Question by new name: What do people think of this?Idaho House sends pharmacist bill to Senate?
Idaho House sends pharmacist bill to Senate
Citing conscience as among the most basic rights of man and a major reason why the United States was founded, Rep. Thomas Loertscher is seeking to give pharmacists the right to exercise theirs.
Under a bill proposed by Loertscher, R-Iona, and passed by the Idaho House, a pharmacist could refuse to dispense medication or care that violates his or her conscience.
“If we don’t take some action,” Loertscher said, “pharmacists could be compelled to dispense.”
The measure passed 48-21 Monday after more than an hour of debate and now heads to the Senate.
“Conscience is not our only right, and the right to receive medical care is a right that should not be denied by any profession,” said Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise.
Many interpret the bill as a pro-life measure, intended to allow pro-choice pharmacists the freedom not to dispense Plan B, the so-called “morning after pill,” an emergency contraceptive.
“Each Idahoan should have the right to plan his or her family,” said Rep. Anne Pasley-Stuart, D-Boise. “Many of you have been talking about sovereignty. What is dearer to you than your families’ ability to plan a family?”
Opponents say the bill is so broad that all kinds of drugs could be denied for any reason. Some pharmacists may object to end-of-life drugs to ease suffering, fertility drugs, depression drugs, animal-based insulin, HIV medications and even Viagra.
But supporters scoffed at the claims. “Name me the pharmacist that would not dispense insulin,” Loertscher said. “I can’t think of one. Name me the pharmacist that would not be willing to provide drugs for the elderly or dementia. I don’t think there are any.”
Answer by Charles Veidt
I think that a pharmacist who objects to issuing medications should find a profession more suited to their beliefs.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!