Pharmacists' rights..?

This is a very disturbing story. Apparently a number of states are considering (or already have) legislation which allows pharmacists to refuse to provide medication which conflicts with their religious beliefs- specifically, the dispensing of birth control pills.

Staunchly pro-choice as I am, I can see the argument for protecting pharmacists who refuse to give out the "morning-after pill". This is a combination of hormones, taken withing 72 hours of unprotected sex, which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, so it is technically a form of abortion. The morning after pill is different from RU-486, which works within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy to induce a miscarriage. If someone truly felt that the use of the morning-after pill was murder, it would be wrong to force them to assist in the process.

However, refusing to provide oral contraceptives is a different thing entirely. In this case, the pharmacist is passing judgement on a lifestyle choice- specifically, the choice to engage in sexual intercourse for pleasure and not for procreation.

Should a pharmacist judge who should get a drug based on his or her own personal standards? Can you refuse to dispense anti-cholesterol drugs because some of the same effects can be achieved with diet and exercise...? Can your deeply held religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin allow you to withold life-saving AIDS medication? Can you refuse to dispense chemotherapeutic agents for patients with lung cancer, caused by smoking tobacco? How about Xenical and Reductil for obesity? What about drugs for emotional disorders? Attention deficit disorder? Type II diabetes, related to overeating?

The bottom line is that while a good pharmacist is a valuable member of the health care team, a person's medical care is based on a doctor-patient relationship. And a pharmacist has no business sitting in moral judgement of his customers.

Psychedelic Election Map

Complex data can be made intuitively understandible through creative imagery. Although we know that electoral votes are based on population, the standard red/blue map makes it look as though the country is solidly Republican (due to that party's dominance in large, sparsely populated regions). Maps with shades of purple are one way of illustrating the actual vote count in each state. Here is another map from the University of Michigan that combines a county level of detail with area proportional to population and a few shades of purple in counties where the outcome was close.