Pro-Life Drugstores
America’s pharmacists are facing an ever-expanding pharmacopeia from which to dispense the medications that ease pain, cure infection, and help people everywhere maintain a standard of living unsurpassed by previous generations. Some of the drugs in that mind-boggling array of medications are cause for much concern among a growing number of pharmacists who do not feel religiously or morally comfortable dispensing birth control prescription drugs, condoms, and contraceptives. More and more of them are opting out of the traditional drugstore setting and they’re developing their own “pro-life” drugstores, where contraceptives in any form are, quite simply, not in stock.
In recent years, some pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, calling it their right of conscience to refuse to do work that conflicts with their personal beliefs. The growing practice of refusing to fill certain prescriptions has generated heated controversy, legislative changes, and even legal action against some of these pharmacists.
Many pro-life pharmacy owners carry no items that aid contraception and some have gone even further, refusing to stock pornography, rolling papers, and tobacco products. As an added service, they frequently include nutritional supplements, herbal and homeopathic remedies, and custom compounding of prescription drugs as routine parts of their business.
Pro-life pharmacies stir controversy among women’s rights advocates who fear these pharmacies will limit a woman’s access to life-changing medications while maintaining a full arsenal of drugs for men, including Viagra, prescribed for sexual dysfunction. The concern is especially strong when a rape victim must take the Plan B morning-after pill as soon after attack as possible to circumvent any pregnancy that might have resulted in the assault.
Others are concerned that limiting the products offered may infringe on licensing requirements meted out by each state to its pharmaceutical industry. To address this issue, legislative changes in a growing number of states require all pharmacies to fill all prescriptions in every case.
A spokesperson for one bioethics think tank said a pharmacist needs to be a pharmacist all the time, not just when he or she approves of medical protocol as sanctioned by the medical establishment, prescribing physicians, and governing bodies.
Another bioethicist has voiced the concern that selectively limiting services to an entire class of individuals discriminates against women and has the potential to become quite problematic in areas served by only pro-life pharmacies, such as in rural settings where choices are limited.
Source: Washington Post
Loading ...
If a pharmacist’s stock choices would prevent a person from obtaining a legal product (even in a timely manner) then I agree that there could be an ethical/moral issue at stake for a store that did not sell the drugs under consideration (morning after, for example). But, with the availability of a drugstore on practically every street corner a person wanting any product would only have to move a short distance to get the product.
I know of no moral obligation that every pharmacy stock every legal drug and health-related product. Merely because most pharmacies sell tobacco is not sufficient reason for every pharmacy to be obligated to do the same? If most pharmacies sell alcohol products is every pharmacy obligated to do liewise? If most large pharmacies are open 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, is every pharmacy obligated to have the same hours? It would also be highly impractical.
It is easy to toss around words like moral and ethical, but when it comes down to specifics things can go get messy or confusing. People have a right to purchase the drugs mentioned in this article. Consequently the pharmacy profession as a whole has an offsetting obligation to make them available. And this is what happens. There are no moral or ethical standards that require every pharmacy to offer every possible product or service. This is the case in practically every business situation; not every doctor does plastic surgeries, yet people can easily get their nose fixed; not every dentist does braces, yet people can get them from an orthodontist; not every car dealer sells Hummers, yet people can buy one when they want to. Taken to the extreme the ideation that every pharmacy is obligated to sell every possible product cannot be supported. Pharmacy owners have the right to stock and sell whatever legal products they choose and there is no overriding moral obligation for them to stock everything.