Pope Tells Pharmacists not to Dispense Contraceptives VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI urged Catholic pharmacists today to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing drugs with "immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia." In a speech to participants at the 25th International Congress of Catholic Pharmacists, Benedict said that conscientious objection was a right that must be recognized by the pharmaceutical profession. Such objector status, he said, would "enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia." In his speech, the pope also said that pharmacists have an educational role toward patients so that drugs are used in a morally and ethically correct way. "We cannot anesthetize consciences as regards, for example, the effect of certain molecules that have the goal of preventing the implantation of the embryo or shortening a person's life," he said. Emergency contraception pills, which can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex, work by preventing ovulation or by preventing the embryo from being implanted into the womb. The pope said pharmacists should raise people's awareness so that "all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role." The issue has been debated extensively in the United States. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich introduced the rule more than two years ago requiring pharmacists to fill all prescriptions. Pharmacists challenged the rule, and a legal settlement earlier this month allowed pharmacists who object to dispensing emergency birth control to step aside while someone else fills the prescription. In Washington state, pharmacists have filed a federal lawsuit over a regulation requiring them to sell emergency contraception, saying it violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs." A few states in the U.S. have passed laws that specifically allow pharmacists or pharmacies to refuse to provide health care due to religious or moral objections, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights think tank based in New York. Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota have legislation that explicitly permits pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives, according to the Institute, and Florida, Illinois, Maine and Tennessee have broadly worded legislation that may apply to pharmacists. In California, on the other hand, pharmacists are required to fill all valid prescriptions and can only refuse with employer approval and if the customer can still access the prescription in a timely manner. In Britain, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has a code of ethics allowing pharmacists who have religious objections to refuse dispensing certain drugs, such as emergency contraception. But their objection must be stated to their employer before they start working, and they must refer patients to other pharmacists who can provide the requested drugs.
I saw this headline earlier and thought the Pope was causing more problems. Then I read the article and all he's really talking about is the "morning after pill" (like pgabriel says in the thread title). It's a very misleading headline from the AP. He's not telling them to not deliver all contraceptives, just the emergency contraceptives that are taken after unprotected sex. There's a slight difference, in my opinion. That being said, if you work in a Pharmacy, you should be required to give out any medication that the Pharmacy has. You can't force your religious beliefs on anyone else.
the headline is misleading from the AP. two different subjects, as a matter of fact I wouldn't call the morning after pill "contraception"
Why doesn't Catholic Church set up its own pharmacy chain? If it does, can it just fill the orders that satisfy its moral standards and reject those that don't without breaking any laws?
No one is saying the pharmacist can prevent the customer from getting any available medication, only that the pharmacist doesn't have to give it to them. You are advocating for the customer to be able to force her religious beliefs on the pharmacist. The pharmacist is simply practicing his religion, not telling the customer that there is no way she can have abortion pills.
except running a pharmacy isn't going to church. a pharmacist who owns their own pharmacy has right to choose what he doesn't want to sell, but let's be clear on who's imposing on who.
If the owner of the pharmacy tells you that you have to give any medication to anyone who asks for it, you do it. You aren't the owner of the pharmacy.
Yes. I was being clear on who was imposing on whom. The pharmacist is not making the woman do anything, hardly an imposition. It has no bearing on her religious beliefs if the pharmacist doesn't give her the drugs. On the other hand, there is an infringement on the pharmacist's religious freedom if you require him to distribute something forbidden by his religion. If the owner of the FedEx said you had to shred Koran's, would you have to do that? If the owner of the security company said you had to mace little kids trying to get autographs, would you have to do that? The pharmacy can have the medication available, but if the pharmacist feels that it is unethical to distribute it, forcing him to do so is wrong. The woman can just get her abortion pills from another employee, or another pharmacy.
There is somehow a supposition behind your statements that protection of his religious beliefs give him the right to keep his job. What if you had a pharmacist became a Christian Scientists and decided that all forms of pharmaceuticals are morally wrong? Does protection of his religious allow him to refuse all service and keep his job? What about a pharmacist who becomes a member of the 'Christian Identity' movement, who says that serving anything but white people is a violation of his religion? Is that protected as well? After all the black people and other minorities can go find another pharmacist as well, right? If you have religious problems with shooting people, don't join the Army. If you have religious problems with casual sex, don't become a 'sex worker'. If you have religious problems with dispensing alcohol, don't become a bartender. If you have religious problems with dispensing drugs, don't become a pharmacist. He is perfectly capable of exercising his religious rights by quitting his job and doing something that won't require him to dispense drugs that violate his religious beliefs. He chose to become a pharmacist. He is responsible if he is unable to do his chosen avocation for moral reasons. Protection of religious beliefs does not mean protection from all consequences of those beliefs.
Well you should because it is the exact same drug. "Birth control" and the "morning after pill" both perform the same functions. The "plan B" morning after pill is just in higher concentration to make up for not taking it everyday. They either deny entry of the sperm or if it gets in, they keep the fertilized egg from attacking to the wall. You might be thinking of the abortion pill. That can be used AFTER the egg has attached.
A single pharmacist is a seller in a market. If he chooses to not sell a product he will have no impact on either the supply or demand of the market of that product. Even if a large group of pharms did this there would be a shortage and would bring more sellers to the market.
He doesn't have religious problems dispensing drugs, but rather a single class of drugs. That is what separates the pharmacist case from the other cases. If you replaced the soldier with a cop, the sex worker with an actress, and the bartender with a waiter, your analogies would be better.
How about a cop who had religious issues with arresting one class of criminals? A cop who would arrest everybody except prostitutes or drug dealers. That matches more or less perfectly, because sex normally isn't part of the job description given to actresses, while dispensing legaly proscribed medication is part of a pharmicists' description. Dispencing drugs is the job, not some ancillary perhipheral issue. The fundimental job of a pharmacist is to make sure that scripts which are presented to them are filled as prescribed by licensed doctors. Additionally, one of the major lawsiuts filed on this issue involved a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription on a morning after pill where there was no alternative provider.
