Doctors want right to dispense medications
 

AMA: Physicians Charge Pharmacists With Interference in Medical Care
It seems that the recent wave of pharmicist refusals to fill some prescriptions is having a backlash. Doctors are seeking the right to dispense "controversial" drugs themselves. Good idea or bad?

I've got mixed opinions on this issue. I have no problem with a pharmacy not stocking or refusing to dispense certain drugs. I do think they should be up front about it (like a sign that says "We don't do that"). I have a big problem with them not returning a prescription that they do not condone.

I'm also not comfortable with doctors handing out medications. On several occasions, a pharmacist has caught a mistake or side effect that the doctor didn't mention. Having a second set of eyes would seem to be a good idea.

A pharmacist has no business choosing which prescription he/she decides to give out. This is a business of science, not philosophy. If they have moral problems with the work they do, they should find another profession.

I find it appauling that a professional would have the unmitigated gaul to tell me that they have a moral objection to BCPs or RU486 or ANY other drug that a physician, one who <b>knows</b> the circumstances, has prescribed.

I should not have to defend my need for the drug simply because the pharmacist is too short sighted to see the reason I need the drug(s).

Agreed. The religious fanatics have now gotten out of control. Now they want to mess with out health by saying that they can't dispense BCP's or morning after pills because of nothing more than it against their "good conscience?" Bullshit. They have no reason to not fill something that a doctor ordered. Period. They read the prescription and fill it. That's their job. Not to be the moral police.

I also have no problem with doctors handing out drugs. Who else knows your diagnosis and situation better that the doctor you just saw? I can't believe that StanT would not want his doctor telling him what medicine he should or shouldn't take. Whether the doctor hands you a bottle of pills or writes a note for you to take the pharmacy, what's the difference? I see none.

I think this is great. Fuck the pharmacies, this is what they get for placing their personal belief system above the needs of another person.

Here is a hint - if you don't want to give out birth control don't become a pharmacist!

Remember, this is about towns like Crapville, Anystate where there is one place to buy groceries and one place to get your perscription filled. Not everybody has the means to drive 50 miles to get their medicine. One self-rightous bastard can effectively remove contraception from the whole city.

i agree with astrahl. It rediculous that these pharmacist are getting away with this, I think we need to start focusing on them, rather than working around them (which will only encourage them).

And, BTW, docs already give out drugs in the form of sample. Obviously they can't give out narcotics, but BC pills can be, allergy medicine, arthritis medicine...all kinds of things.

My mother has actually made up some "morning after" kits to give to patients who can't get them at a pharmacy. It's a few BC pills and an anti-nausea pill.

You may see more that one doctor, they don't necessarily know what the other doctor is prescribing. Even if they do, knowledge of drug interactions is generally the realm of a pharmacist, rather than an MD. I look at it as a checks and balances kind of thing, doctors do make mistakes.

That said, I'm fine with a pharmacist reviewing the medical aspects of a prescription. Leave the morality at home, or make it public, don't let me find out when I try to pick it up.

I'm pretty much with StanT on this one. I feel that a business, any business regardless of what type, has a right to not provide service to a customer for whatever reason, but they should not be able to do anything that would prevent the customer from receiving that good or service from a willing business. The second set of eyes is a good point that I didn't think about.

You people obviously have never had to deal with a quack doctor before.

As a doctor myself that can perscribe anything up to and including narcotics, I think this is a very bad idea.

There are checks and balances in any system, while you can whine about some pharmacist not perscribing an abortion pill, thats not what is really at stake here. What this does is give any doctor with a licence the ability to percribe any medication no matter how far out of their field it is.

For every 15 year old in some Georga town that gets to take an abortion pill because of this bill, there will be hundreds of screw ups, medical reactions due to multiple perscriptions, and outright quackery.

that's fine, ustwo, that there need to be checks and balances, but i really think the pharmacist should not be able to refuse to dispense a prescription or withhold the prescription so the person cannot get treatment.

Seriously, i have no idea what i would do if i were a woman and a pharmacist basically said, "Sorry, i'm Catholic and i cannot give you birth control pills and i am keeping this prescription as i cannot morally return it to you" I am afraid violence would ensue at that point. Makes me wonder what would happen if many pharmacists began refusing to fill Viagra/viagra type prescriptions bc it goes against her moral values. I ask that mainly bc it seems that birth related prescriptions are the most refused at the moment.

