Pharmacists should choose between job and moral conscience

Pharmacists are somewhat unique because they know who they are denying service to, and the reason. To only permit pharmacists to exercise this degree of control suggests that the moral concerns of pharmacists trump the moral concerns of any person not employed as a pharmacist.

When individuals enlist in the military, they are expected to fulfill their terms of duty. Choosing not to go to war is a court-martial offense irrespective of the moral beliefs of the soldier themselves. However, when individuals choose to become pharmacists they are permitted to refuse service based solely on personal moral beliefs, rather than adhering to the commitment to provide medical care to those in need. The question then is why pharmacists have a right to conscience, but others do not.

Could an environmentalist working at a copy center refuse to make copies on non-recycled paper? Certainly if a person really wanted to make copies on regular paper, they would have the choice to go to another copy center, just as a woman seeking a certain medication might be required to go to another pharmacy. Fundamentally, both the pharmacist and the environmentalist have morality concerns regarding workplace commitments.

Pacifists do not join the military expecting to be given special rights that allow them to avoid combat based on their personal moral position regarding killing. If a person considering a career as a pharmacist feels they cannot in good conscience provide certain medications, then that person should consider another profession.

— Jon Organ

Senior, educational psychology

UW text alerts not meant as the ultimate solution

While I appreciate the recent coverage by your publication of the new UW Alert text-messaging service ["Safety alert texts a small step in the right direction," by Sarah Jeglum, Nov. 29, 2007], including yesterday's staff editorial, there are a few misconceptions that I feel must be cleared up.

First off, UW Emergency Management, a small office in Facilities Services, does not run nor maintain the UW Alert system.As noted in the new UW Crisis Communications Plan that is posted online (www.washington.edu/admin/business/oem/files/CrisisCom_Oct_2007.pdf), you will note that the development of the crisis communications messages and delivery of these messages are not coordinated through our office.

They are instead, coordinated and managed by Media Relations and Communications, UW Police and others — not UWEM. The crisis communications team for the UW is described and detailed in pages 1-2 of the UW's plan.

As you will note as stated in Appendix B of the Crisis Communications Plan, "It is important to note in a crisis situation that no single medium will suffice to notify all constituencies. A combination of communications resources will need to be employed to reach the widest number of people as quickly as possible. Depending on the particulars of the situation, some combination of the tools listed below may be employed."

We never expected the new UW Alert to be the only solution, but really one of many tools in our expanding toolbox for contacting a very mobile campus. We hope to do other activities (such as expanding the campus "Blue Phones"), but some of them, such as centralizing and improving the internal public address systems in our more than 225 buildings, is a long and very costly project that is estimated to cost many millions of dollars.

The UW Alert was just one of many improvements planned and, as you noted in your editorial, just one small step in a long journey.

— Steven J. Charvat

Director of UW Emergency Management

Response to free-trade face-offs

Unions in the United States today are in a precarious position.There is little popular support for labor rights and collective bargaining.Unfortunately, this impacts our middle class, which is mostly composed of union workers.

From 1977 to 1997, the proportion of workers in unions fell from 29 to 14 percent.The bulk of this drop fell to workers with lower education. Real wages have declined about $1 from 1974 to 2004, making it increasingly difficult for working and middle class workers to survive.Also, between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of the American population living in poverty grew almost 14 percent.Meanwhile, CEOs are reaping the benefits of the increase in total wealth, as today they make 411 times as much as the average worker. Compared to making only 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, it is blatantly obvious that inequality in American society is growing and our middle class is not getting richer.

From 1970 to 2000, an inequality meter called the GINI coefficient increased for the United States from 0.35 to 0.45, putting it nearly on par with China and Mexico.The problem is that people are being sacrificed in favor of corporate profit, while corporations continue to utilize their rights as "citizens" and respect none of their civic responsibilities. Therefore, more unions are busted, fewer unions are allowed to form under these corporations' rules and workers are increasingly underpaid, overworked and abused.

Student Labor Action Project:

— Stephanie Alder

Alumna

— Travis Thomas

Senior, economics

— Khadyja Reinhardt

Alumna, 2006, philosophy and international studies

— Joji Kohjima

Senior, international studies

— Ashley Edens

Junior, Spanish