Friday, July 28, 2006

Now there's a thought

A mennonite pharmacist denied the morning-after pill to a rape victim. Link. She had to drive to the next dtown over to get it.
"People drive to Reading to buy jeans. Even if that were the case, that you had to drive to Reading to get this [prescription], to me that does not rise to a compulsion that you have to pass laws that [doctors] have to do something," Dr. Joe Kearns said.


To which I thought "Well what if the next pharmacy over isn't so close? Or what if the patient lacks transportation?"

Now, this goes against all my libertarian principles, but why not say that if a pharmacist denies a drug to a patient for religious reasons, they have to provide timely transportation to a pharmacy where she can get it? The pharmacist doesn't have to do anything unethical, and the patient still gets their drug quick.

'timely' to my mind means at worst calling (and paying for) a taxi, but I'm not sure what the taxi situation is in rural america. 'where she can get it means that they call ahead and it will be waiting there for her.

Perhaps give the company the option to call in another pharmacist, assuming they can guarantee they will be there within the hour.

I don't think I would advocate this, but it seems a fairly good compromise.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home