According to FoxNews.Com, the state pharmacy board has ordered Wal-Mart to begin stocking RU-486, the so-called "morning after pill". Wal-Mart has refused to stock the pill, which causes the body to abort a fertilized egg, because of concerns about it being viewed as an abortion pill. Previously, the only state where they carried it was Illinois, where state law required it. The lawyer who won the case is threatening to sue in the other 48 states if Wal-Mart does not change its policy.
I understand the need to ensure that a pharmacy does not selectively stock drugs in order to control profits (i.e. refusing to stock generics, because name brand is more profitable) or to guard against potential discrimination (i.e. refusing to stock sickle cell anemia treatments to discourage african-american customers). But this seems different to me. The abortion pill has only one potential use (that I am aware of) and if it is morally repugnant to the pharmacist, does the state have the right to force the issue?
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder