>They shouldn’t reproduce their thoughts in writing, that is.
Take a look at the comments on “Laws, conscience, medicine and bloggers,” for a perfect example of “they just don’t get it.”
Freedom of conscience is part of the Washington State law. The Governor threatened to replace the members of the State Pharmacy Board if they voted against an invalid law. The pharmacists do not have to dispense over the counter medications.
All sorts of red herrings have been raised to defend the law, including accusations that someone might refuse to prescribe medicines for HIV patients and insulin for diabetics.
This is also a good example of my editorial style. You would be shocked by some of the answers I’ve typed and erased.
>I dont think the hypothetical-scenario concerns are completly unfounded. The issue here is over allowing pharmacists to choose to dispense or not to dispense a drug based on their personal moral position on its use. Its a situation that has, so far, only occured with contraceptives. But, because moral views are subjective, and because the decision over the 'morality' of a drug is left entirely up to one individual (the pharmacist), I think it quite possible that pharmacists may want to use the same argument now to claim a 'right' not do dispense other drugs, even if this means compromising customer safety.What is the difference between a pharmacist refusing to distribute contraception because it offends his own morality, and one refusing to dispense HIV medication because it offends his own morality? Or any of the other examples given of drugs that some pharmacists may object to. Its exactly the same situation: Placing the conscience of the pharmacist over the safety and convenience of the community.
>I am highly amused at the irony of using the phrase "should not be allowed to reproduce" as an ad hominem "hypothetical punishment" against people who disagree with you.
>Good, it was meant as a pun.