Conscience Clause

   One of the big stories in the news right now is the continuing saga of Kim Davis. For those of you who don't know she is a Kentucky county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Her reason for doing this is that it violates her beliefs.
 This made me think of the healthcare provider conscience clause. These are laws that allow health care providers to opt out of having to perform certain procedures or provide certain products based on personal or religious values. The most common application for this law is to allow physicians refuse to perform abortions and pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control pills or the "morning after" pill. (After searching the internet, I have not been able to determine if Minnesota has a conscience clause or not.)
  I remember many years ago when discussion over these laws was a hot topic in the pharmacy  profession. It was criticized by everyone. Those who opposed the law felt that it was discriminatory to women and it prevented women from obtaining legally prescribed medication. Those who were in favor of the law did not think the law provided any protection. A pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription on moral grounds would still be required to refer the customer to another pharmacy. If the nearest pharmacy was many miles away, the pharmacist would be required to fill the prescription regardless. There were some who felt that sending the customer elsewhere was as bad as filling the prescription.
  I had mixed feelings about the law then as I still do today. On one hand, I can see the point of those who favor those laws. Being compelled to do something that violates a strongly held belief or moral code is hard. Acting against something that one was taught at a very young age can be very difficult.
  On the other hand, a pharmacist's job is to dispense medications and information on how to take those medications correctly and to provide ongoing care for those with chronic conditions treated by medication. I don't see anywhere in the job description that allows a pharmacist to impose certain moral  codes on patients. The other challenge is where do you draw the line? If a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription on moral grounds, then why can't a clerk who is vegetarian  refuse to ring up meat on moral grounds? A person who works in a liquor store could refuse to ring up a sale to a woman who looks pregnant. A hotel clerk could refuse to rent a room to a couple unless they prove that they are married.
  I saw an amusing cartoon on Facebook. It depicted a fast food worker and an overweight male customer at the cash register. The word balloon over the worker's head says. "I'm sorry sir, but gluttony is a sin and it would compromise my religious beliefs to enable your sinful lifestyle."
  Why does one group get protection and others don't? I've never understood this. Maybe I'm being a little simplistic. It's all or nothing. You either allow all who have strong moral beliefs protection from having to act against those beliefs or no one is allowed to refuse service or products based on personal moral code.
  There is the argument that if you have strong moral values that you don't want to compromise then don't get a job in a filed where that might happen. It's not that easy though. I'm sure Kim Davis never thought that gay marriage would ever be legal. I can't think of any profession that doesn't have the potential for moral pitfalls.
  I'm not sure how things are going to turn out. As of this writing Kim Davis has been released from jail where she had been for the past few days. The deputy clerks were issuing the marriage licenses in her absence and will continue to do so. She has been ordered not to interfere with that process.
  I don't think this is the last we will here on this topic......