More on Pharmacists

Thalia and Elisabeth say, essentially, that the difference between Thoreau and the Phamacists "for Life" is that Thoreau was acting against the state while the pharmacists aren't doing their jobs. This is actually where I started when I began thinking about it. Tax resistors, conscientious objectors, and bus boycotters all act against the state (actually, I don't know enough about the bus boycotters, though I sing the song to the girls all the time--was that law or policy?), while the pharmacists act against their employers.

But then I thought about other people who don't do their jobs in service of what they believe is right. The first thing that came to mind was the town clerks who gave marriage licenses to gay couples. Then I thought about white doctors who treated black patients despite segregation. The difference between these employees and the pharmacists, though, is that they were breaking rules in what you might call a positive way--doing things they were not supposed to do--whereas the pharmacists are negative--not doing what they are supposed to do. This made me feel all warm and fuzzy about how liberals expand rights and possibilities, while conservatives limit them.

However, the town clerk example also can be seen as a protest against the state, while doctors owe allegiance to Hippocrates before the state (or at least, they're supposed to). As well, neither of those examples addresses the status of corporate employees, which is what I presume most pharmacists are.

Then I thought about restaurants, as I often do. If a teetotaling waiter wants to refuse to serve liquor, that's their right. Then they will get fired. Fine, fire the pharmacists. But, a restaurant owned by a teetotaler can refuse to serve liquor, despite the fact that liquor is legal. Probably a bad business move, but that's their choice. So can a private pharmacy refuse to prescribe certain drugs? I don't see why not, though I don't know enough about pharmaceutical rules and regulations to say. In other words, if the pharmacy accepts or even supports the pharmacist's refusal to dispense birth control or the morning-after pill, that's the way it is, though of course, as Alexx points out, our recourse is to boycott the pharmacy, as indeed we should.

I'm sure there's some fuzzy thinking in here, probably a lot, but I wanted to lay out where my thoughts went. When it comes down to it, I'm less angry with the pharmacists than I am with cowardly coporations and the absurd American practice of allowing religion to hobble science.