Addressing Morals

As I have mentioned in my last posts a Healthcare Practitioners should never judge, truly he/she is called to a higher purpose to preserve life and the quality there of. If committed to his/her oath then judgment breaks it. Below is a definition of a Moralist from Webster.

1. A teacher or student of morals and moral problems.
2. One who follows a system of moral principles.
3. One who is unduly concerned with the morals of others.

I have no problem with the first two definitions, but the third crosses the line constitutionally. Below is the definition of our freedom of religion.

Freedom of Religion: There shall be full freedom of conscience for people of all faiths or none. Religious liberty is considered to be a natural inalienable right that must always be beyond the power of the state to confer or remove. Religious liberty includes the right to freely practice any religion or no religion without governmental coercion or control.

Now when some one imposes their beliefs on me, and by so doing stops my free expression (e.g., getting my prescription) you have just violated my personal rights under the first amendment.

There is no pro to this scenario; this judgment call goes against the very grain of what we are learning here in class. The consequences should be as strong as his moralist view. If the pharmacist concedes that his personal views have no place in the healing or preventing process and it is illegal to do so then progress equals a valuable employee. If not then he/she should immediately look for another line of work; say a leader of a cult.

Reference:

Webster, (2007) Third New International Dictionary of the English Language.

David B. Magleby (2008) Government by the People. Prentice Hall.