Neil Neoson Pharmacist Case Summary

1971 Words4 Pages

Neil Neosen a pharmacist in K-Mart in Menomonie, USA, refused to sell contraceptive pills to a woman due to his religious beliefs that oppose birth control. Dale (2004), stated that he denied to guide her to another close by pharmaceuticals and rebutted even when the woman revisited the store accompanied by the cops. The court judged in his favor that Neoson had the right to reject to sell the pills but it was inappropriate for him for not transferring the prescription to another store, however his license as pharmacist had become limited as he would have to provide in writing to the pharmacy that he will not provide with medication due to his beliefs, he was to be entitled to a compensation for legal proceedings. According to Rhode (2008), …show more content…

But according to Kemp (1968) Neoson being an autonomous rational being acted rationally by not giving the pills to the women because he had moral obligation which held him from doing such a cruelty. According to the recent contribution of Pluhar (2002) sometimes we ought to question the morals validity for it being logical and thus allow exception in some case. Thus in the above case Neoson being a rational being should’ve given her the pills for the fact that she was a student and it would not have been possible for her to take the responsibility to bear a child at that period of time when she was pursuing a degree course and all of her attention would have been concentrated to get a decent mark. However, if she used some protection to avoid birth control medication then this case wouldn’t have occurred. It can be seen that Neoson was following his duty out of his religious beliefs by not giving the pills so that the women would realise her mistake of not using the protection, which caused her to take the medication. But when it comes to doing the right thing under this theory he should’ve guided her to nearby pharmacy but then he would be supporting her to repeat the same mistake, which may lead to abortion if she forgets to use protection or take the pills and abortion is against the law being equal to murder. The main criteria involved here is safe sex, which needs to be promoted, but if the women held on to it and did not take the pill she will be increasing the countries population. Let’s assume even if he did sell her the pills considering that she guarantees she would have a safe sex and leave the pills as the last venue for consideration. If she repeats the same mistake then she would be breaking his

Open Document