Pharmacist “rights”


Heh. I was trying to think of a clever take on this old Washington Post story about pharmacists who want the “right” to refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions. But no, Professor B got it exactly right:

If you have a problem providing health care to anyone, on moral grounds, then do something else for a living.

Quoting the Hippocratic Oath—”I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings”—is good too. More to the point, the whole idea of a “conscience clause”—in which pharmacists don’t have to fill any prescriptions that violate their beliefs—is ripe for all sorts of slippery-slope extensions. Why not a “conscience clause” for teachers who, say, don’t want to teach dirty kids? Why not a “conscience clause” for doctors who, say, don’t want to operate on a patient that might have sinned? Oh, right, because it’s ridiculous, that’s why.

UPDATE: The pseudonymous Shakespeare’s Sister brings up a very good point: “[H]ow long do you think it will be before those healthcare providers who accept commonly discriminated-against patients raise their fees? How long before the insurance industry hikes up their premiums? I mean, what greater health risk is there than being someone a whole slew of doctors refuses to treat?

Fact:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn’t fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation so we can keep on doing the type of journalism that 2018 demands.

Donate Now