Advertisement
Taken to its logical extreme, we can imagine religions opposed to any and all medical intervention flooding the pharmacy schools with would-be practitioners with the goal of imposing their religious views on the patients. Would any reasonable person favor a conscience clause under those circumstances?
To refuse to dispense a drug on religious grounds is a breach of the pharmacist’s Code of Ethics, which refers to patients achieving “optimum benefits from their medications,” to the pharmacist considering “needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science,” and avoiding “discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.”
The pharmacist’s oath also states that he or she “will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve” — nothing there about “unless it is against my religion.”
If there is a conflict between one’s personal morals and one’s medical ethics, then there are really only two options: change the profession and the code of conduct by working within the profession, or find a new profession. It is that simple.
The Tribune encourages letters to the editor on current issues. Please limit letters to 250 words or less.
We reserve the right to edit all letters and require that all letters include the name, address and phone number of the writer for verification purposes.
Letter writers will be limited to no more than one letter a month. Please do not send poetry, or items taken from other publication or from the Internet.
Send letters to the editor to letters@lacrossetribune.com.
