Pharmacists are clerks, hired to provide safe, legal, pharmaceuticals to the public at large. People going to pharmacies have the proper expectation that such may be obtained therein. If a pharmacist has a problem doing their JOB (for whatever reason), they should get a different job.
If a pharmacist holds the belief that people with high cholesterol have brought it upon themselves and doesn’t feel morally obligated to treat them, would that be allowed?
If I live in a small town with only one pharmacist, who holds the belief that contraceptives etc. are immoral, am I to be denied the free exercize of my conscience in order to preserve theirs?
Should I be doomed to travel until I can find one who will dispense legal medicinals? No, sorry, do your job or find another.

My personal thoughts on this matter are simple, I the pharmacists don’t want to give out a script because it goes against their personal or religious convictions, fine but find someone, at that point in time, who will. If there is not another pharmacist there who can fill the script, I’m sorry, but they should have to fill it out regardless of their personal beliefs. A customer should not be inconvenienced because the pharmacist on duty doesn’t agree with the script for personal reasons. Do your job. That is what you were hired to do, not debate on whether or not something agrees or disagrees with your personal beliefs.

“Both men have been fighting to protect their conscience rights. “
No, Jay, they’re NOT. Their “conscience rights” dictate that they, themselves, will not use condoms because they ‘disagree’ with their use – for themselves.
What they wish to do is enforce their beliefs on others, regardless of the beliefs of others. What they are doing is making ‘conscience rights’ decisions – for other people – i.e. taking away the ‘conscience rights’ of other people.
How come these people of faith don’t believe in other people’s freedom of religion/conscience? It is very clear that they don’t. It’s called imposing one’s personal beliefs on others. Get a clue.

I totally stand with the pharmacists and am completely opposed to the those who would try to force others to do wrong. People are not robots to do the will of those in power.
WHAT THOSE THAT LACK FAITH wish to do is enforce their beliefs on others, regardless of the beliefs of others. WHAT THE PEOPLE THAT LACK FAITH ARE DOING IS MAKING ‘CONSCIENCE RIGHTS’ DECISIONS – FOR OTHER PEOPLE – I.E. TAKING AWAY THE ‘CONSCIENCE RIGHTS’ OF OTHER PEOPLE.
HOW COME THESE PEOPLE THAT LACK FAITH DON’T BELIEVE IN OTHER PEOPLE’S FREEDOM OF RELIGION/CONSCIENCE? It is very clear that they don’t. It’s called imposing one’s PERSONAL beliefs on others. Get a clue.
How easy to turn your comment around Grumpy Old Person.
Arrow what if all jobs in your town started to require murder of every fifth person who walked in the door. What you do it so that you wouldn’t lose your job, or because it was to inconvenient to get a job in another town?
What if you were willing to move to another town, but this law extended to the whole United States, would you do it then. And hasn’t there been many people throughout history who were coerced into murdering rather than be harmed themselves.
I wouldn’t do it, even unto my own death.
Gwyddion9 A lot of wrong is done in the name of the job. If a job description requires wrong (i.e. murder of babies) then that description should be changed, not the person.

Olivia,
A pharmacist is there to fill the scripts ordered by doctors not make judgement calls on whether or not the individual receiving the script is “murdering” babies.
As Grumpy Old Person has stated, “Their “conscience rights” dictate that they, themselves, will not use condoms because they ‘disagree’ with their use – for themselves.
What they wish to do is enforce their beliefs on others, regardless of the beliefs of others. What they are doing is making ‘conscience rights’ decisions – for other people – i.e. taking away the ‘conscience rights’ of other people.”
It’s very clear that those pharmacists are seeking to do exactly that, force others to abide and live by their religious beliefs. They can believe whatever they want but their beliefs stop at another’s nose. This is and has always been an issue with the rr, their desire to force others to live and function according their beliefs. It hasn’t happened and it’s not going to happen but they haven’t learned that point yet.

