I have discussed the legal controversy in Washington in which the state seeks to force dissenting pharmacies to fill prescriptions against which they have a moral objection. Most objections involve contraception and abortifacient drugs. But the issue could also apply to lethal prescriptions intended to assist suicide, since that is legal in WA. (I wrote an extensive article for First Things in December of 09 setting forth the criteria I propose for protecting medical professionals’ consciences. If you are interested, just follow the link.)
After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state could steamroll the consciences of pharmacists–likely to bring the case to the Supreme Court–the state took a second look and now seems to have softened its earlier rigidity by allowing objecting pharmacists to refer to other providers. The governor is not happy, nor are groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL. But I think that commentator Joel Connelly of the Seattle PI has the right take. From his column:
America has a long tradition of legally recognizing objections of conscience. We’ve allowed pacifists to opt out of military service and provided for alternative service. We, as a society, have also sanctioned the primacy of free speech. Civil disobedience has left a positive mark, e.g. the 1960′s Civil Rights movement. Are these traditions being jeopardized by zealous advocates — e.g. NARAL Pro-Choice Washington and Planned Parenthood Votes (PPV) — who cast conscientious objection as trumping patients’ rights?
I hadn’t thought of the conscientious objector analogy, but I think it is apt. Alas, as Connelly notes, certain segments of society have zero tolerance for people acting–or refusing to act–consistently with their moral beliefs:
Ours is a complex society. Sometimes its rule-makers are moved to fashion compromise solutions, seeking to avoid disharmony and confrontation –angering those who use confrontation to raise money. “We know that a strong majority of Washingtonians, from Seattle to Spokane, from Bellingham to Vancouver, support access to medications like emergency contraception (also known as the morning after pill) at the pharmacy counter,” NARAL argued in its appeal for dollars. Oh, to be so certain and so stigmatize those who disagree. Again, however, a broader question: Should everyone be forced to acquiesce to a majority view, even if the majority is slim or conflicted?
Progressive activists in Washington are longtime champions of conscience, defending service personnel who refused to serve in Vietnam and Iraq, and the first pre-1970 public provider — Dr. Koome — who performed abortions when it was against the law. In the case of Stormans et al. v Selecky et. al., however, people acting out of deep personal belief are, in the words of Elaine Rose, CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Washington, “a few extremist pharmacists who are putting their personal beliefs before their patients’ health care.” Should we recognize claims of conscience only when we agree with the objectors, while stigmatizing and sneering at others? I’d like to see a little liberal tolerance.
Sneering, yes that is the right description.
The problem is that much of the Left has become less about freedom and more about power. The idea of tolerance of differences apparently only applied when they weren’t in the driver’s seat. But that doesn’t mean we have to let them force medical professionals who dont’ want to participate in acts that violate their moral beliefs out of the medical professions.
August 6th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Stand In The Gap and Art Sprunger, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Protecting Pharmacist Conscientious Objectors in Washington » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/0aFOs [...]
August 6th, 2010 | 5:08 pm
Why does the government have any say whatsoever in what private business owners are required to sell in their stores? For that matter, why can’t I open my own small pharmacy that sells nothing but medications for foot problems? Why do Americans simply accept this weird notion that the government has a responsibility to tell pharmacists they must offer every existing medical product? That’s just asinine.
August 6th, 2010 | 10:04 pm
I love Joel Connelly-he’s awesome!
August 7th, 2010 | 9:02 am
I don’t pay my pharmacist to make a political statements by second-guessing my doctors’ legally-prescribed medication. I pay him to do what he’s licensed (and therefore obligated) to do — which is to fill the lawful prescriptions he receives. If he presumes to think he knows what’s better for patients than their doctors then perhaps he ought to try becoming a doctor himself. Until then, his job is putting the correct pills into correctly-labeled bottles.
I have to ask this question: if a pharmacist’s “conscience” prohibits his serving Christians or Jews, is it OK if he refuses them service in his pharmacy? Why (or why not)?
August 7th, 2010 | 12:16 pm
What exactly _is_ a pharmacist “referral”? I know what a doctor referral is. In a doctor referral, the doctor actually develops a professional relationship with the doctor to whom he is referring. He writes a letter to him and so forth. I strongly object to requiring doctors to refer patients for abortions–in essence, to find an abortionist for them.
How is the referral requirement for pharmacists different? Why can the patient not use the Yellow Pages for himself? Does the pharmacist have to definitely determine that the drug–let’s say the suicide prescription, for the sake of the argument–will be available and dispensed at the other pharmacy before he refers?
I’m not sure that we should consider a “refuse and refer” compromise to be entirely respecting the consciences of the pharmacists if we do not consider a similar requirement to be respecting the consciences of doctors in the case of abortions.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
It doesn’t respect their consciences because it makes them complicit via the forced referral.
August 8th, 2010 | 1:34 pm
There’s a major difference between a conscientious objector who needs to opt out of the draft and pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B or contraception. The contientious objector is trying to avoid being forced into a career s/he believes to be morally untenable. The pharmacist has chosen his career, knowing what it entails.
–Leah @ Unequally Yoked
August 9th, 2010 | 6:39 am
“the Left has become less about freedom and more about power”
No inconsistency here, especially when the post concerns a group in control (pharmacists) imposing their will on others.
When a registered pharmacist, who can legally distribute controlled substances, decides not to do their choosen job and deny individual’s freedom to obtain medication legally, it’s not about power. It’s not like the pharmacist is saying they have the power to deny legal medication as they see fit. No, no, no, that’s not a power trip. No pharmacy activism going on there.
Last I checked, one chooses to be a pharmacist; the law, supposedly, required me to register for the selective service.
Yes, Joel, continue to dazzle us with your absurd comparisons.
August 19th, 2010 | 12:37 pm
[...] Wesley Smith has a good post on the continuing controversy over pharmacists and conscientious objection in the state of Washington. See http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/08/06/protecting-pharmacist-conscientious-obje… [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact