We prefer pharmacists without ethics

We prefer pharmacists without ethics

A Texas pharmacist decided that he could not participate in compounding a crime (rape) with another one (murder of an innocent) and thus refused to fill a prescription for the abortifacient morning-after pill. So the “forces of choice” have engaged in a protest of the pharmacist’s decision. What about the pharmacist’s choice not to participate in abortion. And the noodle-spined corporate bigwigs of the Eckerd pharmacy chain threw the pharmacist to the wolves:

“Apparently there was a request for a prescription to be filled and the prescription was denied based on a moral or ethical decision made by the pharmacist, and that’s not in accordance with our corporate policy,” said Joan Gallagher, vice president of communications for Largo, Florida-based Eckerd Corp.

Catch that? Eckerd says that it is not corporate policy for an employee to make a decision based on morals and ethics. After all, we haven’t had any lessons over the past couple years that employees should be consultings morality and ethics in the way they carry out their jobs, right?

Eckerd will never get another dollar from me.

By the way, the state board of pharmacists backs the company line. They say state law allows pharmacists to decline to fill prescriptions if it will harm the patient. (He could claim that it would harm the patient’s child, but we know how that would be received.) The board’s director echoes the Eckerd corporate drone: “The law does not say that the pharmacy can decline because of moral ground.” Just what our society needs: state-mandated amoral health-care providers.