Moral Dilemna
It’s fun to actually struggle with a moral debate involving the day’s news. Usually, I find myself quickly making decisions on most of the issues presented in the media. But a story on NPR’s All Things Considered show last night on states considering a “conscience clause” for pharmacists gave me pause.
Basically, a pharmacist refused for ethical/religious reasons to fill a presecription for the “morning-after pill.” He was fired for violating the drugstore’s policies on these matters. Now some states are considering laws which will allow these pharmacists the right to refuse to fill these prescriptions.
I’m in favor of conscientious objector rules. I think there are many places for them. A Quaker, I know many people who have in fact invoked them in regards to military service. And I absolutely agree with rules that allow medical personnel to opt out of providing abortions, although I don’t know any details of the relevant laws.
But there is something different here, and it is only now as I type this that I’ve really put my finger on the issue. I certainly think the owner of a pharmacy has the right to refuse to stock any medicine which offends her. But doesn’t she have the right to choose the policies of the pharmacy, and to fire those employees who refuse to follow them?
Arguing by analogy is frought with problems, but I’m going to do it anyway. Should such laws also protect Walmart employees who refuse to sell a gun because they think it might be used for murder? How about a Burger King employee who refused to sell an Enormous Omelet Sandwich because it’s high-fat content is too dangerous?
Okay, now it’s clear to me. Thanks for listening. 
April 11th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Moral Dilemna
Will there be a sign outside so customers know which CVS pharmacy has RU238 and which don’t?
Will the protesters outside the ones that do carry the pills pay for the security guards needed to keep the peace?
Will the churches that support abortion ask their flock to frequent the phamacies that carry the pills even when they don’t need them, to balance the churches that are campaigning to boycott those same stores?
Isn’t this just making it harder to get medical attention in the name of someones else’s moral agenda? Shouldn’t getting medicine be easy?
April 11th, 2005 at 11:50 am
I’d like to think so.
But when one person’s idea of medicine is another’s idea of murder, things can get awful confusing…