The discussion had/has nothing to do with pharmacists.This is the only thing you've said that I agree with: "I have no particular problem with doctors refusing to perform certain procedures (provided that doing so doesn't have immediate and direct repercussions to the health of their patient) on conscientious grounds, but then the doctor has an ethical obligation to refer the patient to another doctor."End of story. Who cares about some absurd, nonexistent, unrealistic hypothetical? (I don't.)
Yeah Straw, but the story isn't about a pharmacists its about a doctor. The doctor and the pharmacists are both with in their rights to refuse but also subject to consequences of getting fired for it.
fair enough but it would be the same false premise by either the doctor or the pharmacist This story is about refusal of access to contraception and we've seen stories in the past where a patient walks in with a prescription for emergency contraception (aka = The Morning After Pill) and is turned away by the pharmacist for the same false reasoning that Bum perpetuated in this thread
What's Bum's reasoning?
Read the title of the thread. This is supposedly about a doctor prescribing an abortion pill, not a pharmacist handing out a bottle of pills. We're not talking about pharmacists. We're talking about doctors. Not sure if you're aware of that whole First Amendment thing, but the government cannot force a doctor to whatever the government wants. Don't know anything about the story you mentioned, and it has zero to do with whether a doctor should be forced to prescribe an abortion pill.
As long as doctors serve as the gatekeepers for perfectly legal drugs, they have an obligation to not let their religious beliefs affect a patient.
If a pregnancy resulting from rape is religiously protected, are the rapists doing god's work?