Basically, if they feel they can't morally do a job, they should really find another line of work. I'm certain there is something else that is more morally palatable.

That said, i do like the role of the pharmacist in tracking someone's prescription history, complications, issues, etc, plus, just being there for a 2nd set of eyes, but i do not believe they should be allowed to withhold prescriptions bc of moral issues.

I think any business should have the right to decide what it will and will not do. However, the government usually interferes with that. Think of the cases where (usually elderly) rental property owners have been forced to rent to unmarried couples.

On the other hand, any pharmacist who wouldn't return my prescription would be explaining to a judge why he chose to interfere with my health care. If I didn't call the police and charge him with stealing it first. If he doesn't honor the prescription, he's not entitled to retain the written form.

StanT is correct. We are subjected to such a barrage of new drugs that health care practitioners can't keep track of their own fields and the new drugs as well. They also don't have access to records of prescriptions from other physicians, while pharmacists generally do.

On a related note, I think pharmacists should be able to dispense medicine without prescriptions. It would put a nice dent in the cost of healthcare.

AMEN!! My town has 3 Pharmacies, although about 4 years ago there was only one. If they'd refused to fill my prescriptions for BC I'd be hooped. It's a 30 minute drive to the next city, in other places I imagine it's worse. If the pharmacist is Catholic and thinks birth control is wrong that's fine, it's not their place to impose their beliefs on other people. I don't agree with abortion but you don't see me becoming an abortion doctor and then refusing to perform them. The pharmacist may have the right to refuse dispensing medications but the client also has the right to obtain medications they require in their own town/city.

Giving out pistols with one bullet in them would cut down on health care costs as well. That doesn't mean its even remotely a good solution.

Yeah, I actually agree with Ustwo that allowing doctors to dispense meds may have many serious implications. A myriad of disastrous possibilities come to mind, including mistakenly giving out multiple prescriptions or a massive increase in the cost of medication as a side effect of having to include thousands of doctors in the medical dispensation process.

Remember when Rush Limbaugh went doctor shopping in order to find one who would prescribe hillbilly heroin? Imagine how much easier stuff like that would be if the doctor could just give him the stuff without going through a pharmacist.

I'm not saying this can't work, but I think it needs to be very well thought-out before it's implemented.

Oh and the big thing you are all missing.

A lot of doctors get PAID to perscribe certain drugs. (Something that should not be allowed)

They make money when they give you a perscription to X brand of whatever.

If you think this is so some kid can have an abortion pill, guess again, its about money.

Finally, someone in the medical profession comes right out and says it. This is absurd and needs to be stopped. I was puzzled by my doctor's insistence on one particular blood pressure medication until I noticed that every clipboard, pen, and notepad in the office had the name on it. It works, so I'm fine with that particular case, but this is a serious ethical problem.

ustwo...there is a fairly simple solution to the problem you rightly point out. self-interest, or lack of skill...whatever the problem may be, needs to be addressed.

but if a panel of three other doctors, selected locally by the AMA reviewed the case, and then signed the dispensation order...i don't see how that would produce ill results. interactions would be double checked, and the effort would guard against routine use of the system...it would be reserved for when it was really needed.

Pharmacies do not provide the necessary oversite in a hospital setting. Doctors Rx'ing emergency medication are not quack's, but another physician called in may Rx another drug without previous knowledge of the patient. He or she is also not a "quack."

My experience of my father's illness and death and the medical misjudgements that hastened it, is merely a personal story. I will save the expertise opinion to the dentist that straightens teeth.

I don't see what the issue is..... Doctors already give out "free samples" of drugs so what's the problem with them having a pharmacy within their office.

The Dr. does his job, prescribes the meds and you go to the on staff pharmacist and get it. BFD........ The doctor needs to make sure the patient isn't doctor shopping though...... but that happens whether it's a pharmacy or doctor giving out the meds.... just ask Limbaugh.

As for doctors selling out to med companies and being paid for what they prescribe, I believe the Doctor should inform you of that and offer you the choice of medications available.

It's not ethical and it's not right but until we regulate the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries, we will have this problem.

