That is a big If. How do you go about guaranteeing that without undue burden on the client?

Also, does Montana allow assisted suicide? I did not think this was permitted in any state, though I'm not up on the latest (maybe Oregon?). So my understanding is that she would not need to make that choice. And if she did, I do not think she would be remiss in her duty. She would be choosing not to help someone die.

What is a pharmacist who refuses to let a woman go on the Pill choosing not to help her do? Yeah, that's what I thought.

The Pill is a mainstream, very common, and ethically unfraught medication within the medical world. You cannot say the same for a lethal dose of morphine. You just can't. If you are a pharmacist and you don't work in a geriatric ward, you are going to be asked to prescribe the Pill. Unless your patient is also on Lipitor or a prescription nicotine patch or something else that indicates an obvious medical issue, you have no business deciding whether someone should take it. PERIOD.

You wrote "they don't automatically lead to what you fear."

I do not think you are reading my posts very carefully. I don't fear anything. I think refusing medication on non-medical grounds is unethical.

You say "I think it does have a good basis in logic" and go on to discuss medical reasons why pharmacists should be allowed to refuse drugs.

The thing in dispute, however, is why brianinmontana thinks a pharmacist should be allowed to exercise this veto power 1) on moral grounds and/or 2) without consulting with the prescribing physician.

I am afraid I cannot "respect your view," since it has no logical basis, as far as I can tell at this point. If you'd like to restate it in a way that makes some kind of logical and ethical sense, please do.

I do not respect the view, but I do respect everyone who offers respect to me, and that includes you. Thanks!

As far as the job description of pharmacists, I think what you're saying here is that the veto privilege is designed explicitly for cases in which the pharmacist thinks there is potential danger or a potential ethical breach on the part of the doctor, and it can only be filled (if at all) after consultation with the doctor. I do not disagree with you. However, dispensing prescriptions IS the job of a pharmacist.

Now would you mind explaining how this relates in any way to refusing drugs to patients 1) on moral grounds and/or 2) without a good-faith effort to consult with the prescribing physician?

"So, why on Earth doesn't NOW send a dozen women to protest outside one of these pharmacies and harass every employee (and, if there's a competing pharmacy in the area, every customer)?"

Because when NOW does it, they are terrorists. When Operation Rescue (or whatever they are calling themselves now) does it, they are freedom fighters.

That is a rhetorical answer. :)

You wrote: "Actually, a pharmacist's job is to exercise medical judgment. Otherwise, you could get your medicine from a vending machine and hope that it doesn't kill you. You would be surprised to find out how often old Doc Johnson's prescriptions are very, very flawed. Part of the process is the pharmacist calling the doctor to confirm that they meant to give you a conflicted medication regime."

Which part of that is the part where a pharmacist gets to refuse a medication 1) on moral grounds and 2) without consulting the patient's doctor?

"Exercising medical judgment" is not a job. It is the manner in which someone does a job. The job, in this case, being to FILL PRESCRIPTIONS. You can go up and down the walls trying to explain that pharmacists are supposed to exercise veto power in some cases, but those cases are almost exclusively cases in which patients would be endangered by a prescription as written. We are not talking about bad handwriting or mcg instead of mg. We are talking about a doctor and a patient deciding a patient will take a certain medication and a pharmacist saying the patient can't have it. Conflating the two shows me that you are not thinking clearly.

Because a pharmacist's entire JOB is to fill prescriptions. Not to make medical judgments - let alone moral ones - about what patients need.

Well, I think his prescription is pretty clear. If you want to be his follower, sell everything you own, give the money to the poor, leave your home and your family (and, presumably, your pharmaceutical power trip) behind, and spread the Gospel.

Other passages that come to mind: Judge not lest you be judged. Remove the plank from your own eye before pointing out the mote in your brother's (or, in this case, customer's). And an old favorite of mine: No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

They really ought to sell a Barbie that says "Christiantiy is HAAAAAARD!"

Not only do they not offer a package for Linux, but my OS X is too old (you have to have 10.5.3). :-(

Unfortunately, my husband can't play. What the heck do they have against LINUX???