Illinois Supreme Court Allows Pharmacies’ Right Of Conscience Case To Go Forward

"This ruling clears the way for Illinois courts to determine whether the plain language of state and federal law protects the rights of these professionals not to be forced to act against their most deeply-held beliefs.”

Let us pray that the judges will do as God wills.

catholicexchange.com/2008/12/22/114821/

Hooray! About time too.

A nation that promotes freedom of religion has no right to impose actions on its citizens that is contrary to their faith.

JR :slight_smile:

Agreed, but in this day of liberal activist judges who enjoy legislating from the bench - who knows what we’ll get?

Unless the religious activity poses a real and imminent threat to the safety of individuals or a society, there is no justifiable reason for the State to interfere in matters of conscience.

People should read Charlie Chaput’s book Render Unto Caesar. They may learn something about their rights and responsibilities toward the State.

JR :slight_smile:

So, I must ask, would you then agree that a pharmacist who does not believe in transplants should not be forced to fill prescriptions of drugs used to help against organ rejection?

He could be fired by his employer, but no law should force any business to offer any particular drug, service, or product.

If the individual is convinced that his actions are contrary to the will of God, he has the right to act according to his conscience. This is the teaching of the Church.

In this case (though not common) if the person believes that this is contrary to God’s will and that by being directly complicit he violates the will of God, he has a moral obligation to follow his conscience. Thus teaches the Church in her declaration on religious freedom.

This does not mean that the individual can interfere in the right of another pharmacist filling this prescription. He can express his reasons and give witness to his beliefs, but just as he cannot be forced to act contrary to what he believes is the will of God, neither can he force another.

The issue here is not what one believes because of some philosophical principal. The issue is what one believes to be the Will of God. One must always comply with that. That being said, it is important that one question self to make sure that it is God’s will that you’re trying to fulfill and not your own or your misunderstanding of God’s will.

This is not easy. These things require great thought and prayer on the part of the individual.

The Catholic bottom line is that no one can act contrary to what he understands to be the will of God, subjectively he could be guilty of serious sin. In many circumstances he may not be, but only the Church can decide this.

Fraternally,

JR :slight_smile:

I completely disagree. A person whose religious obligations are damaging to society can be compelled not to practice them - in other words to neglect these moral obligations. Consider Warren Jeffs and David Koresh.

Another inch gained! :extrahappy:

But remember, there is nothing damaging to a society if a pharmacist or pharmacy refuses to dispense the morning after pill. There are other pharmacists and pharmacies. This is the difference between these pharmacists and Jeffs and Koresh.

JR :slight_smile:

So you’ll grant that a nation which promotes freedom of religion has a right to impose on its citizens contrary to their faith, just not in the case of pharmacists?

On the contrary, I take the position of the Church. No nation has the right to interfere with the conscience of its citizens unless the actions of the citizen are hostile and violate human rights.

JR :slight_smile:

My only question is, when does it stop?

Even for just basic checkups, when I was back east I had to drive 400miles to my primary care physician. Every single doctor in my town wanted nothing to do with me. I can understand traveling that far for a specialist, but this was just for things like colds, or annual checkups. It was a bloody nightmare, it’s still not easy even here on the ‘left coast’ to find doctors willing to even examine me. Only clinics in the inner city will take me and I have to wait 4months for an appointment sometimes.

Many doctors were not themselves against treating me, but others at their office, or the nurses, or the administrators, or other patients just wouldn’t tolerate me. So it was in their best interest to turn one patient away, instead of losing employees or multiple other patients.

Now there is a situation where conscience cannot be justified. Because one cannot deny another person basic paliative care. Paliative care is a human right, protected by moral law.

JR :slight_smile:

Well, they already do it now, so with things like this they just get even more justification as far as I can tell.

The teaching of the Church in the area of medical ethics is very clear. Paliative care is a fundamental human right. Extraordinary care is not morally bindign on the caregiver or family.

Selling morning after pills is not paliative care. It is extraordinary. It is not naturally need to sustain life. That’s a perfect example. It also has an immoral effect. Therefore, there is no reason for a person to violate his conscience to provide it.

JR :slight_smile:

I gather that pharmacists with such a belief is so rare that no real burden is placed on the client.

Anywone who thinks the the morning after pill is “paliative care” has bought into the notion that an unwanted pregnancy is like a disease.

I’m glad to see you’ve amended your broad statement in post #3. I still think your position is too broad, however. Suppose a pharmacist has a problem with Catholics, and his religion believes that every means should be used to pressure Catholics into coming around to the true faith, or failing that, to drive them out of the community. Does this pharmacist have the right to refuse all but lifesaving service to Catholics? We’ve established in the minds of many here that denying general pharmacy services isn’t a violation of human rights - the Catholic can just go to the next pharmacy up the road - however many miles that may be.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.