Your comment makes me recognize that my own above could sound fundamentally dismissive of a pharmacist's role, which I don't intend. I recognize that good pha

Your comment makes me recognize that my own above could sound fundamentally dismissive of a pharmacist's role, which I don't intend. I recognize that good pharmacists can be a safety check or troubleshooter, and safeguards are valuable even when rarely needed. However, the fact that your anecdote was 10 years ago underscores the point that the vast majority of pharmacy interactions are transactional: pick up the medicine the doctor ordered in. This is demonstrated in how doctors and insurance treat pharmacies as interchangeable, and the pharmacies themselves advertise discounts and quick pickup rather than diagnostic track record. Per the post further up the thread, it is reasonable for most patients to think of pharmacists as middlemen. I think this is why many people are shocked that a pharmacist can block a prescription on moral grounds. The lack of a relationship makes the pharmacist overriding you and your doctor's judgements seem entirely out of the spirit of the transaction. It feels like a neighbor you barely know using a moment of economic leverage to have a major impact on your life, for which they will have no accountability. I'm personally sympathetic to the idea that a pharmacist, or anyone, shouldn't have to act outside their moral principles. But that should come along with clearly advertising what transaction is being offered -- "We fulfill prescriptions" is a different service offering than "we fulfill prescriptions that we agree with", and a patient needs to know in advance which they are sending their order to.