Saturday, April 02, 2005


Under his emergency filing , this northern-state governor has decreed that pharmacies must dispense birth contol prescriptions despite the personal feelings or objections of the pharmacist. If he or she refuses to fill the scrip, then another pharmacist must be made available to do so, or arrangements must be made to have another pharmacy provide service.

This, in response to the recent spasm of fascist legislative attempts to allow pharmacists to apply their "moral" objections to their customers, and the blogosphere (or at least the part of it that is reality-based and of sensible humor,) is resounding with "what ifs." I have a few of my own.

For example: what if I have a Republican patient who suddenly requires defibrillation? Can I refuse to do so on moral grounds? For what, exactly, would be the point of jump-starting the so-called "heart" of a Republican?! It just doesn't make any sense to do so. Not just immoral, but stupid, really.

Isn't pulseless ventricular tachycardia a divine manifestation of God's will?

Other "what ifs" include possible refusals of service to men with Viagra prescriptions, refusals based on racial bigotry, refusals based on just plain laziness, etc.

Why would a pharmacist of firm moral standing dispense hemorrhoid-shrinking steroidal cream to a Republican, for wouldn't that be assisting suicide?!

Or vaginal lubricants? Isn't vaginal comfort just another fiendish Satanic ploy? Would you ask a pharmacist to do the devil's work?! No, I say. Good women hardly need such things. (Smirk here.)

If John Ashcroft were a PetSmart register jockey, would the shareholders support his moral "right" to refuse to sell kitty kibble to owners of calico cats?! In God's kingdom, hell yes!

I'm sick of it already.

1 comment:

Otter said...

Love it!

Down here in GA, I wonder if refusing to care for Yankees would be acceptable. :)