Pan, wouldn't it be ideal if we had a universal health plan? Naw, that could only happen if the two worst foes, Clinton and Gingrich would propose such a plan. Which they have. :)

Edit: Never mind its been said, no point in beating the horse.

obviously there are a lot of problems with our health care system (as I imagine there are with ANY health care system, despite what you Canadians say ;) ).
To address some points Ustwo made, "quacks" are the reason you can sue for malpractice. Of course, if you're dead from a bad drug combination, it doesn't do you much good. But that's why people should be alert when choosing a doc, and not just pick a name out of a hat. I've definitely seen a fair number of asshole docs that only care about the money they're making.
martin suggests a panel, but that would be WAY too expensive to set up for EVERY perscription being filled (I myself fill at least three a month). Even just for narcotics would be rediculous.
Now, as to docs being paid to perscribe drugs...that goes with the "quacks." They're obviously more concerned about money than patients, and you can usually tell the minute you meet them. And, MrSelfDestruct, just cause they have a lot of shit from one company doesn't mean they're in their pocket. Some drug companies give you that stuff no matter what. Maybe your doc just thought it was a great med. My mom used to take stuff from the drug companies, and then percribe what she thought was best for the patient. we got tickets to "Tony and Tina's Wedding" that way. I believe they aren't allowed to do that anymore, at least in Oregon.
Another point of Ustwo's, any doc can perscribe any med NOW, no matter how far out of their field it is. The pharmacists aren't checking that, as far as I know.
All that being said, I still think this is a bad idea. It's going to have consequences beyond those that it's intended to have (assuming it's actually aimed at pharmacists refusing percriptions, and not some ulterior motive). It's the wrong tool for the job, using a wrench to hammer in a nail. It might do the trick, but it's not optimum.

The good ones do, I forget the latin term for it.

Just because I can prescribe just about any drug in the book doesn't mean I should and a good pharmacist will pick up on it.

Well, provided you're a medically literate person with a functioning, intelligent brain, I don't see a problem with small-town doctors being able to fill prescriptions. The problem is that not everyone is medically literate (an incredibly low number of Americans are medically literate--by that I mean do they have an understanding of health information, information about their care and treatment, etc) so they cannot provide their own check (sadly, this happens quite often--my mom once had several different prescriptions and could not, for the life of her, understand why she was so tired...thanks to various resources I soon figured out that 3 of them shared fatigue as a side effect and when 2 were prescribed together they would increase drowsiness--this is what happens when you go to multiple doctors and multiple pharmacists). Pharmacists are in place because they provide a check.

However, in a small town where there are no other options, a doctor should have the ability to prescribe medications IF the town's pharmacist has a conscientious objection. Yes, I am suggesting this should be done on a case-by-case basis. After all, if we are discussing small-town America, then there shouldn't be that many cases of this happening (I certainly hope not). The state medical board and the doctor's professional association should be required to supervise filling of prescriptions somehow--some kind of oversight is necessary to prevent quackery. If we start off by allowing doctors to fill certain kinds of prescriptions--birth control, mifepristone and misoprostol, and Plan B, for example, then perhaps less oversight will be necessary. If it turns out that a certain town has a pharmacist who won't fill for narcotics, then that particular doctor can get approval from the state medical board to fill prescriptions for narcotics--with oversight. Someone has to provide a check, after all, and goodness knows most patients are incapable of doing so.

I would just like to thank everyone in this thread for great reading material. I will single out Ustwo for giving us all a bit of insight we likely would be missing without him. Excellent thread,

Ideally, it would be nice to have pharmacists. It would be nice to get the prescription under another set of eyes and such. It's a nice buffer zone for the patient to have two educated minds looking over their prescriptions to make sure drug A and drug B play nice together.

However, if the pharmacist isn't going to fulfill their part of the doctor/pharmacist/patient triad then maybe we should get rid of the pharmacist.
If my mechanic won't work on my car because he thinks I should be observing the Sabbath, I find another mechanic, right? It seems like kind of the same thing to me.

Like the majority have posted, there would have to be some sort of oversight to make sure the power isn't used and abused, but it's certainly possible to do.

I know about that and it seriously pisses me off. It should be illegal for drug companies to give ANYTHING to docs. I'd almost want to take it as far as saying they should not be allowed to invest in drug companies because it presents a conflict of interest.

They should perscribe medicine based on the merits of that medicine that's it. Once money comes into play it makes it easy for them to say, "well this one is pretty much just as good" and take that kickback.

One day when my wife was pregnant and we were having a scheduled doctor visit we walk in and there is this drug rep sitting in the waiting room. We were early so she was able to come and go before our appointment. Surprise, the Dr had a different prenatal vitamin perscription that she wanted us to 'try out.' I lost a LOT of respect for her doc that day.

