Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan 2006 12:34:19 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

There is an ethical argument going on now about whether there should be
a
"conscience clause" for pharmacists in those states with laws that
require
them to dispense any prescription drug.

I think that's a great idea. If anyone's ethics prevent them from
doing their job, they can simply turn in their license to the state
board, and do something else for a living.

g

Imagine, say, a nurse saying they won't care for somebody who smokes
because of their ethics.

Jim

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

Hey, nobody's violating anything. This is a free society. Nobody is forcing
them to be pharmacists. They're free to pursue any line of work in which
professional ethics doesn't conflict with their personal morality.

Or the state could accomodate some number of them, zoned in a way that there
is a genuine pharmacist in any area where they open a license for a biblical
pharmacist. And the patients wouldn't even have to search around to find a
professionally ethical pharmacist, if they did it that way. The biblical
pharmacists could have a special symbol over their door: an Rx symbol drawn
inside the outline of a quacking duck.

--
Ed Huntress

I think this whole "conscience clause" argument is kind of silly.
Unless you live in a town where there is only one pharmacist, you could
just go down the street and find another one to dispense whatever drug
you had a prescription for. Is this like a big problem or something?

Does this "un-conscience clause" also apply to doctors? Is a doctor
required to perform abortions just because he's qualified? Should the
doctor do whatever the patient asks for or else get a job in a
'biblical hospital' ? And can't there be ethical questions outside of
religion?

GW