His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

  • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What about a pharmacist refusing to fill a legal, correct, and safe prescription that they disagree with?

    • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not covered, IMO. A pharmacist isn’t writing the scrip and isn’t administering the treatment. They’re merely completing a retail transaction, albeit one with a lot of paperwork. If they have a moral position against doing their job as prescribed by law, they should find a new job.

      A care provider, like a doctor or nurse, has personal involvement with the patient. I’m ok with refusing to perform a procedure they disagree with, as long as there is no negative impact for the patient.

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pharmacists are a strictly regulated profession. The whole job is filling prescriptions ordered by doctors and informing customers (patients) about the safe use of the substances. It’s not a creative process and it’s not their choice to prescribe or deny medication.

      Last I checked bakers and photographers are barely regulated by comparison, and you could easily consider their work creative in nature.

      • lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I could see myself not wanting to dispense the drugs for an execution. (I know they’re not going through the pharmacy, but let’s pretend they did.)

        Is your entire argument based on something that doesn’t happen and will never happen?

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, but your example is too extreme to take seriously.

            Death like that is so much worse than anything else, that it imo makes any other discussion meaningless. But when your scenario would never ever happen, it’s just a useless comment.

            It doesn’t strengthen any point.

              • lud@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Maybe, but the problem here is that it’s so extreme that it makes no sense.

                Bringing up abortion pills would makeore sense, since someone could conceivably consider that to be murder and refuse to sell it. That would obviously be very stupid but it’s something that actually could happen.