Well, it's happened again. I got another Letter to the Editor published in the paper. Blog rants do pay off! I didn't know if links to the online version of the paper would work for non-subscribers, so I copied and pasted the letters below.
First is the letter from the pharmacist that irritated me so much I ranted about it on my blog and then wrote a Letter to the Editor.
Don’t force pharmacist to help with abortion
Monday, March 27, 2006
I respond to the March 13 letter to the editor "Don’t let pharmacists decide for patient," from Kathy Oyster. Her attack on Ohio House Bill 469 clearly shows a lack of logic and understanding of the abortion issue.
Even though abortion is legal, it does not give anyone the ability or right to force a physician or other healthcare provider, including a pharmacist, to participate in an abortion against their will.
She is concerned that pharmacists will be allowed to "choose" those to which they will dispense the drugs that "may or will" result in abortion. I doubt if any true pro-life pharmacists would dispense abortifacients to anyone, but why shouldn’t they also be allowed to choose?
Her concern about the lack of a "provision for rape victims" also is flawed. Rape is a terrible thing, and the woman should have all the support and counseling available. But should the child be killed and, thereby, punished for the crime of the father? Is this child any less valuable as a person because it was conceived by force? Using the same logic, what if a child were left on your doorstep "against your will"? Shouldn’t you also be given the choice between killing the child and finding it a home?
As a pharmacist, I am just refusing to be a willing participant in the killing of an innocent child.
Why should the woman be allowed choice, but not the health-care professional?
OK, now my response. Let me first say that my issue was with a person whose job it is to dispense medication that people are legally entitled to refusing to do so. I am NOT debating the pro-life vs. pro-choice issue.
Pharmacist can’t make decisions for others
Sunday, April 02, 2006
I respond to the Monday letter "Don’t force pharmacist to help with abortion," from James F. Haninger.
Haninger said, "Why should the woman be allowed choice, but not the health-care professional?" In other words, he believes that healthcare professionals should be allowed the same choice women have in making health-care decisions about themselves.
Haninger doesn’t get to make health-care decisions for other people just because he is a pharmacist. He has a job to do, and, if he is not comfortable doing it, he needs to find a different profession. No one needs him deciding whether or not they get the medicine they are legally entitled to because it might go against his beliefs.
He definitely is in the wrong profession if he thinks he can personally decide who deserves help via medication and who doesn’t. If someone comes in for their cancer medication and he doesn’t think they look sick enough, is he just going to decide they can’t have their pills this month?
My last sentence was not printed in the paper, don't know why - maybe space considerations or they just didn't like it!