Great example of a bad argument.

A liquor store clerk who would lecture about the sins of alcohol is like a pharmacist who would lecture about the sins of pharmaceuticals in general, not about a specific pill.

I don't think pharmacists should be lecturing anybody about medications they aren't dispensing, and discussions about those they are dispensing should be limited to medical information. But the above analogy is just plain wrong.

More: So what's plan C?

Or... maybe it's like a web designer refusing to build a porn site for a customer?

Perhaps you feel that any web designer should be required to build a porn site (which is, after all, perfectly legal) if a legitimate customer demands it? It's just part of the job, after all. If you don't like building porn sites, find a new line of work.

Just a thought... ;-)

A pacifist police officer who refuses to carry a gun while on the job?

David --

It's exactly like Kari's argument for this reason: A web designer is typically his or her own boss. They can choose what to do and what not to do.

A Fred Meyer pharmacist, for example, can refuse to dispense Plan B, but his (or her) employer has no recourse.

JHL -- You're right, independent contractors can choose what to do and what not to do.

The proportion of web designers who are independent is doubtless far higher than the proportion of pharmacists who are independent.

But there are independent pharmacists who own their own pharmacies. And according to other posts on this site (such as those referenced in this original post), there are some who would not allow those independent pharmacists to choose what to do and what not to do.

I firmly believe that both Kari's hypothetical grocery store employer as well as the employer of a non-independent pharmacist (or, for that matter, the employer of a non-independent web designer) should of course have the right to fire their respective employees for not satisfactorily performing their job function(s), if in fact that is the employer's position on the matter.

The issue here is really about the company policy, not the employee.

If the company policy in any event is to allow their employees some degree of autonomy in the delivery of goods or services, then as consumers we have the right to punish the company by taking our business elsewhere. Why should government get involved?

If employee autonomy is not the company policy, then the company has the right (or should, anyhow) to punish the employee with sanctions for violating the company policy, up to and including termination. I'm not sure why you think Fred Meyer has no recourse if an employee fails to perform an expected job requirement.

And if the employee feels that their current employer's policy conflicts with their morality, then of course Kari is right (to an extent). They should find another employer who will not conflict with that morality, or (if no such employers exist) find a new line of work entirely.

Or start their own business and set their own company policy. Naturally, in that case the vegetarian store clerk would not likely set up a store that carried meat; and the pharmacist would not likely set up an independent pharmacy that stocked objectionable medications.

If your job conflicts with your moral values, get a different job.

hhmmm.... I wonder how that applies to Lt. Ehren Watada, the junior Army officer in Ft. Lewis who refuses to go to Iraq to fight in what he believes to be an illegal war?

I suspect the vast majority of BlueOregonians (based primarily upon their dislike for Bush and his War), would rally behind the officer who refused orders, but not the pharmacist whose job apparently conflicts with his moral values.

• Wes

Well David, I think we agree. As pro-choice and pro-access as I am, I don't beleive that a business should be required to stock a specific product. (Unless they're supported by public dollars.)

If a vegan cashier at Safeway refuses to ring up my beef... that's cause for me getting pissy. But if I decide to go shopping at "Vega-Mart & Tofu Bar" and I find out they don't stock beef... well then I am just in the wrong store.

As a small business owner, I do beleive that that decision is up to the owner of the pharmacy -- and I would like to see the Board of Pharmacy respect the owner's perogative to sell Plan B if they choose.

And you're right -- the market system works. There are certain grocery stores I simply don't shop at because I know that their tuna fish is not fortified with dolphin meat (delicious!).

Wesley Charles: excellent point.

You can force a pharmacist to dispense a drug to kill a baby; but you can't force a soldier to fight (cause he might kill people who don't deserve it). Ironic, that.

But liberals don't believe in intellectual consistency.

[off-topic stuff deleted. -editor.]

jhl, i'm most concerned about women who live in towns that only have "vega-mart and tofu bars," (funny) who don't have enough money to move out of such hellholes.

i'd love to say that independent pharmacists should be able to do whatever they want and let capitalism sort it out, except that this is MEDICAL CARE, which cannot be regulated that way and hasn't been since the days of witch doctors.

and as a pacifist who freaked the hell out right before signing the last form to enlist in the air force when i was a starving college student, i'd say that yeah, those folks should have remembered that oh yeah they don't believe in killing other people before they took the free college money. now it's consequence time. same for pharmacists who realize, too late, that they don't like keeping women healthy.

