In the editorial "Law needs to protect pharmacist, patient" in the Nov. 1 Daily Nebraskan, the writer responded to the Pope's call for pharmacists to deny filling prescriptions of legal medications deemed to have "immoral purposes."
The author of the editorial outlined reasons for United States to adopt Britain's legislation concerning this matter. Near the end of the article, the writer made an argument about the importance of the words "certain drugs" in the context of "allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense certain drugs, such as emergency contraceptives…"
The writer argues that it is important that this legislation allow only a certain list of drugs to be refused to be filled by a pharmacist. The writer then comments, "If this legislation were open to all possible legal drugs, then it leaves room for a pharmacist's idiosyncratic beliefs to shine through - which could do a disservice to a given patient." I disagree. If the law is allowing pharmacists to deny filling prescriptions for religious convictions, then how can the law then say which legally prescribed medications are subject to religious convictions? How can the law deem what legal medication is immoral or not?
The law needs to be consistent and not narrowly define what is a moral issue, unless it wants to be a theocracy. In the absence of a theocracy, the law can protect the religious convictions of the pharmacists' willingness to fill certain prescriptions, but the law should not decide what legal medications are subject to religious convictions.
If a pharmacist can deny dispensing contraceptives, then a pharmacist with the religious conviction that alcoholics with liver disease should not be given liver medications should be able to deny dispensing liver medications, as long as there is someone else available to fill the prescription. If a pharmacist can deny dispensing contraceptives, then a pharmacist with the religious conviction that men who are sex offenders or who are over a certain age should not be able to obtain Viagra should be able to deny filling the prescription, as long as another pharmacy or pharmacist is available to fill the prescription.
If it is not a "disservice to the patient" to deny filling contraceptives, then how can it be a "disservice to the patient" to deny filling any other legal medication? Please let our laws be fair and consistent, so that all religious convictions can be accommodated, not just those that some religious organizations deem as important.
Cheryl Bailey Associate Professor, department of biochemistry
