An argument for why pharmacists should not be able to refuse FDA approved drugs to anyone.

This post is about birth control of any form, from "the pill" to the "morning after" pill.

This is my argument:

When a person becomes a Judge, he/she implicitly agrees to obey and follow the law, as it exists, based on years and years of Supreme Court argument, decisions, appellate court arguments, legal precedents, developments in science, that have accumulated into the form of modern law.

Once a precedent is formed, it is the obligation of the Judge to interpret law in that way.

I think the same must be true for a pharmacist. Once it has been determined that a particular drug is a legitimate and approved for a particular ailment, that application of medicine--as law--must be applied uniformly.

A pharmacist is like a judge. Objectivity is required. And if a particular pharmacist is incapable of applying objectivity to a real life case, he or she should recuse him/herself, just as a judge recuses him/herself in a case where he/she cannot be objective or carry out the law properly and fairly.

ON EDIT:

My rationale is a bit impromptu; there may be some logical point I am missing in opposition to my view, and I welcome opposing opinions.

I also think that it's long past time for birth control pills (which are no more dangerous than Ibuprofen - probably less so) to be available over the counter.

from any case that they can't be objective about? You're giving them permission to refuse to fill prescriptions.

. . . with only one pharmacy and pharmacist.

If they feel that they need to recuse themselves, then they should recuse themselves from the profession altogether.

since they are refusing to do the one they were hired for

have some conflict. Some, if you believe the goal of some religious colleges, is to purposely put people in these positions to prevent people from obtaining things like bc pills and abortion services etc.

Nevertheless, judges are held to the standard that comes with being accountable to the public; a pharmacist may work for a private entity.

When a person is dragged into court (for whatever reason) they cannot opt out for another judge; a person getting medicine can (even if it may be inconvenient).

I agree with you; I'm just saying there is a difference.

i can go to a different pharmacy. i have never had anyone refuse to fill a prescription. but there are a lot of pharmacies around where i live. that is not true for everyone. and i don't really think someone should have the power or ability to deny me something that was prescribed by my physician for anything other than a legal issue like say i was trying to fill a prescription i just filled or something or there was something funny going on with the prescription or something like that.

But, I also tried to be sensitive to the fact that "it may be inconvenient" for some people.

I guess I've lived in a big city too long.

The job of the pharmacist is to fill the MD's prescription and to guide the patient in the use of the medicine that their MD thinks in is their best interest. If he or she is not willing to do that, they should find another profession.

if they can refuse to fill bc pill prescriptions, then what next. what if they feel that it is against their religion to fill a prescription for heart meds or some other medication that if you don't receive it you will die. I mean, what if they start deciding that your illness is some kind of punishment for something they think you may have done to deserve it. Can they then refuse to fill your prescription?? what if they are against drugs that help women with fertility. maybe their beliefs are that god must not want you to have kids if you have to use drugs to have them. I mean, there are any number of things that one might find objection with because of their religious beliefs. And once we start down that road, when do we draw the line!!

Need I say more?

What if a $cientologist is in the position to deny mental health coverage for a person who desperately needs it?

I think having a public healthcare option would eliminate that "personal-religious-belief-trumps-science" cop-out.

But, sadly, right now, some of those private convictions are protected.

Can a Christian Scientist refuse to fill any prescription?

Think about that one. It takes the argument to it's logical conclusion. There have been laws proposed which would protect a pharmacist's "freedom of conscience". In a state where such a law was passed, could a Christian Scientist obtain a pharmacists license, get hired, and then do nothing all day, but be un-fireable due to the freedom of conscience law?

Pharmacists are not judges at all. They are nothing more than glorified order fulfillment services. It is a medical doctor that makes a diagnosis and prescribes medication, not a pharmacist. Only a doctor is qualified to prescribe or deny any sort of medical treatment.