The Blogmeister has to agree with the “opponents” on this one. First, because of the opposition reasons cited below. But more importantly, this could really get into slippery slope territory. For example, what about clerks who feel cigarettes and alcohol are dangerous to the health of the person making the purchase? What about people who work in gas stations who are against gambling and don’t want to sell lottery tickets? Shouldn’t these individuals be afforded the same option as pharmacists if this passes? It seems to me the issue of what these medications do should be addressed, and the medications possibly prohibited, by the legislature instead.
From WTHR:
Indianapolis – Indiana lawmakers are debating a bill over a pharmacists right to not dispense certain drugs.Senator Jeff Drozda introduced the bill before the General Assembly Wednesday.It would allow a pharmacist to choose not to dispense a drug or medical device if the pharmacist believes it could be used to cause an abortion or destroy an unborn child or be used for assisted suicide, euthanasia, or a mercy killing. The law is based on the personal beliefs of the pharmacist and states that the pharmacist’s employer could not take action against him or her for refusing to fill a prescription for those reasons.Some lawmakers are concerned the bill is not specific enough about what drugs it covers, and could include contraceptives. Opponents say pharmacist refusal laws are problematic particularly for women in rural areas who may be unable to drive to another pharmacy to get an emergency contraceptive prescription filled. They also say it allows a third party’s personal beliefs to interfere with the patient-doctor relationship.



Post 2 del.icio.us
