So recently my dearly loved state has ruled that pharmacists do not have to give out the morning after pill if they have religious objections to it. They do have to “help” you find a pharmacy that will, but otherwise they are free to ignore their duties and tell you to kiss off. Now mind you, I am ok with people having objections to abortions, especially in the later stages of pregnancy when the fetus actually has a nervous system and looks like something more than a small cluster of stem cells. Of course, denying people this particular pill will just lead to an increase in said abortions, but whatever. What I have a problem with is with this “right” that pharmacists now seem to have. I think it’s a case of people believing their un-provable beliefs someone else’s rights while still claiming to be a real professional, and that this sets a rather dangerous precedent.

Right off the bat, I have a problem with people taking a job knowing what maybe asked of them, and then demanding that they not have to fulfill said roles and duties. What duties do pharmacists have? Well according to the America Pharmacists Association, the code of ethics that all pharmacists should be living by is as follows:

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

Lastly, and I do normally hate slippery slope arguments, but where does this end? Do other medical professionals get to decide for their customers and patients what they can have access to? Does this get limited solely to religious reasons? Does a vegan pharmacist have the right to refuse to hand out any medicine made from animal products, like some varieties of insulin, on the bases of moral objection? How is such a refusal really any different that this case? Granted there are other options, but do they really have to right to restrict them for anything other than concern for the patient’s physical health? And what if the patient is sensitive to anything but say bovine insulin? Sure they could go to another pharmacy, if there is one nearby, but should they have to? What if doctors stopped treating patients on the same ground? What if the only neurosurgeon in the area happens to be Muslim, and refuses to touch female patients, even during emergencies? Is that ok? What if a Hindu oncologist thinks that the most moral act they can do is to deprive a patient of chemo, so that way the patient can die and be reborn? What if a Pastafarian ER doctor (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) decides that it’s their moral obligation let all anti-choicers bleed out on the table, and that they need to prove they are prochoice before the treatment? Granted, every one of these doctors would have taken an oath to not do these things, but the way I see it, this ruling basically is saying that moral beliefs trump your sworn word. I am not saying that any of this will happen, but now, it could, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

V. A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals

VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

Not a bad set of guidelines, and I do hope that any pharmacist I deal with follows them. The people who don’t want to give out the Plan B pill seem to not be following them, especially number 3, number 6, and depending on whether or not you think this world needs more people, numbers 7 and 8.

First, number three. I don’t see how telling someone that they cannot have a medicine that they legally are allowed to have, a pill that they are choosing to take knowing what it is intended to do, is respecting their autonomy. Doubly so since the reason you are refusing said medicine is not out of concern for their health, but rather because of beliefs that are not universal, and really add nothing to the medical profession. Now true, the pharmacist is a person too, and has rights as well. However, the patient is not the one who swore to uphold certain values and ethics when they started in a profession that no one made them pursue.

Item six, as near as I can tell, means that a pharmacist should respect doctors, and should expect respect back. If a patient comes in with a legal prescription given to them by a physician who presumably not only knows the patient and their medical issue at hand better than the person behind the counter, and is refused, how is that showing any level of respect? Perhaps this is the weakest argument I have, but really, how is not disrespectful to basically say that you know better than another professional based off of no evidence?

7 and 8 together now. There are 6 billion people, give or take a few million. Most are poor, starving, and living generally miserable lives. So why add to them? Oh sure, every life is a special gift from god, which is why he dumps most of them in the third world. Hell, many kids even in the first world have shitty lives. Why make more? Why put more strains of society, in terms of a draining of funds and increased crime rates, by adding more unwanted kids? And make no mistake; the poor are the ones who will suffer the most from this. The rich or even middle class can afford to hunt for a pharmacist that is willing to do their job, but the poor may not. Moreover, what if that pharmacist is the only one in the area that accepts Medicare/Medicaid? Now they have no options, and the pharmacist gets help from the government to make the world a worse place while forcing their religious beliefs on someone else.

Now all that aside, what exactly do these pharmacists hope to accomplish? Nothing will change, other than people will lose respect for them. As it stands right now, they might even be able to be fired for causing a boycott; their employer may not be able to fire them for religious beliefs, provided more than 50 people work for said employer, but for causing a boycott or disturbance is still likely. Also, preventing the use of the morning after pill will only lead to more abortions. If you don’t want the kid, a self righteous guy in a lab coat isn’t going to make you keep it. Hell, I can think of three or four easily acquired and just as safe as the pill plants that would easily have the same effect. No prescription needed, and most naturopathic doctors can probably list of a dozen or so more. I am not saying that people are going to flock to non standard medicine as result of this, but some might. All that will result from this is that a few pharmacists will get to have smug self satisfaction, and sadly a bunch of women are going to get screwed over.