I am reminded of a colleague at my own workplace. Rather than work on a committee that involved assessing a student’s service project at Planned Parenthood, this person did not feel that she, in good conscience, could have anything to do with anything to do with Planned Parenthood. And so she removed herself from the committe.

Whatever my own views, I respected her choice. Again, this was not simply “recusing” herself for a particular decision, but leaving the committee entirely, service on which was part of her job responsibilities and for which a portion of her salary specifically came. So she literally gave up part of her job. That is a moral choice I can respect.

It is also one which it is almost certainly not realistic, and perhaps not desirable, to expect in general. But, in actual practice, I assume that pharmacists opposed to Plan B most typically choose not to personally dispense it, but do not stand in the way of someone else at that pharmacy doing so, is that correct?

Or have some people literally considered leaving pharmacy entirely or perhaps finding a pharmacy that is ideologically/theologically in tune with their own views (if there is such a thing)?

Again, I’m wondering how pharmacists opposed to dispensing B have balanced their commitments to principles, profession, family obligations, company, and so on in actual practice.

Here is my stand on abortion - if a women asks for an abortion then she should have safe access to an abortion by a qualified license professional.

If Dr. prefer not to practice abortion than that is their choice, they obviously do not “market” their ability to perform abortions.

Pharmacists, follow orders in a most professional manner. I respect their profession. But much like a store keeper, they cannot keep certain people out of their store, they must serve every one equally.

The state of Washington allowing them to pick and chose which prescriptions they fill is ludicrous. Why? because they could easily ask their colleague to fill the prescription if it offended them so much. A state allowing anyone who is there to serve the public to legally deny serving some members of the public is not at all in the spirit and context of the constitution of the United States.

Does a pharmacist have the right to not sell drugs to a homosexual to treat his AIDS, because he finds his behavior or sexual preferences deviant to his own beliefs? Should a pharmacist not fill the prescription to treat a STD? Do these same pharmacist refuse to sell birth control pills, condoms and viagra?

Pharmacists cannot pick and chose their customers, much like general stores cannot bar people from their stores unless they are harmful and interfere with the business of the enterprise.

Do I think your arguments are flawed? No, I think we all need to broaden our thinking and think about the consequences of the actions. Do pharmacists judge their customers? Do doctors judged their patients? I hope not…

My original point, which you do not seem to understand is that pharmacists are professionals, trained to exercise their clinical judgement just as MDs. If they choose to not provide a medication in line with their personal judgement, so be it. Your earlier point that MDs not trained in abortion, should not provide them, is common sense. I can tell you from personal experience, there are MDs trained in abortion procedures, that choose not to do them - however they are qualified. Would you force these MDs to still do abortions?

As far as your family members surviving Auschwitz, good for them for making it through. Unfortunately, those humans who today are aborted, have NO opportunity to make it through, and can’t say anything about it either. And lastly, I love your mindset that all my arguments are flawed, but yours are totally valid, especially your ducking of taking a stand on abortion. It reminds me of Sen Ted Kennedy, “I’m not in favor of abortion, but won’t stop anyone else from having one”. Think down through history at any number of issues and what would have happened if a few good people had taken that mindset. Pretty frightening.

I am finished with this line on the blog, you and I will apparently never agree. I do try to be consistent in my approach to human life, I oppose abortion and I oppose the death penalty - human life is sacred in my view and allowing others to snuff it out, errs on the wrong side. Letting pharmacists exercise their personal ethics, seems only reasonable since MDs have that priviledge.

I am merely stating what is out there. Nice attempt at yet another “straw man” argument. I never said in any of my posts that we should prevent anyone from having babies - unless they wish to not have them themselves.

My point is that children should be brought into this world who are going to be loved and cared for and nurtured. If a woman decides that she cannot provide for her child in that manner and wants to access Plan B, which the law says she can have access too then the actions of a few individuals should not prevent her from accessing what she legally has the right to.

Since family members of mine have survived Auschwitz, I would strongly caution you to not even think of comparing me to Hitler.

I haven’t discredited you in any way, although I find it interesting that you think I have.

Read what I write carefully or do not comment.

Pharmacists are there to serve the public and must be able to put aside their religious beliefs. That was and remains my point.

Nathan - ditto.

Both of you have now been completely discredited as being able to offer any realistic objective advice on anything.

JACK 2 - I wish I could take the blame for being “stupid” but this is the very argument that the fundamentalists in this country are using against the stem cell debate. Jack 2, I have way more credentials they you will ever dream of having. So, your opinion of me means nothing, you have credibility.

As I said earlier,women everywhere should find out who these pharmacists are and boycott their pharmacies…

Nathan, Jack 2 and Doc thanks for sharing, I have learned lots, your bias and lack of education on this subject are glaring warnings to anyone who choses to read any comments you may make in the future.

QUOTE FRME: If you look into this matter then condoms and birth control are unethical because they prevent the logical progression of egg and sperm to form a life.

I’d say this takes the cake in a long line of very stupid attempts at extrapolation (and comments in general) from you but it’s just so hard to choose. You, sir, are dumb; your examples here and throughout this board are hypocritical; your ability to somehow have become an “executive” of anything is baffling; you’re understanding of healthcare is repeatedly limited; you’re knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry factually inaccurate; you’re analogies ridiculous; and I find your writing style unusual at best - but more often it reminds me of my own writing style in 5th grade.

Disclaimer: I offered my own opinion on this issue the last time it came up, and I did not change my mind since then (Although I support pro-choice, I also support a pharmacists right to refuse to participate in another person’s choice). I recognize the issue is controversial and morally based, so either side can present a theoretically valid opinion. I don’t mean to belittle the posts of everyone here who disagrees with me.

On the 14th day I rested -Jack2 out

Finally although in reading aware you are far from atypical for Marketing type the “What appears arbitrary to you is anything that doesn’t suit what you think it should be” sounds more like marketing attitude and practices and raises questions on your objectivity when you accuse someone.