If a science teacher refuses to teach geology or evolution because they conflict with their religious beliefs then they are incapable of doing the job for which they were hired. If one believes that doing the job of a pharmacist is wrong then they ought not take that job. Very simple.
Well said Grumpy and Gwyddion9, what they are trying to do is force their own beliefs on others.
Olivia’s question concerning a requirement of murder is SILLY. Murder, as the term applies legally, cannot be, and is not, required in any job description except that of soldier (generally conceded to be self-defense in the interest of national security).

Where do we stop. It has been suggested that all typeII diabetics caused their own disease,that most people with high blood pressure caused their disease, that most people ijured in car accidents caused their own injuries. Could a drugist refuse medication because he/she believes that they have sinned and must be punished. We could do away with the courts and drugist administer THEIR version of justice. Jay it’s about time you got real.

I have a little different take on this particular argument. I want to know whether the person filling my prescriptions is intelligent enough to count to 30 and read the prescriptions. If they are so lost in religiousity, I really don’t want them involved with my health.
I also have a serious problem with a pharmacist denying the morning after pill to a woman or girl raped by a close family member and could give birth to an inbred idiot who might grow up and become my pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions for whatever reason.

Just because somebody does not agree with giving out pills which murder children is not a reason for them to not work. Nor if a person wishes not to teach evolution, because it has been proven to be false, should not conflict with job description. For the truth of the matter is that people need to given a chance to live and breath and that don’t have to agree with theories which have been proven to be false by scientist.
If you are regarding abortion as it not being murder, well let me just say destroying another humen being is. Enough said.
C

Interesting. I wonder if the Matt Hale’s church, the World Church of the Creator, is still active in Peoria, IL. Perhaps a pharmacist belonging to his church (which espouses white supremacist views) will bring lawsuit against Illinois for requiring him to fill prescriptions of black and hispanic individuals.
Do you think Mr. Sekulow would take on that case as a religious liberty issue?

Evolution has been proven to be false?! BWA-HA-HAH-HA…thanks for the laugh. Evolution is a proven fact observed in nature.
Murder is a legal term, abortion is legal and therefore NOT murder. Enough said, for people with a functional brain.

If someone has a moral issue with birth control, that’s something that needs to be worked out between the pharmacist and employer. It should never become the patient’s problem. Putting patients in a position of telling them “you’re out of luck” is a gross abuse of power.

Nor if a person wishes not to teach evolution, because it has been proven to be false, should not conflict with job description.
Boris says: Every CHRISTIAN college and university in the world that teaches science teaches evolution and common descent. Try to find one that doesn’t. You could go to any one of them and ask them why they do this for yourself. But you really don’t want to know why they all teach evolution now do you?

Your Name
September 4, 2009 4:22 PM
“If you are regarding abortion as it not being murder, well let me just say destroying another humen being is. Enough said.
C”
The simple fact is the LAW does not consider abortion murder. So not matter how much you say this, does not make it a fact. The rr and other conservative Christians need to learn this as well but I’m not holding my breath. After all, according to these individuals, they’re the only ones who have any truth of anything.
rolling the eyes…

Individual pharmacists as well as owners should not have to violate their conscience by dispensing drugs such as Plan B that kill on contact so to speak. Many medical professions are in the profession to SAVE LIVES not DESTROY LIFE. As medical professionals, pharmacists should not be singled out of the Health Care Right of Conscience Act because swallowing a pill results in killing a fetus just like the physical act of an abortion performed by a doctor. Therefore, pharmacists should have the same right to assert their conscience in the life-altering dispensing of drugs.

I’ll give you law, Thou shalt not kill
How is that one for you? Saying that abortion is anything less than murder is a lie. So if they want to legalize murder through abortion, well, it is just that. Legal murder.
Now if your trying to play God and say that there if no God and we evolved from some material or some form of ape, well who made the ape or the material?
There you go, there is a God. Solved that matter. He created it. If you want to call the way God created all matter, evolution, well it evolved through him. So enough said. Solved that matter too.
C

