Yesterday's news had a story about pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions of the "morning after" pill. They equate the pill to abortion. The cliche is that you should never talk about religion or politics. Abortion is both, so I won't delve into it. What I find interesting is that these pharmacists are putting their ethics before the pharmacy's or the customer's ethics.
Should a manager put their ethics first? What about following the company's ethics? The government's ethics? Or the public's? It does seem at times that corporations will only be ethical up to the point of regulations. Some executives will go the step further and follow their own morality. Of course, often it is the opposite (Enron and all the other scandals).
I believe people, no matter what their station in a company, should be moral and ethical. I also think you should be objective and not force your beliefs on others. Everyone knows lying is wrong, or stealing from the public. But, should CEOs run their businesses as Pro-life? In such a controversial topic there should be compromise.
A few states have laws to give pharmacists the choice to refuse giving certain prescriptions. Some add the requirement that when they exercise this right, they need to give a referral to another pharmacy that can help them. Thus, the customer's rights aren't stepped on. That is the way to do it, both on a personal scale and in the larger corporate world. What do you think?
Related Stories: | Topics:Work/Life, ethics, Abortion, Enron Corporation |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 4 Total
April 6, 2005 at 4:14pm by Joe
A business owner should be free to provide whatever (legal) services he chooses to provide. Equally, he should be free to decline providing services that violate his morality.
If his customers don't like it, they are free to purchase from someone else.
That being said, an employee of a business should respect the wishes of the employer. When conflicts arise, an honest discussion should ensue. But at no time does the employee have the right to circumvent employer decisions. That's what the letter of resignation is for.
April 8, 2005 at 11:50am by Walt
"If his customers don't like it, they are free to purchase from someone else."
This may be true for many discretionary items, but not for fundamental health care items. This issue arose in Texas and in some areas it's several hours drive between pharmacies. It may not be possible or advisable for patients to travel these distances. It is the doctor and patient's decsion as to which drugs are to be used, especially when such drugs are legal under both state and federal statutes. It is not the perrogative of the pharmacist to assume what the purpose of any medication is.
April 8, 2005 at 3:00pm by Jon Herndon
Please!!!! When will people stop trying to impose their views upon everyone else?
When I go to the pharmacy I expect the prescription to be filled as ordered by the doctor. I don't feel that I need to explain my condition to the pharmacist after having already undergone a doctor's examination. The pharmacist is there for one reason, to fill the prescription.
If the pharmacist has a moral problem filling certain legal prescriptions then they should find another line of work. They obviously cannot fulfill the basic requirements of the position they currently hold.
Furthermore, when I have a prescription filled I am not asking the pharmacist for their opinion. I go there with the intention of having the prescription filled as ordered by my doctor. Frankly at this point I could care less about their morals and values.
In my opinion the pharmacist and the pharmacy owner have a legal responsibility to fill the prescription as ordered. Pharmacies are licensed by states to safely and effectively deliver drugs to the public. From a public safety perspective, how do you effectively deliver drugs if the pharmacy is selective about what it will dispense? It's the proverbial slippery slope.
April 8, 2005 at 4:59pm by Michelle P
Pharmacists exist for one main reason: to fill prescriptions... It's their job... Receptionists don't get to choose which phone calls to answer, teachers don't get to select a few students to teach out of their classes and bus drivers don't get to choose which stops on their route they want to pick up... Why do these pharmacists feel they deserve more leeway than the rest of us? If they wanted to be judges, they should have gone to law school...