Here's an easy question: Dahlia Lithwick asks whether pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to dispense birth control. Despite the hand-wringing (and the rush to pass legislation - yes, there's always someone eager to pass new legislation), the answer is yes. Pharmacists are free to act as their conscience demands. The store manager - who as a manager is concerned primarily with turning a profit but would also like, in the process, to keep a low profile and enjoy a reputation as a reputable service provider - is also equally free to terminate any employee (including pharmacists) who do not fulfill the basic requirements of their job or fail to display a basic level of customer service.
The independent pharmacist is, of course, free to do much the same. And if his individual conscience prevents him from being able to sell birth control pills, or condoms to unmarried customers (or whatever) then his (ex)customers will simply take their business to a franchise-pharmacy, one controlled by a large corporate entity (an entity that will gladly issue corporate directives guiding employee behavior rather than face potential embarrassment and revenue loss over fringe conscientious objectors).
A second related question appears slightly more difficult, but notice I said appears. The answer is again fairly simple. Does a pharmacist have the right to object to dispensing certain medications, birth control, etc... on religious grounds, and, furthermore, would tying that requirement to continued employment violate that pharmacist's civil or employment rights? Of course not. Legal provisions are in place that require employers to make allowances for religious beliefs and accommodations for employees with disabilities. Those accommodations however have to first, be reasonable (no employer should be forced to purchase a $10,000 computer so that a paraplegic employee can perform data entry) and second, are not required if the employee cannot perform the essential functions of the job. Filling prescriptions is plainly an essential function of a pharmacist's job. Refuse to fill a prescription and that pharmacist will likely find themselves on the street.
The common thread through the on-going discussion, however, is an attempt to make this a conversation about civil rights (or religious rights). It is not. This is an issue of freedom and property rights. A pharmacist should never be forced by law to fill a prescription that she finds objectionable (on whatever grounds) any more than a store should be compelled to sell an item against its will (Spare me lectures about the differences between shoes and medicince. They differ only in degree, not kind - they are both products that do not belong to you, nor do you have any claim on them). A sole-proprietorship pharmacy carries the same right, the right to distribute and sell property as determined by the owner. On the other hand, any pharmacist exercising that freedom (against his employer's property) without the consent of his employer should be prepared to face the consequences.
Religious belief is deeply personal. There's no point in arguing for or against a pharmacist's particular beliefs - or passing laws prohibiting acting on conviction. That's why property rights exists in the first place, to ensure that ones idiosyncratic beliefs extend only so far as their property and to prevent us from having to reason things out with one another (or come to blows). We need only trade, barter and exchange (or decide not to). Your quirky beliefs make no more difference to me than mine do to you. Nothing could be simpler. Or more critical.
One minor quibble... I've always held the notion that property rights are civil rights.
Posted by: Trent McBride | April 15, 2005 at 09:50 AM