Boris, who are you deciding to be factual when teaching about creation?
Are you still under the understanding that just because it has been taught at a school it somehow is concrete in the thinking process of being factual? I would wrather take the facts in very much as they are. Not some made up process by man that theory makers have tried to come up to try and exsplain their very existance coming into being.
So if you want to take factual information proven with evidence than do that.
Have not they found that all matter is held together with something microscopically that moves, I forgot what they called it? I heard about it. Guess what sound waves move. Did you know that the bible teaches that matter was spoken into existance?
Sound waves move. There you go another little bit of trivia for you to find in you scientific studies.
C

Your Name
September 5, 2009 4:39 PM
Ok, you want to play…since you quoted the old testament or more precisely, the Tenach, to the ancient Hebrew peoples, a baby wasn’t considered a person until it took its first breath. So, if you’re going to quote things, do it correctly using the real understanding rather than the Christian rewrite of things.

I remember reading the bible when a women was hit in the stomach while she was pregnant and then it was referred to as murder. So I would have to research it, to find it again. Maybe someone could reference it to G…..9 so she doesn’t want to protect the murder policy for whatever reason that is.
C
Old Testament, New Testament, well there linked through prophecy. So there you go. Have a great day.

Your Name
September 5, 2009 7:53 PM
They are not viewed in the same light. read the tanach and tulmud or simply ask a rabbi. the two incidents are seen as completely different and for different reasons.

Responses to various posts:
A. I’ll give you law, Thou shalt not kill
Response: That is a biblical law, we live under Constitutional law.
B. Saying that abortion is anything less than murder is a lie. So if they want to legalize murder through abortion, well, it is just that. Legal murder.
Response: AGAIN, murder is a LEGAL term, and by definition illegal; therefore abortion is not considered murder under the laws we live under.
C. Now if your trying to play God and say that there if no God and we evolved from some material or some form of ape, well who made the ape or the material?
Response: Don’t you run into the same problem with the question of who made the God? (Hint: YES)
D. Did you know that the bible teaches that matter was spoken into existance?
Response: J.R.R. Tolkien spoke of Eru, The One(who in the Elvish tongue is called Illuvatar), singing existance into the void. Shall I believe in Eru because it is written in a book? A book, I might add, which has not been rewritten—as the Bible has been.

The job of the pharmacist is to provide what the MD prescribes. Why don’t we just eliminate the pharmacists and require the prescribing MD’s to dispense the medicines they prescribe?

The Bible is definitely pro abortion. Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

Why are you so set into trying to say that an abortion is not killing another humen being? Do you have a financial stake in lieing to the public or financial for that matter?
Why are you so set into deviding the bible into seperate parts, for what?
Boris, thou shalt not kill.
Yogi

Your Name
September 6, 2009 6:29 PM
Your name said: “Why are you so set into trying to say that an abortion is not killing another humen being? Do you have a financial stake in lieing to the public or financial for that matter?”
Why are you? Do you support the death penalty? It’s all or nothing as far as I’m concerned.
I am Wiccan and the idea is to respect all life. Having said that, I also recognize that a woman has the right to choose an abortion and it’s no one else’s business. No one can or should make this decision for her yet so many, more specifically, the conservative Christians, have chosen to decide what rights others should have based off of their understanding and interpretation of the Bible. If they choose to live by these beliefs, fine but they DO NOT have the right to force those beliefs on others. Present options but don’t tell others what they can and cannot have. Your religious beliefs DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT trump individual personal rights.
Personally, I wish that people, men and women, would use birth control as perhaps there wouldn’t be the need for abortion as often. My thoughts, nothing documented.
Your name said: “Why are you so set into deviding the bible into seperate parts, for what?”
Christians took the Tanach and reinterpreted and reinvented it to meet their beliefs and called it the Old Testament. The vast majority of conservative Christians who quote the Tanach, do it from their perspective and not as taught by the Jews according to the Tanach and Tulmuld. It’s completely self-serving. My whole point is to educate yourself. Learn what it means versus what you think or want it to mean.
Your name said: “Boris, thou shalt not kill.”
The proper translation is “thou shalt not murder.” As this issue has been discussed, it’s a moot point. The laws of the land do not consider abortion murder and neither does the Tanach as the fetus isn’t considered a human being yet. It’s only been the past few decades that the RR as sought to change this definition to promote their religious beliefs.