This is hilarious. I can just imagine going to get a prescription filled and having it refused and being told that prayer is the best medicine. Maybe getting our prescriptions filled from Canada over the internet will become even more popular.

Sure, but then you have to pay shipping charges, $15 extra if you want your antibiotics tomorrow!

I think its one of those rules they never had a need to set in the past and now don't want to set. Whats funny is that if a doctor refers a patient to me as a specialist and I pay that doctor for the referral, I would lose my licence but if the same doctor gave that patient a prescription to brand X and gets money from the drug company that makes brand x, then its legal.

There is too much money going around out there for doctors to regulate this on their own. Their excuse is easy, since if they were going to prescribe you a blood pressure medication, what difference would it make if you get brand X or Y, and in most cases it wouldn't, but undoubtedly there would be cases where it would make a difference.

Yes, I would find another mechanic, not get a gas jockey to learn how to fix my car.
We need to FIRE these pharmacist (or create laws that prevent them from doing this). If they don't want to despense these drugs, they can find another job.

You might have jumped to the wrong conclusion. The drug rep didn't necessarily buy the doctor off--they could have come in with some new favorable data from a well-respected researcher.

How do you fire someone who owns their own business?

I still say a business owner should be able to decide what they wish to do, and what they don't wish to do.

Just as a customer should be able to decide whether or not to patronize that business if they disagree.

Without creating more laws that dictate behavior.

Yes but how am I supposed to know? That's the whole thing, the fact that doctors get kickbacks to perscribe certain meds erodes the trust I have in my doctor. There will always be a motive to perscribe an inferior med because of a payoff and there will be a motive to go with the more expensive med when they are equal.

I have to drive 30 minutes to buy clothes or a new car. I don't feel particularly oppressed.

Those who try to remove the control of goods and services offered by businesses from the business owner aren't trying to "impose their beliefs on other people"?

And the comparison to abortion doctors seems faulty. I'm pretty sure that most prescriptions filled are for medicines other than birth control, which means that even an anti-birth control pharmacist could still fill most of the prescriptions handed to him/her. I'm not familiar with how abortion clinics are run, but I don't see how an abortion provider who refuses to provide abortions would be able to perform his/her job in any capacity.

The owner of a private business has every right to choose which goods and services he/she will offer. Potential customers don't have a right to convenient shopping.

most business should have their own right to distrobute what they want but pharmacists are essential. People need their drugs you cant have someone denied drugs on principle. WHat if anti depressants are against someones beliefs? or worse? When you get into a proffesion of that nature you have to become a proffesional and check yourself at the door. If you have something against distributing drugs dont become a pharmacist

On a more productive note, maybe there is a comprimise somewhere in here. What if when presented with a prescription for say the birth control pill, the pharmacists hands back a written objection. This excuses the pharmacist from his duty. The patient can then give that objection to the prescribing doctor. The doctor can sign this then legally fullfil the prescription him/herself. Pharmacist doesnt go against his/her morals, patient gets medication, everybody happy.

Another aspect people are ignoring is how prevalent is this and what are the circumstances?

Never trust a one sided story just because it gives you a soap box.

Apparently the pharmacists responded.

This is still the business of science. Morals and personal beliefs should be left at the door. And, for the record, I am AGAINST doctors being allowed to fill RX orders. A pharmacist has specific training that doctors barely even touch. It is like asking a podiatrist to do neurosurgery.

Witholding things like the morning after pill and BCP is akin to discrimination, and, last I heard, this country isn't about allowing discrimination.

Its very dangerous on many many levels to say that morals do not belong in science.

I don't see how this is akin to discrimination. Even if it is, I support the right to private discrimination.

I like the second part; don't like the first.

I respectfully disagree. I think an OB should be able to refuse to do abortions, for one.


That sounds fine. As you recall, I had a big problem with the pharmacist not returning the prescription.

That's quite a blanket statement about the doctors having insufficient training. And it's wrong a great deal of the time.

The standard MD understands most medications, but when it comes to interactions and knowing exactly HOW they work...I'll prefer to trust a pharmacist, thanks.

And while morals DO belong in science, if it means withholding medications simply because of personal beliefs...that is NOT cool. I should not have to explain to a pharmacist that the BCPs I was prescribed when I was 17 were not for sexual activity, but for dysmenorrhea. How humiliating to have to justify that?? Deciding what to give out and to whom is feeding a god complex we don't need in medicine. Yes, many MDs have a god complex too, but that is not who we are talking about now.

