Allowances for concientious objection

Teddy_Picker

Just interested to see what posters views are on the idea of the so-called "conscience clause," as enacted in certain parts of the United States.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14380

To what extent should allowances be made for people who wish not to provide certain services to the public for reasons of religion or conscience?
Should their wishes be taken into consideration at all?
For instance, should devout Christians working in chemists' be compelled to provide the morning-after pill, if they find it morally objectionable?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

AFAIR from case law, if an employer/employee agreement has a clause allowing/excusing certain actions then the employer is bound to honour them.

drkpower

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with the general proposition that a phrmacist/GP cannot have an absolute right of refusal to treat, but the last bit is the one which causes most concerns usually.

The interesting Q. is whether
(a) the pharmacist (or GP, or whoever) should be absolutely obliged to provide any lawful treatment, and cannot therefore avail of the referral option

and

(b) if he is allowed to avail of the referral option, what obligation, if any, does he have to ensure that the referral actually occurs (ie. can he simply tell the patient that pharmacy Y provides the MAP without ensuring that the pharmacy is open within the requisite timeframe?)