More socialist/statist underpinings from the secular crowd. A pharmacist is there to operate a business for profit. He can carry any product he likes. He can kick you out of his store for many good reasons. If you don’t like it go to another pharmacist; Hopefully it’s overseas and you don’t come back. Or gripe and whine to the courts and the ACLU and takeover the whole system because thats what socialists/statists do best!

Sorry Earl,
but most pharmacists do not own the drug store, they simply work there.
Most of the whining is being done by conservative Christians, not the general public, so there goes that thought.

Well, it is interesting to note the amount of abuse that comes from the Christian community. They go to church or they stay home and do everything but the bible. In fact they work against it. Screaming at you for this or that or going behind your back and lieing about you every which way. They are flat out lies, and this is what the bible calls blessed. Your blessed when they lie about you, it hurts when it is your own family member, your mother, your sister, your aunt, your brother, your fellow church member, your so called best friend, the girls at the coffee shop, the people gesturing at the grocery store, the person that walks into the fast food joint and points the finger. All for the sake of what. To show how what you are? To hurt you? They do, so stay away from them when they care nothing less than to sacrifice you as if you were a piece of trash while they go about smiling with their friends telling others complete made up lies. How do I tie this into pharmacist which are forced to do something against their religious beliefs, well I don’t know? Is it not all the same thing hurting others, even if it is killing them by pill, by emotions, by procedure. God Bless, CARA

Pippy is quite upset. She gets up in the morning and wakes up to a terrible headache. She tries to sort out her problems systematically, thinking she can fix it. She can get that job that will fix her financial situation. She can start a new career and move into a 2 bedroom place, move her stuff out of storage only to find that not to be the case yet. Her headache keeps getting worse, not to mention the lady she is living with yelling at her to basically get out of the house because she does not love her anymore. She loves the rest of her children, but not her. She keeps critisizing Pippy for everything. Her hair,everything about her. Pippy is just trying to stay a float to pull herself out of the situation. Then the lady starts yelling at her, as if she were a piece of trash. Meanwhile getting on the phone and talking behind her back? For what? Why does she not love Pippy? Pippy gave her some money originally for her to stay in the house.
So when Pippy went to stay with the lady , the lady took it off of what she owed her. Then when that was repaid, wrather than the lady talking to her in a kind fashion, the lady yelled at her and put a nasty note on her bed. As if she deserved it or something. I guess she didn’t care that she has been trying to seek a good job, she thinks she can abuse her. She finds friends to gossip behind her back with for what, do they love and care for her? The answer NO.
Pippy
P.S. If that is what the christian church taught them , then I don’t want any. The only answer to that question is. that is not being a Christian. Christians are suppose to love eachother and care one another. Not, talk behind there back and critisize and stab them in the back with pure hatred. Not to mention when Pippy finally stuck up for herself, she was yelled at, slapped in the face, left for dead basically when her dad died. How sad, not having a family that truely loves and cares for you. No wonder why she does not want to be here. She is trying to get her own place so she does not have to deal with cruel people anymore.

Olivia (or, should I shout OLIVIA),
“[I] am completely opposed to the those who would try to force others to do wrong”
Buying or using condoms is not a “wrong” (unless one is Catholic).However, no one is “forcing” anyone to buy OR use them.
The only people doing any “forcing” are those pharmacists who are forcing their own religious beliefs on all of their customers – whether they’re Catholic or not. They are robbing other people of their freedomof conscience. They are making this contraceptive choice for other people, not for themselves. That most definitely is a “wrong”.
“WHAT THOSE THAT LACK FAITH wish to do is enforce their beliefs on others, regardless of the beliefs of others.”
Um, many non-Catholics are still certainly people of faith. You must mean those that ‘lack’ the Catholic faith. But you are identifying the wrong group – it is clearly the pharmacists who are imposing their beliefs on other people who obviously do not have a problem with birth control. Why is planning one’s family a ‘wrong’? And what right do pharmacists have to take away others’ rights to plan their own families?
“How easy to turn your comment around Grumpy Old Person.”
Of course it’s easy to turn words around. It doesn’t make your point valid. Nor does equating the dispensing of a prescribption drug to ‘murder’.