That's certainly your option, but there are many MDs (endocrinologists come to mind) who have a specialized knowledge that is almost certainly lacking in most pharmacists.

That sounds like an argument for allowing MDs to dispense medications.

While there is a necessary place for morals in the application of science esp. re: human beings, there is no place for religious dogma in a health system, especially one as already fucked as the United States'. That is what we're actually talking about here, the application of religious beliefs to the health and well-being of individuals.

With all due exceptions, note: endocrinologists, doctors simply do not have the pharmaceutical knowledge to dispense drugs without proper oversight. A pharmacist's knowledge of potential drug complications is vastly superior to what the average doctor receives in med. school. Mistakes are caught by pharmacists on a regular basis...deal.

I agree that pharmacists allowing their personal beliefs intrude on the treatment of patients is a major problem that needs to be dealt with, but this solution is just more gasoline on the fire. Pharmacists are in such high demand that employers are unlikely to fire them for something such as this, despite that it is an obvious dereliction.

The only solution I see is to criminalize the refusal of treatment on the basis of moral reasons alone. If a state allows someone a license to dispense drugs and they refuse to fufill the requirements of their position, for instance by refusing contraception on the basis of their own personal religious beliefs then they should have their license taken away, at the the very least. But no, instead we see our elected "leaders" passing "conscious" laws across the country to protect this exact behavior.

I know that as soon as a "conscious" law is passed in my state I plan to 1) join the local christian scientologist church 2)enroll in a pharmacy program. I'll never have to work again and it will be illegal to fire me! Of course while I'm in school I can work at Wendy's and refuse to fill orders for SUV-driving fatasses on the basis of basic moral values. Watch how quick the cops get called in such cases, won't they be surprised when the po-po comes to my defense under grandest irresponsibility of all, the conscious law!

[edit spellins']

Seriously, we've had doctors and pharmacists for...oh...quite some time now...

and why is this becoming an issue NOW?? whatever happened to 1, doing your job, 2, doing it well, 3, enjoying your job.

I just don't see how this is just starting to crop up. I mean, it's just sad that society has come to this...

If you can't morally do your job, then find another, period. I am with Locobot...if the conscience law passes, i'm just going to start refusing to do just about anything based on my moral beliefs. "oh, you want a salad with high fat dressing..no" "oh, i'm sorry, i'm a hippy and you are burning gasoline, i'm not going to repair your car, even though i'm a mechanic" "oh, you want fries with that...sorry, i'm not getting them for you bc you're just gonna clog your arteries with you" "Oh, i'm sorry, you're a godless heathen, and i don't think you should be allowed to live, so i am not going to give you CPR"

hey, this could be quite fun, come to think of it...

Can't agree with your philosophy. It sounds the same as, "You don't like your working conditions? You want a safe environment? Find another job, then."

That's the beauty of a free market system, though. It should allow you to do all of the things you said, provided you, as the business owner, are preparted to take the financial hit that will ensue.

It's why you don't find racism toward blacks among store owners in Harlem, too. People with money all start to look the same.

And, in an only marginally related note, it's why Oprah's ratings pitch about Hermes and discrimination is so full of shit.

If you don't know anything about that, it's a point in your favor.

no, my philosophy is more of, "Don't like your working conditions, can't morally do your job? find another" If you feel unsafe dispensing PRESCRIBED medicines to someone based on your moral objections, then you are in the wrong field. if you feel you have the right to withhold my prescription bc it conflicts with your moral objections, you are in the wrong field. This has nothing to do with your safe working conditions or anyone's health, this has to do with you pushing your moral agenda upon me, which i do not appreciate.

You not being you of course, but you as a general pharmacist :) didn't wanna sound offensive :)

This statement is so grossly out of touch and wrong as to be laughable. You do know that the basic stereotype of Harlem store owners is Asian and extremely racist toward african americans?

I don't see how anyone's moral agenda is being forced on you. Go to a different pharmacy. If anything, it's the owner of the pharmacy who is being targeted by the moral agendas of others when being told that he/she has no control over what products or services are offered.

that's just it, the next pharmacy for some people is hundreds of miles away. I happen to live near 4, but i know people who have one for the entire county...

they are there to do a job. no offense, but leave the high horse and morality at home and do the job or find another one you feel more comfortable

now, maybe i am thinking more along the lines of pharmacist within a chain type drug store and not say, jimbob's pharmacy of bumfark, north dakota. I can see how you say he is being forced to abide by someone else's morality, but in that case, i would be more favorable for a doctor to be able to dispense medications. Namely, there should be a place for a patient to get needed medications. Could you imagine the uproar if no pharmacist would fill viagra prescriptions based on moral objections?

