Pharmacists have professional duty to provide birth control
EDITORIALS
Issue date: 3/31/05 Section: Opinion/Editorial
- Page 1 of 1
The newest struggle in the realm of reproductive rights is between women and their local pharmacists. Drug providers throughout the nation are starting a trend and refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills and the morning after pill, due to personal religious or moral beliefs.
Government officials, as always, are eager to get involved in this issue. Some stick up for a woman's right to her medicine, and others think pharmacists have a right to keep their hands clean of drugs that are morally wrong in their eyes.
The argument to support pharmacists is not without merit. Private businesses do have a prerogative to choose what kind of merchandise they sell. A store that is morally opposed to smoking, for example, does not have to sell cigarettes. The inherent difference in this case is that the drugs are prescribed and, in some instances, done so for health reasons not related to sex.
Wal-Mart, for example, refuses to sell the morning-after pill, which is unacceptable since the business chain has closed other pharmacies in small towns, leaving only one choice for shopping. A woman shouldn't have to drive across the state just because a condom broke.
In most cases, however, it is not pharmacies that are refusing to sell contraception, but rather a lone employee. The pharmacy has a right to fire that employee, just as a liquor store owner could fire an employee who refused to sell booze. If pharmacists are putting their moral beliefs before the job duties that they signed up for, it's time for them to go.
What's most disturbing about this discussion is how out of touch so many pharmacists are, since these are the very people who are supposed to know all about medicine.
Adam Sonfield, who works the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive issues, offered up all kinds of examples of crazy pharmacist behavior in an article in The Washington Post. Some pharmacists only give birth control to married women, while other hold the prescriptions hostage.
"There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," he said.
If pharmacists don't know the basics of when a baby is conceived, then it's time for them to go back to school. If they were similarly misinformed about other medications, it could spell serious trouble. If they know so little about such a basic topic as the difference between contraception and abortion, we can't exactly rely on our pharmacists to predict possible drug interactions. Hell, we shouldn't even trust them to label the container correctly.
If the government legislates this issue, then it is likely that all pharmacies will be forced to sell birth control. Until then, business owners with a realistic view about birth control should rid themselves of employees who prove to be incompetent for the job they were hired for. Women shouldn't have to engage in a monthly struggle with their pharmacists to stay baby-free.
Government officials, as always, are eager to get involved in this issue. Some stick up for a woman's right to her medicine, and others think pharmacists have a right to keep their hands clean of drugs that are morally wrong in their eyes.
The argument to support pharmacists is not without merit. Private businesses do have a prerogative to choose what kind of merchandise they sell. A store that is morally opposed to smoking, for example, does not have to sell cigarettes. The inherent difference in this case is that the drugs are prescribed and, in some instances, done so for health reasons not related to sex.
Wal-Mart, for example, refuses to sell the morning-after pill, which is unacceptable since the business chain has closed other pharmacies in small towns, leaving only one choice for shopping. A woman shouldn't have to drive across the state just because a condom broke.
In most cases, however, it is not pharmacies that are refusing to sell contraception, but rather a lone employee. The pharmacy has a right to fire that employee, just as a liquor store owner could fire an employee who refused to sell booze. If pharmacists are putting their moral beliefs before the job duties that they signed up for, it's time for them to go.
What's most disturbing about this discussion is how out of touch so many pharmacists are, since these are the very people who are supposed to know all about medicine.
Adam Sonfield, who works the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive issues, offered up all kinds of examples of crazy pharmacist behavior in an article in The Washington Post. Some pharmacists only give birth control to married women, while other hold the prescriptions hostage.
"There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," he said.
If pharmacists don't know the basics of when a baby is conceived, then it's time for them to go back to school. If they were similarly misinformed about other medications, it could spell serious trouble. If they know so little about such a basic topic as the difference between contraception and abortion, we can't exactly rely on our pharmacists to predict possible drug interactions. Hell, we shouldn't even trust them to label the container correctly.
If the government legislates this issue, then it is likely that all pharmacies will be forced to sell birth control. Until then, business owners with a realistic view about birth control should rid themselves of employees who prove to be incompetent for the job they were hired for. Women shouldn't have to engage in a monthly struggle with their pharmacists to stay baby-free.