N. Lindzee Lindlholm,
“Individual pharmacists as well as owners should not have to violate their conscience by dispensing drugs such as Plan B”
Wrong. Individual pharmacists as well as owners should not have to violate their conscience by TAKING drugs such as Plan B.
By refusing to dispense legal prescriptions, they are violating OTHER people’s consciences. They are making sonscience decisions for other people. THAT is the “wrong” here.
Geez Louise, you rrers are so bent on not allowing people to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and these poor folk are simply trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions. Like I said earlier, get a clue. You seem to be sorely in need of a clue or two.
Why should a pharmacist be in charge of planning other peoples’ families? Sheesh you people are nutzoid.

Pharmacists are licensed and follow an approved code of ethics.
I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.
Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to thegift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefitfrom their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.
II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.
A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit,a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.
III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.
A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination andrecognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacistcommunicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differencesamong patients.
IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.
A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professionaljudgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the bestinterests of patients.
V. A pharmacist maintains professional competence.
A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities as new medications, devices, and technologies become available and ashealth information advances.
VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.
When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation ofcolleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. Apharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other healthprofessionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply tothe care of the patient.
VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.
The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individualpatients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at timesextend beyond the individual to the community and society. In thesesituations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities thataccompany these obligations and acts accordingly.
VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.
When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair andequitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.
*adopted by the membership of the American Pharmacists Association October 27, 1994.
Specifically note II, III, IV, V, and VII. They serve the public with the permission of the licensing agency. Their own personal views finish a distant second.

It is absurd on the face of it. By forcing any person to act against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional, and conjures up images of a State Religion. That is, worship of and obedience to what ever laws the State promulgates. This is a clear violation of our founding documents and the morals and ethics this country was founded upon. It is reminiscent of Nazi Germany, and totalitarian states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. How can this country allow this to happen?

Are they not the same thing? Is not giving out the murder pill, the same thing as giving an abortion? Or at least a third of it? first there is the pill maker, then there is the pill distributer, and finally the pill taker. So all three, would be part of the murder? don’t you think? Of course there are the manufacturing of the pills, and the marketing, not to mention the workers at the lab.
Nazi’s were they not part of the murders? The people getting them off of the train, the people shooting them in the head? The people hoarding them into the cement gassing shower? How horrible. The simularities is this, they are people being killed!!
How do we stop this process of people being murdered? Do people not notice because they seem to be clean murders?
Cara

Let God be God and let him decide who makes it to the ground to walk on. Wrather then your brain to decide to which is right or wrong to give life to.
Cara

No one should be forced to do something they feel is wrong, unethical, or sinful. I can’t believe that anyone would feel otherwise. If it were you, you wouldn’t want any state or federal agency forcing you to do such. There are plenty of pharmicists who are willing to dispense this drug. Just go to one of those. Our individual rights are being leeched away little by little. This country isn’t the same one the Declaration of Independence and the original constitution were written for. Wake up people. The world is spinning out of control by design. We were once the greatest nation on earth. Our forefathers must be twirling in their graves.

If a pharmacist’s “conscience” prohibits him from doing his job, then it’s time for him to find another job and put his conscience at ease.

Arrow: “Pharmacists are clerks, hired to provide safe, legal, pharmaceuticals to the public at large. ”
I disagree. Having taught pharmacy students their anatomy and physiology, and microbiology for twelve years, they are no mere clerks. They are rigorously trained medical professionals who know better than most physicians the pharmacotherapeutic actions of the drugs they dispense.
If a pharmacist does not wish to formally cooperate in abortion by selling the abortifacient to a pregnant woman, then he/she ought not be compelled by law to do so.
“If I live in a small town with only one pharmacist, who holds the belief that contraceptives etc. are immoral, am I to be denied the free exercize of my conscience in order to preserve theirs?”
And by that same reasoning, if you live in a small town and wish to have an abortion, and there is only one OB/GYN, should they be compelled by law to materially cooperate in the abortion, or would you need to drive to the next town. Why must the medical professional be forced into what they consider murder because of your convenience? Move to the big city.
If suicide becomes legal and drugs are prescribed, must pharmacists be forced to cooperate in that too? Most of my students have been motivated to undergo the rigors of pharmacy school because they have been motivated to do good for people. If they choose not to aid in killing some of their patients/customers, that’s their choice. So far, there have been only a few cases of pharmacists who choose not to dispense chemicals for the express purpose of ending life. That’s a shame, but it makes you relatively secure in your options.

