inignoct wrote:
] ] Herr, 33, of Denton, said he declined to fill the
] ] prescription for the so-called "morning-after pill"
] ] because he believes it could have killed the embryo if
] ] the woman already had conceived. Though he had declined
] ] five or six times in the past to fill such prescriptions,
] ] it was the first time he had been handed one for a rape
] ] victim, he said.
] ]
] ]
] ] "I went in the back room and briefly prayed about it,"
] ] said Herr, who had worked for Eckerd for five years. "I
] ] actually called my pastor ... and asked him what he
] ] thought about it."
]
] [ It's tempting to put this story into the category of
] religious fundamentalist moral imposition, but perhaps the
] issue is more complex than that.
]
] Certainly, from a legal standpoint, the employment agreement
] the guy entered into forbade him from refusing to fill this
] prescription, fine, he should've read it and, recognizing a
] moral conflict, turned down the job, or negotiated for a
] policy change.
]
] That being said, if you're a person who believes that abortion
] (even this form) is murder, it would seem that you have a
] moral obligation to refuse to perform a job task that will
] result in one, even if it may cost you your job. I may think
] it's wrongheaded and foolish, but at least it's consistent.
]
] What bothers me more is that none of the 3 pharmacists present
] would fill it. In this case, there was a pharmacy down the
] block who was willing to fill the prescription... what if
] there was only one pharmacy in town? I suspect that this sort
] of thing is more common than we know...
] -k]

I've had pharmacists refuse to fill my Ritalin prescription, on more than one occation, I doubt it was for any great moral delema like it was for this...but I've had a number of pharmacists really piss me off by attempting to play the roll of doctor...

--Abaddon