Photos Spare Cycles MythBusters

Mind boggling

pharmacist law map

source: wp article

Comments (3)

There are two sorts of professional ethics one can take:

1. "I won't do anything I find unethical, ever."

2. "My ethical responsiblity is to do my job properly, and sometimes that means doing things I personally don't believe in."

Lawyers have to live by the second version, because sometimes they have to defend a guilty person, and even guilty people deserve fair trials.

Doctors have to treat people even if they're sick because of "unethical" acts like drug use or prostitution.

I would say that pharmacists should be bound to the same principle. In fact, towns where there might only be one 24-hour pharmacist, I think it would be unethical of them *not* to give out certain drugs. Their duty is to the see to the health of their customers, not to judge the reason for it.

I wish people weren't so dumb.


I like your breakdown of the two ethical models. Its most mind-boggling to me in that states are allowing for a mish-mash of models here, i.e. the doctor is obligated to see, diagose, and treat you to their best extent, but the pharmacist, whose role is to enact your treatment by mechanically reading a slip of paper and gathering together the items listed, is allowed to add a moral evaluation to their role.


Seconded on liking that breakdown.

This does make me want to stay in California and defend our borders (with, apparently, the occasional trip to Missouri and New Jersey).

Post a comment

related entries.

what is this?

This page contains a single entry from kwc blog posted on March 28, 2005 12:45 PM.

The previous post was F--- Atherton!.

The next post is Gehry's House.

Current entries can be found on the main page.