Response to a letter in The West, 2 April 2005, p.20:
That letter is one of several, following reports from America of pharmacists not wanting to provide the morning-after pill. The morning-after pill, contraceptive pills, referrals for abortion... some doctors and pharmacists find these to be morally repugnant. Their own beliefs are, that these things are immoral.
| Thinking Lateral |
|---|
| Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com |
On the other hand -- should a doctor or pharmacist be able to restrict access to these modern options? Should a medical professional be able to control a woman's right to manage her own body? To put it another way: should an individual be forced to break their own moral code in order to support the moral code of society?
One view is, doctors and pharmacists have taken on an obligation to provide services -- even those that they do not like. I disagree...
Our society is supposed to be multicultural. At the very least, that means that there are differentr people, different groups, different points of view. Are we going to stamp all over those differences? Some -- yes! Other differences, though, should be acceptable. As long as they do not hurt other people.
So... A doctor disagrees with abortion? A woman wants to be referred for an abortion? She can go to another doctor. Perhaps the first doctor needs to display a sign, some sort of code of ethics for the practice. (eg "I will not refer anyone for an abortion.") That will make it clear and perhaps save time and money (ie the cost of the appointment). Same with the pharmacists: Put up a sign, "Morning-after pill not supplied here."
Perhaps, out of courtesy, the sign should also include the address of a doctor/pharmacist who does provide the required service.
The thing is, these are matters of personal choice. Apart from some small waste of time, noone is hurt by not providing the service. (I won't tackle the more dificult question of, is someone hurt when the services are provided.) So why force the doctors and pharmacists to comply?
Do we force pharmacists to stock and supply every single brand of every single medicine? No! range of stock is a simple business decision, a choice based on profit and loss. So why should we force them to stock one particular medicine? If it were a business decision -- we would not dream of forcing an action.
And if it's a personal moral choice -- the decision should still be left to the individual.
| Independent Thinking |
|---|
| Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
1 comment:
The letter followed earlier articles in The West, on 2 April 05, p.60:
Ethics row on sex pill deepens
Pharmacists may not be adequately trained to counsel customers on use of the morning-after pill. This is a good point, even though it was presented by the "Respect Life Office" which -- from its name -- would have a bias against that pill. On the other hand, a woman who asks for the morning-after pill will most likely know what she wants it for... or are there really, serious side-effects?
Chemist bans condoms as teens fall pregnant
The only pharmacy in a small town is refusing -- for moral reasons -- to sell condoms. So what's the fuss?
There's a high teenage birth rate in the area... so educate the teenagers (and possibly their parents as well). There is only one pharmacy in town... so put a condom vending machine in the town public toilets. There are plenty of options before we need to even consider forcing the pharmacy to go against individual moral principles.
Post a Comment