More ridiculous nonsense…

So I have finally gotten around to catching up on my Science reading, and I just about ran out into the street screaming when I read this article.  The worst part is quoted below:

“Since 1997, 28 states have introduced legislation that would permit pharmacists to refuse to dispense, and sometimes to refer or transfer, drugs on the basis of moral or religious grounds. Fifteen states have introduced such bills in the 2005 legislative session alone (see figure, above); while some are specific to contraception, others apply to all medication. These bills have implications for future refusals to fill prescriptions, such as in HIV regimens or treatments derived from embryonic stem cell research. On the other hand, bills have been introduced in four state legislatures and the U.S. Congress that would require pharmacists or pharmacies either to fill prescriptions for contraception or ensure that women have timely access to prescription medication in their pharmacies.”

Refusing to fill an antiretroviral prescription is murder.  Furthermore, it could be bad for more people than just that person when their improperly treated HIV infection mutates into something resistant to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors like AZT.  Frankly, the people introducing that legislation ought to be charged with attempted murder.

2 Responses to “More ridiculous nonsense…”

---

Well, I don’t know about attempted murder, but this legislation is pretty damn surprising. Then again, I guess pharmacists, unlike doctors, never hear about a Hippocratic Oath .

I hate that the word “moral” has become a buzzword. I’m a moral person. I’d say most people are (or try to be) moral people. When did it become an attack slogan?

Paradoxdruid - August 17th, 2005 at 9:16 am

---

Well, the Hippocratic Oath does state,

“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone.”

A lot of the people who are making these judgements to not prescribe birth control seriously believe that they are preventing harm to the woman or any potential fetus. I disagree with their stance, but you have to take a step back and ask why they are taking the position they are taking.

This issue has a lot of potential consequences and should not be taken lightly.

stephen - August 25th, 2005 at 8:12 pm

---

Leave a Response (or trackback on your own site)

You must be logged in to post a comment.