Gerard apparently did not read the code of ethics under which pharmacists are licensed to operate. Excerpts follow for clarification.
“A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit,a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.”
How can you serve a patient who desires legal pharma by refusing to give them what they want?!
“A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination andrecognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.”
How is it respecting the personal and cultural differences among patients to deny treatment based upon personally held beliefs?
“A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.”
How do you serve the best interest of the patient by refusing legall medication?
“A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.
“When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.”
Is it just to deny legal medicine to people? Is it equitable in balancing the needs of the patient? No.
As to the education of pharmacists, true they are more educated clerks than some. Everything is relative…to my father, an M.D., pharmacists are clerks…I used his word, not disparagingly.
Grumpy, and others, got it right–no one forces another to become a pharmacist. If you are incapable of performing the job due to personal convictions about right to life issues, then you ought not take the job. Forcing your own belief system on others should not be allowed.
Yes, legal medicines sought by patients for proper reason must be dispensed by the person licensed to do so…duh!

Arrow,
Gerard Nadal read the code of ethics with great interest and pondered them before writing his response.
First, as to your MD father. The arrogance of MD’s is well known in the scientific and medical communities. They call Ph.D.’s ‘technicians’, even though ours is the highest doctorate. It goes on and on. MD arrogance is just that. It is not the standard by which all others are measured.
Second, the code of ethics. Let’s lance the boil, shall we? If one is pro-life, then one understands the biological reality that the embryo and fetus are distinctly separate and unique human organisms, with their own unique genetic identity. They are new members of the species Homo sapiens. As such, the pro-life scientist, MD pharmacist, etc… recognizes them as members of the human family undergoing a distinct phase of the human life cycle. As such, we acknowledge that they are persons in the strictest ethical and moral sense. We therefore reserve the right to refrain from participating in their murder.
Thus, when the patient approaches the pharmacist and requests an abortafacient, there are actually two or more persons before the pharmacist. Understood in that light and plugged back into the code of ethics, the pro-life pharmacist stands out among his/her peers as the one who fulfills that code to completion. All others who dispense abortafacients actually fall short of that code which you cite.
God Bless

Mercy, you’re spinning like a bald tire on oil slick.
“the pro-life pharmacist stands out among his/her peers as the one who fulfills that code to completion.”
Oh my, the relatively small group comprising this group is somehow superior to the rest of people in pharmacology? I think you make a claim for them to which they are not entitled. They are in direct conflict with the expressed code of ethics. Specifically, “A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient.” The patient’s needs, as expressed by the patient, and health science should guide the pharmacist. How can that be true of a pharmacist who refuses to assist someone while, essentially, telling them that they will be guilty of murder (a fallacy, not surprisingly) should they succeed in procuring the service they have a right to expect?
As to my father using the term clerk, I assured you it was not in a derogatory manner. Even at age eighty-five, a retired psychiatrist, he is a remarkably convivial person having never been dismissive of educational achievement. I don’t share your view of medical doctors either.
Nor do I believe a supernatural being exists to bless me, but I appreciate the thought.

The pill still kills children. So Why would I feel this is ethical at all, regardless of who is passing out the pills? The answer, I don’t.
CARA

Then it would be unwise, and unethical, for you to become a pharmacist. When people seek care from a pharmacist they shouldn’t feel it’s going to be a roll of the dice!

“The pill still kills children.”
Repeating a lie doesn’t ever make it true.
Otherwise, we would celebrate our “children’s” conception day and not their birthday.
Any pharmacist who cannot dispense legally prescribed treatments should get the he11 out of the business. They are a danger to patients.