Moral Choices in the Drugstore

Re “Bills Target Pharmacists Who Say ‘No,’ ” April 5: Regarding pharmacists who take it upon themselves to refuse to fill prescriptions, it seems that three facts are self-evident: The decision to prescribe drugs is solely between an adult patient and his physician; the pharmacist’s job is to fill authorized prescriptions for his customers; and refusing to fill an authorized prescription for philosophical or political reasons is highly unprofessional.

Perhaps pharmacists who have conscientious objections to doing their jobs should find another profession and make way for someone who can act in a professional manner.

Robert T. Dalton

Los Angeles

*

I find it interesting that legislators are the ones who must control the “moral” pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions. After all, if the drugs the customer is requesting are legal, shouldn’t the drugstore simply fire the pharmacists who are refusing to do their job?

Tim Lovestedt

Burbank

*

Why do the liberals in the Legislature in Sacramento wish to impose their moral standards on pharmacists who feel the morning-after pill is a form of abortion.

There are plenty of pharmacists who will dispense the morning-after pill to women. Pharmacists who believe this to be immoral are entitled to their opinion as are the ladies who wish to have unprotected sexual encounters.

If this bill becomes law, it is time to clean house in the Legislature. As a retiree, I will work hard to see these people voted out of office.

George Teats Sr.

Downey

*

A woman who needs the morning-after pill knows time is of the essence. She should not be restricted from getting it, either because of reluctant pharmacists or government regulations.

As a libertarian, I also believe pharmacists should not be forced to provide medicine they feel is morally harmful.

The best solution would be to offer the pill over the counter, or through such groups as Planned Parenthood.

Ted Brown

San Gabriel

*

Re “When Your Conscience Goes to Work,” Commentary, April 6: While ideally no person should be required to do anything that is against his or her moral beliefs, there are some situations, particularly in the medical profession, in which personal beliefs must be set aside. As a medical professional, you are required to give care to those who seek it -- that means everyone, not just those who you deemed are worthy.

It is a slippery slope if pharmacists are allowed to dispense care based on their personal beliefs. If that were the case, what is there to stop a strict male Muslim doctor from refusing to treat female patients? Should care be denied to patients who worshiped Satan because it goes against your moral teachings? Medical care should and must be available to all.

The fallacy in Crispin Sartwell’s examples is that in each the activity in which the employees were asked to participate is illegal. Employers cannot force employees to contribute money to political parties. Soldiers cannot be forced to torture prisoners, that is a violation of the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution. Same goes for raping and pillaging.

Alexander Nguyen

Chula Vista

*

If the doctor prescribes it or the store stocks it, the pharmacist should sell it. Except for carding minors, sitting in judgment of a customer’s purchases is not their duty.

Jim Ketcham

Malibu