I am Truly Disturbed

[Inquartata]

The common denominator is that the patient is the one who is responsible for his own health and the receiving of health care. Not his doctor, and not his pharmacist. The patient.

So the patient can self-prescribe, then? Until he can, the pharmacist is a vital cog in the process. And it can still be argued that birth control qua birth control is not "health care".

[Inquartata]

it really comes down to whether someone in power (in this case the pharmicist) can impose his/her ethical and moral beliefs on others. I don't see how a pharmacy which stocks the birth control pill has any right not to sell it to a person. Just doesn't make sense. If you don't want to sell the product, don't stock it.

As noted previously, the Pill has certain legitimate medical uses apart from birth control. It can be stocked for these, but sold selectively on the basis of actual health issues, as opposed to warding off pregnancy ( which as yet has not been classified as a disease ).

[dunastor]

As noted previously, the Pill has certain legitimate medical uses apart from birth control. It can be stocked for these, but sold selectively on the basis of actual health issues, as opposed to warding off pregnancy ( which as yet has not been classified as a disease ).

This would lead to a situation where a doctor will prescribe the pill for some other "use" according to the prescription, but the patient will actually just use it for birth control.

Besides, I also don't think stocking the pill for other uses is sufficient in the eyes of the pharmacist who is opposed to any kind of birth control....

[Inquartata]

You may be right; but we must needs read his mind to be sure. I don't know about you, but I lack the capability.

The ruse you mention will indeed almost certainly be used in those circumstances.

Anyway, we're going round and round in circles, but no one has yet answered the essential question, except in terms of "I believe"---that is, I've heard no rationale for requiring a pharmacist in the private sector to perform an act odious to him, but on wholly normative grounds...and ones which conflict with freedom of choice and acting in accordance with the dictates of conscience.

[dunastor]

Anyway, we're going round and round in circles, but no one has yet answered the essential question, except in terms of "I believe"---that is, I've heard no rationale for requiring a pharmacist in the private sector to perform an act odious to him, but on wholly normative grounds...and ones which conflict with freedom of choice and acting in accordance with the dictates of conscience.

This essential question is impossible to answer. Certainly in other terms than "I believe".

I've heard no rationale for a pharmacist (we haven't even got a consensus about whether he is in the private sector or not in the first place) to withhold the freedom of choice of the patient to receive birth control, and acting in accordance with the dictates of conscience.

As long as the "I believe" of the pharmacist gets precedence over the "I believe" of the patient and his prescribing doctor, there's nothing more to say about it. It's a stand-off... This discussion goes round and round because neither side (that includes me of course ) is willing to accept the arguments of the other side. If you see a way out of this, I'm open to suggestions