Week 6 paper
The broad structure of this case is whether a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if the pharmacist is morally opposed to a possible outcome of the use of that prescription or whether a patient has the right to have that prescription filled without the pharmacist opinion of whether the use of that medication is either ethical or moral.
In America we have access to all types of things that others don’t have access to; For instance, Twitter, Facebook, weed delivery services, supermarkets bigger than the Comcast building. But yet, when a women get prescribe legitimate medication from her doctor for either HIV, ...view middle of the document...
But, in that sense, it’s for the sake of aiding the patient, preventing harm to them, not fulfilling some judgmental opinion on behalf of the pharmacist.
Therefore, Regardless of how the ethical issue should be resolved, it is clear that both sides of the issue are meritorious. A patient has a legitimate interest in having a prescription filled and that a pharmacist has a legitimate interest in not providing medication that he finds ethically offensive. There are several solutions that can protect one or both of those interests. The first option is for the state licensing board to require pharmacists to fill prescriptions without regard to their moral or ethical objections. The second option is for the state to permit pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions, but to allow employers to compel pharmacists to fill all prescriptions as a condition of employment.
So should a pharmacists be allowed to deny prescriptions on grounds of Conscience? An individual who objects on grounds of conscience or religious belief to entertain a certain act has a considerable amount of rights. To force someone to perform an act against his/her religion would be a violation of their human rights. In which this case the young lady would be protected under U.S. Law. Many cases...