Freedom of choice under attack

By ANTHONY LAPOMARDO

The ability to choose has always been an innate ability exhibited by each individual person. However, in recent years, the government, which is backed by numerous supporters, has moved to attempt to take away one’s personal right to choose.

With the attempted implementation of governmental sanctions, the ability to make your own choices is slowly fading away and being replaced by a dictated governmental parental figure.

The subject of freedom of choice is largely found in the arena concerning the use of abortion. During presidential campaigns, the question of abortion is a controversial issue that is handled carefully due to its sensitive nature. But now our freedom of choice is being threatened at another crossroad.

In North Carolina, pharmacists are being cited for refusing patients medical agents such as birth control pills due to their own moral convictions.

One pharmacist was cited for denying a patient her prescribed medication because her religion forbids the use of that drug.

The pharmaceutical society has attempted to deal with this irregularity, but they have not done so in an effective manner.

Susan Winkler, the spokeswoman for the American Pharmacists Association, stated that “our policy supports stepping away, but not obstructing.”

The spokeswoman is speaking toward the idea of allowing pharmacists to remove themselves from a situation, but not to attempt to deny the patient medication.

But this policy has fallen upon deaf ears as multiple cases have been found in which pharmacists not only stepped away, but also obstructed the patient from having his or her prescription filled.

In one such, case a pharmacist was reported to have denied a woman the right to contraceptive pills, forcefully taking her prescription and asking her to leave.

At what point were the medical society and other societal groups empowered to make incisive decisions for others?

At what point was it tolerated for someone to force or impose his or her views on an unreceptive public?

Since we have to ask this question, the answer may be simple. The question of the right of abortion may never be settled, but we have now surpassed that issue and moved on to a new ideological frontier.

The issue of freedom of choice has now overshadowed the issue of abortion. The question has now become to what extent will we allow others to dictate our ability to drive our own lives?

At what point will we be denied gas for our cars from someone who is sympathetic to offshore drilling?

At what point will a doctor deny someone an organ transplant due to his personal contempt for the patient?

These are all highly hypothetical situations, but they create insight into how far we will allow it to go.

When it comes to the phrase freedom of choice we should look past the proposed image of abortion and right to the words themselves.

Choice is a word that is ordained to the individual and is adaptable to each person. And, although we may not agree with those choices, the word freedom should ensure that it is their choice to make, not ours.

And our society should not support those who would abstain from helping others whose choices may not be congruent with their own.