I'm all for protecting access to contraception. But my views on anytime/anywhere abortion were moderated by the birth of my son (who is not two).

The first sonogram picture was taken at 3 months, and his profile and spine were easily distinguished. No woman that has looked at a photo like that would tell you that it isn't a baby, not if she's truthful. I don't think my husband experienced quite the same feeling that I did, but I think I'll ask him.

Is RU-482 (I thought it was 486?) really an abortion, or just delayed contraception? I can't say. But I know my fetus was a baby at 3 months, and I don't think he was any less my baby at 3 days. The only difference is time, not definition.

If the surgical removal of testicles became popular at 6 months gestation (zero population growth or better than stemcells?), I'm guessing the male component of the pro-choice crowd would diminish considerably.

It's much easier to be

don't forget that there is another, rather large, difference between a vegan clerk at a store that sells meat, and a "pro-life" pharmacist anywhere... a pharmacist is a job that requires a state license, and there is a state board of pharmacy that regulates the industry and profession. a licensed professional must adhere to certain standards and behaviors, as determined by the state board, in order to remain licensed. requiring a license to practice restricts the supply of qualified members of that profession, inflating the salary in that field--sometimes the number of licenses awarded is even artificially restricted by the state board to stabilize the industry from a glut of new providers. it seems a little odd to me when those accepting a priviledge from the state complain about the terms of that priviledge. when these pharmacists complain about having to provide plan b, i will take them more seriously if they start calling for a repeal of the licensing system, but they won't because they benefit too much from it.

perhaps a private certification process would be better than state licensing, perhaps it wouldn't, but that's not the point. the point is that this is what we have, and comparing licensed to unlicensed professional is apples and oranges.

One issue that I haven't heard raised is the way in which this opt-out rule is part of a broader strategy by the religious right. This issue came about by pressure from rightwing christian activists, not from pharmacists. The strategy is this: once they've created this "right" by pharmacists to opt out of carrying certain medications, they can then begin threatening pharmacists --and the management of the major chains --to embrace this newfound "ethic."

Can anyone doubt that courageous pharmacists out there will become the objects of picketing, boycotts or worse? Will pharmacists now be called "muderers" and need bodyguards to get to and from work? How soon will a pharmacist become the next Barnett Slepian?

The sincere advocates for pharmacists ought to ask themselves if this is what they really want, because it is what they will get if they push this phony "ethic" through.

John

A few years ago I asked a meat counter employee at Nature's Fresh NW if they had any veal sausage. He sneered at me and (quoting verbatim) said, "we don't believe in torturing baby cows". I had about 10 items in my basket, and I sat them politely on top of the counter and told him he would have to restock them for me, because I wouldn't spend another dollar in their store. Then he started to backtrack, like it was a Seinfeld joke, or something. I just kept walking.

I've never been back (and yes, I know they were later acquired by Wild Oats), but I've got a Zupan's and a Market of Choice that are closer to home, and they never insult my patronage.

Another liberal hypocrisy: they don't mind if you kill a fetus, but don't mistreat the chickens (KFC), the geese (fois gras), or the baby cows (veal)...Cause that's just too damned cruel.

I am a vegan, but Kari is still wrong.

He makes no sense.

It is much more like a football quarterback who doesn't like the feel of pigskin.

I've got a question about OLCC, in general.

Putting aside all the obvious dysfunction, and their status as a commision, isn't their basic charter a bit passe?

Last time I looked, which was a few years ago, their mission explicitly included promoting temperance, which I read as not drinking at all. Given all the antioxidant and cohumulone research around red wine and beer, respectively, isn't this just outdated?

Jennifer W, sentience is the issue. If you ever experience it maybe you'll understand.

Zarathustra:

My posts are the essence of sentience. What makes you believe otherwise?

I feel more empathy for a 3 month old fetus than a 9 month old veal calf. I protect human life and eat bovines: an offensive paradox to vegan NARAL activists, but not to mainstream Americans.

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!

Well, Jennifer, the fact is that this discussion is about whether a state-licensed pharmacist can override the judgment of a physician who has examined a patient and declare that she should not, in fact, receive the pills prescribed to her. It's about birth control pills, not abortion.

You're talking as if you can't tell the difference between a 3-month-old fetus and an unimplanted ovum, and it's not surprising that that makes some people question your sentience.

Personally, I think that if you, like me, were the mother of a girl who needed to take "birth control" pills for reasons completely unrelated to procreation, and watched them alleviate some truly horrible suffering, you might think differently.