The Pharmacy Board, Freedom from Religion, and Moral Dilemmas

The state Board of Pharmacy currently has a rule that any pharmacist can refuse to dispense ‘the morning after pill’ (aka Plan B) as long as there is another pharmacist on duty who will dispense the drug instead.  This allows pharmacists who feel that Plan B kills babies (and is therefore immoral) to keep their jobs and feel comfortable while at the same time assuring patients that they will have access to medications.

The board is now reconsidering that rule. Soon after the rule went into effect, pro-life pharmacists filed suit, and the judge has put the suit on hold to see if the board will reconsider the rule.  It is possible that the board will replace this rule with one that will allow the pharmacist to refuse to dispense the drug if they first tell the patient that another pharmacy has it and is willing to sell it (see links below for details).

This, of course, brings up quite a few issues.  My first response is outrage at the thought that some random pharmacist could pass judgment on patients and refuse to sell them medications based on religious beliefs.  By definition, a religious belief could be anything.  What if Pastafarians were to object to antibiotics? Could Pharmacist followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster refuse to sell antiobioitcs? What about Christian Scientist pharmacists?! Christian Scientists refuse all medicines for themselves.  Would it be ok for them to become pharmacists and refuse to dispense any medication?

Will business owners be the slaves of any and all religious demands? What if a Muslim woman applies for a job as a stripper but refuses to dance because her religious modesty forbids? Does the company have to keep her employed? What if a fast food restaurant is hiring for the weekend and evening shifts, but an applicant refuses to work on Sunday because it is the Sabbath? Could that person sue the company?  Maybe there are some jobs you simply choose not to take because of your religious beliefs.

Once my thoughts calm down a little, though, I can see this in a broader sense.  Does the government have the right to force any store owner to sell any product? Could they force a prudish mall owner to rent space to Victoria’s Secret?  That seems a bit overreaching.

Pharmacies are different from other types of businesses, though.  They are key contributors to the medical infrastructure, must be licensed, etc.  It seems that if a business owner wishes to run a pharmacy, then it is reasonable for the state to provide some guidelines, one of which could be that no religious/irrational moral judgments will be allowed to interfere with patient access to medication.

This also seems like an opportunity for moving the ‘debate’ about abortion rights into the realm of facts.  As a staunch pro-choice advocate for many years, and as a recent student of Sam Harris’ writings, it has become clear to me that pro-life advocates are not looking at the facts.  As Sam writes in Letter to a Christian Nation when addressing the controversy about stem cell research, a human blastocyst (a fertilized egg about 3 days old) has roughly 150 cells.  An adult fly has over 1500 cells in its brain.  A blastocyst has no brain, no nerves – nothing which would allow it to feel pain.  So, for those of us basing morality on suffering, ending the growth of a blastocyst causes no harm, and we should be more concerned about squashing flies.  Pro life folks base their morality on religion. They tend to believe that the fertilized egg has a soul we ought to care for.  However, roughly 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage before the woman even knows she was pregnant.  So, even without Plan B, many fertilized eggs do not develop into pregnancies or babies, so if there was a soul, then it is gone.

The only way to truly move forward on issues like abortion, stem cell research, and this upcoming decision by the Pharmacy Board is to keep government policy, if not the minds of Pro Life advocates, squarely on the facts.  A blastocyst has roughly 150 cells.  Ending its growth causes no harm and no pain.  Business owners, and certainly our secular government, can not be made to consider any religious beliefs when considering policy.  There are just too many, often conflicting, beliefs out there.

As the great Christopher Hitchens once wrote, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  Which again leaves me furious that any time is being spent debating this issue; there’s no evidence of a soul or for harm being  done.  End of story.  Get back to work or find a different job.