro-choice side really believe a pharmacist should be forced by the government to dispense drugs he finds morally objectionable? Do pro-life people really believe a drug store that wishes to dispense such drugs should be forced by the government to continue to employ a pharmacist who won’t comply with the store’s policy?

If so, both sides are more detached from reality than I thought.

My take:

1) Any pharmacy or drugstore ought to be free to set its own policy on which drugs it will and won’t make available to consumers. As Boaz notes, we don’t force pro-life doctors to perform abortions. It seems unconscionalbe to me that we’d force a pro-life pharmacist to dispense an abortifacient.

2) A pharmacist should then choose to work for an employer whose policy best fits his own values. He may not begin working for an employer whose values clash with his own, then insist on being able to turn customers away and still retain his job.

3) A pharmacist or drugstore may refuse to fulfill a prescription on moral grounds. If so, they should likewise not be required to refer or recommend a pharmacist who will. However, I can’t conceive any circumstance under which a pharmacist should be able to confiscate and dispose of a prescription he finds objectionable, nor should he be permitted to intentionally mislead a customer who’s asking for something he doesn’t believe s/he should have.

These seem pretty self-evident to me. What am I missing?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 27th, 2005 at 11:55 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.