FACULTYTALK Archives

December 2005

FACULTYTALK@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Allison {allisonj} <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
Date:
Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:10:35 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
Isn't the attorney-client relationship a lot different than the
pharmacist-drug purchaser relationship?

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan Rogers
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Pharmacists

Just a thought on the comparison between a lawyer rejecting a pregnant
person as  a client, and a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription:

Is it not true that lawyers in private practice have generally been able
to pick and choose clients, for any number of reasons including ability
to
pay, likilihood of prevailing, etc.?

But I would guess there is no generally established custom for a
pharmacist to pick and choose prescriptions to fill.  I don't remember
ever hearing about a "refusal to fill" situation until the
anti-pregnancy
drugs became an issue.

The analogy might work better if you use a lawyer in a position such as
a
Public Defender or Legal Aid, I suppose.  And I would be fairly appalled
at a lawyer's turning down a client who qualified for aid, on personal
grounds.  Except in extraordinary situations, I rather think I would say
a
lawyer had no business in that sort of job if he/she is not able to set
aside personal bias.

And I would also say a person should not choose the occupation of
pharmacist if they cannot fill legal prescriptions because of their
personal beliefs.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2