Pharmacist John Lane has every right to his religious beliefs, but he should not have the right to interject those beliefs into the doctor/patient relationship of his customers.

Lane is the only pharmacist in Broadus, Mont., a small ranching community of 450 people that is 80 miles from another pharmacy. He announced that on Jan. 1 he would stop filling prescriptions for oral contraceptives because it conflicts with the moral position of the Catholic Church, to which he belongs.

That's a slippery slope on to which pharmacists should not be allowed to step.

Currently, Montana has no law on the issue of whether or not pharmacists can pick and choose which prescriptions they will fill. Three states - California, Illinois and New Jersey - require pharmacists to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives. Four states, including South Dakota, have "conscience clauses" that protect pharmacists who choose not to fill certain prescriptions.

That South Dakota law deals with medications that induce abortion or cause euthanasia, but it essentially gives pharmacists the right to refuse to fill any prescription for various reasons.

We don't think that's the proper role of pharmacists in our health care delivery system. Their job should be to dispense prescriptions that are legally prescribed by a doctor. If a pharmacist cannot in good conscience do that, then perhaps he or she should find another line of work.

We believe the privacy of the doctor/patient relationship should not be invaded by a pharmacist making assumptions about why a patient is taking a medication - whether it be birth control pills or another drug that a pharmacist may find morally offensive. What is to prevent the next pharmacist in the next one-pharmacy town from assigning their moral values to prescriptions for depression, pain control, sexual dysfunction? The possibilities are endless.

Mr. Lane insists his decision to no longer dispense oral contraceptives is based on his pharmacist's oath to serve all of humankind, including a fertilized egg. We think his decision makes a moral judgment that may very well place the welfare of an ovum above the health and well being of the women of Broadus. That is a moral position we cannot support.