Sauce for the halal goose?

What Stuart says: it's a matter of personal choice. If an individual wants to live in accordance with Sharia insofar as it impacts their actions and decisions, more power to them.

The situation with the pharmacists is arguably different in that they are healthcare professionals and thus (some would say) bound by a code of responsible behavior that goes beyond the simple rules of commerce and trade.

To me, the store owner and the taxi driver are exactly the same, ethically. The taxi driver is maybe more extreme, but the principle supporting their actions is the same.

A better analogy for the pharmacists, however, might be a cop who does not support the War on Drugs, and thus refuses to bust nonviolent drug offenders. Or a person who joins the Army, then refuses to go to war because he's a pacifist. (This latter example should not be confused with someone who refuses to fight an illegal war. That person is within their rights as a soldier.) While I might personally applaud either of those decisions, really, objectively, the cop should never have become a cop, and the soldier should never have joined up. If you're not willing to do the job, don't enter the service.>

BrentEubanks, could you please clarify something for me? Would you say that a healthcare career requires a person to be willing to participate in abortions? Is this only true in the case of chemical abortions, or is it true for surgical abortions as well? Your analogy of the cop and the soldier suggests that they are refusing something which by definition is part of their jobs, and I'm wondering if you see participation in abortion as equally required of a healthcare professional.>

Freedom is freedom. If the cab owner is the Muslim, he is free to refuse business to anyone just like a restaurant owner or shop keeper, etc. If he is working for a company that has a policy which dictates his fares, then he is free not to work for them.

Pharmacists are under no obligation to provide every drug that is made, as doctors are under no obligation to offer every procedure/treatment that is out there. They are judgement calls based on what they feel is in the best interest of their patients.

If consumers want a pharmacist who sells abortifacients or a doctor who performs abortions, they are free to choose one that does so.

Freedom is dictated by principles, not by how many Walgreens there are in your town.>

I don't see a true parallel, because one is an area of "personal morality" and one is a question of "public morality."

The Muslim storekeeper objects to a customer drinking alcohol - but the customer's action will only directly impact himself.

The pro-life pharmacist objects to a customer purchasing an item which will be used to end the life of another human being - impacting more than just the person purchasing the item. The decision to purchase and use the morning-after pill is therefore an area of "public morality," as it affects more than just one person.

You can substitute "human life" for "person" in that last sentence, I suppose, if you don't want to grant that the newly conceived life belongs to a "person." But there is still a difference between how the Muslim views an alcohol-purchasing customer and how the pharmacist views a morning-after-pill-purchasing customer.>

I agree, Pik, except that conservative Christians have groups like the Alliance Defense Fund and ACLJ just waiting to sue over such a termination because they are convinced their religious liberties are in doubt. Thus a Christian who refuses to sell contraceptives can bully their employer to make them tolerate their prejudices and beliefs.>

pikkumatti has got it right, I think. No one has the right to force a business owner to sell a product whether it's a medication they don't approve of, alcohol or pacifiers. If the shop owners were people who lived in the 'hood and decided that they were feeding various pathologies by selling alcohol and stopped, we would probably commend them for sacrificing profits for the good of the community. Looking askance at a shopkeeper for making the same choice simply because it was made by muslims (as opposed to baptists or mormons who also prohibit alcohol) demonstrates bigotry, not a reasonable concern for the American way of life. Also, when we lose the ability to tell the difference between legitimate choices people of faith can make about how to conduct themselves and their business and sharia law,we lose all credibility to speak out on the issue should the need arise. On the "danger to the American way of life" scale, not giving taxi rides and selling alcohol are right up there with my catholic college not selling meat in the cafeteria on fridays during lent - not even to the muslims on campus!>

SUSAN:

Time for more reading. The rights reside with the employer in this case and the conservative legal groups would support that. Please post a URL of an exception.

But let's go further: A cab driver who refuses to pick up women who are dressed as infidels?

What if race were an issue? The court has said that race trumps religion.>

Pete,

I would contend that it is less traumatic for the cell mass that is destroyed by the morning after pill (if indeed conception happened) than it is for a fetus that is subsequently aborted.

What next? Should the pharmacist be able to refuse to sell condoms? Birth control pills?

I agree that the company that owns the pharmacy should be able to decide what they carry, by the way, but most of these incidents I have heard of were employees refusing to sell products stocked by the company they work for.>

I have to say, I'm opposed to abortion, but I really don't believe that pharmacists should have the right to deny people medications that have been properly prescribed for them by their physicians. If we don't want people to be able to obtain these products, then we should enact laws forbidding their sale. If they're legal and a physician has prescribed them, I don't see that a pharmacist has any responsibility beyond ensuring the quality of the drug, the proper dosage, proper packaging, ensuring that the prescription is valid, and verifying the identity and age of the purchaser (that the person getting the prescription is in fact the person for whom it was prescribed, or a designated representative). If your conscience forbids you to sell legal medications to people who are legally permitted to have them, then perhaps your conscience doesn't allow you to work as a pharmacist.>

"Time for more reading. The rights reside with the employer in this case and the conservative legal groups would support that. Please post a URL of an exception."

Time for more reading, TMatt

">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/25/184722.shtml>

I think there would only be a parallel if you are talking about a store that sells alcohol, the Muslim store employees refused to sell it.>

I think a small business owner has every right to make decisions about what he (or she) sells in his store.

However, a licensed pharmacist in someone else's business shouldn't be allowed to make that kind of decision. As to whether the employer of that pharmacist has the right, I'm not sure. Perhaps it depends upon whether that particular company has a monopoly in the region it serves.>

David White's comment from this morning deserves a closer look. What if the legally prescribed drugs are for the purpose of euthanasia? What if a state has enacted a law that lets physicians prescribe such drugs so that the patient can do away with him/herself in the privacy of his/her home, instead of having to be in a hospital or doctor's office? What if the pharmacist's moral beliefs absolutely forbid him or her to dispense such a prescription? Will people like Mr. White then insist that those people whose consciences won't allow them to assist someone's suicide shouldn't be working as pharmacists?>