Thanks for the link!

the polls are neck and neck. 49% say yes, 51% say no...

Personally, I think they should, for the exact reason that sometimes, they are THE ONLY pharmacy around, because they shut down the competitors.

This was from a post I wrote a week or so ago: My inclination is to say that as part of the medical team, a pharmacist has no professional right to allow moral judgments to intrude when a doctor has made the medical decision to provide a particular medication for her patient. Nowhere does this moralizing mission appear to fit into the pharmacist’s responsibility to “provide information to patients about medications and their use.” As my boyfriend notes, however, lawyers also have an important social function as representatives. This role can be especially critical in cases, in which the weight of the state has been brought to bear upon an individual. And yet, lawyers have no professional mandate to represent any client who walks through the door. Should we? As a feminist, should I be forced to represent the domestic abuser or the rapist against my will, or advocate for the man who wants to hide his assets from his estranged wife in off-shore accounts? Is there a difference between a pharmacist and a lawyer that explains the mandate of the one and not the other? [You can read the rest of this post at http://badfeminist.blogspot.com/2006/01/first-do-no-harm.html].

Bad Feminist--

I think that analogy is interesting but ultimately does not favor pharmacists. As a lawyer, you *are* supposed to represent clients who come to your door and our legal system can only function justly if lawyers represent everyone, not just the innocent or the sympathetic. However, in the circumstances you named, I would say a lawyer would (and would have to according to the professional rules) recuse herself if such feelings would lessen her ability to represent the client adequately. There is no such moral quandry for physicians. I can't see any opportunity for their personal feelings to damage how they fulfill the professional duties. Unless, of course, they refuse legal medical care to women in the first place!

So yes, I think you as a feminist would be *morally* required to represent the very people you name unless doing so would not be in the client's best interest. One doesn't get to pick and choose the professional obligations she fulfills. Lawyers give legal counsel and representation to clients, pharmacists give drugs and information to patients. If you can't reconcile your professional duties with religious or other beliefs, it's time to seek a new profession.