This starts to sound like slippery slope stuff. Ordinarily I would tend to agree with the free-market principle (at least in theory) but what if firefighters refuse to save the houses of gay people cause homosexuality is immoral to them? Why should a police officer help a muslim especially if their opposed to "terrorism"? You see where this could lead?

Or how about, police and firemen refusing to save the lives of people in a fire-bombed abortion clinic cause you know, baby-killers are against their morals. I suppose the main difference or argument could be "life-threatening" situations but then, that is still a slippery slope. Who's to say what medication is vital or not or what have you, like in the birth control example above. In theory, the pharmacist does not have access to all the facts. Maybe the person "needs" the medical abortion due to rape, or it's life-threatening to the mother. We can't just start playing judge and jury now can we?

Or you could patronize the next pharmacy that is willing to fill your prescription and maybe the other one will lose money big-time. Then again, are these the types of issues we want to leave up to the "free" market?

Maybe it's all about choice. Choice is good. If you belive in pro-environment, you can make a choice in buying products that fit your beliefs. I dunno, sumthin like that...

It's really not a matter of a high horse. It's a matter of not doing what one considers wrong. No horse necessary.

Owners should be able to fire pharmacists because of such moral convictions. They should also be able to retain such pharmacists, too. No one has the right to these medications, it's a product that someone has to be willing to provide.

What if there were no pharmacists in a particular county who were willing to dispense the product? Would you rather they all lost their licenses, leaving the county without a pharmacy?

what good is a pharmacist that won't do his job?

jorgelito said it best, it's just a slippery slope and one htat i can see being very dangerous for everyone involved.

Some seem to be missing the point that this isn't a liscense for doctors to dispense any medication they like any time they like. It's a narrowly defined set of circumstances, in which the local pharmacies are refusing to dispense certain medications for moral reasons. The pharmaceutical check is in place--the pharmacist in this case has reviewed the prescription and refused to fill it.

Thank you Gilda, for joining in. I appreciate it.

What good is a pharmacist that won't do his job by prescribing birth control pills?

What good is a doctor that won't do his job by performing an abortion?

Quite a bit of good in both cases. Just not the particular good that you're looking for. They still provide many useful services to society.

just wait till some pharmacist thinks that playing god with man made medicines is morally reprehensible :)

while i don't quite get the doctor who performs abortions is useless argument, mainly bc there are doctors who specialize in abortions vs gen practitioners, but anyway...

and i think gilda cleared up my main objection for allowing dr's to dispense meds...

so as of now, Good for doctors, get those lovely bcp's out :)

Well, now, what would be the point of such a pharmacist? How would he ever get employment? You don't need a license not to prescribe stuff; an employer could grab up a kid for minimum wage for that task.

exactly. at what point does the pharmacist get to decide what meds he does or does not dispense. Considering he may be the only pharmacist in the county, that gives him a considerable amount of power to hammer his morality onto everyone...

I'm still in favor of giving dr's the right to dispense these 'controversial' meds. like i said earlier, wait till a series of pharmacists stop dispensing viagra and see just how fast people react...

At every point.

I'm not understanding your 'exactly'. There'd be no need for regulations against anti-medicine pharmacists because no one would ever have a reason for hiring them.

I'd react just the same way if viagra was the prescription in question.

I maintain that they are doing their jobs. Just not precisely the way that you'd like them to.

the 'exactly' refers to the whole, "Well, now, what would be the point of such a pharmacist?"

exactly. what is the point of a pharmacist that will not fill prescriptions that pose no physical harm nor have any physical reaction with any other medications. to me, that is a person who only chooses to do half a job..

If they can't morally do the job, then they need to get...another...job.
period

The fraction would actually be much closer to 1 than to 1/2.

And the point would be that fraction.

I'm saying that there wouldn't be a point in a 0, in one who prescribed nothing. That doesn't translate into a 999/1000th pharmacist being pointless.

Perhaps employers who keep on these pharmacists with moral objections disagree with your job description. And employers have the final say in what their employees' jobs entail. Period.

edit: As long as job tasks are not endangering of anyone, of course. Which is actually why I agree on more than one level with the pharmacists in question.