Being a pharmacist is a hard job; you hold other people lives in your hand. Sometimes a pharmacist is put in a hard situation like the scenario about Mrs. Mortimer. Reading the scenario about Mrs. Mortimer under the section of Ethics and the Pharmacy Technicians, the two theories that I agree relate to Mrs. Mortimer scenario are law and the principle based ethics. According to the law, a pharmacist may not refill a prescription unless the doctor has authorized it to be refilled. A doctor may authorize no refills, one refill, or several refills on the original prescription. After all of the refills authorized on the original prescription have been used, a pharmacist must obtain authorization from the doctor before the prescription can be refilled. On the other hand, the principle based ethics the pharmacist can say that with holding her medication from her for 3 days is immoral and refill her medication. The theories that best benefit Mrs. Mortimer are nonconsequentialism, ethics of care, principle based ethics, virtue based ethics, and the code of ethics. Under nonconsequentialism, Mrs. Mortimer can argue that despite the fact that it may be against the law, it is important for her to have her medications, and that since she is a regular customer who has been using Synthroid regularly, she should be given some medicine to hold her over. The ethics of care supports the pharmacist’s decision to dispense tablets to Mrs. Mortimer. Denying her the medicine goes against the ethics of care and would leave the patient in a potentially harmful situation. Principle based ethics also goes along with the ethics of care. Morally, it would be unethical and cruel to leave the patient without medications, especially ones that she has regularly been using. This is further supported by virtue based ethics. While it may be going against the fine print of the law, the pharmacist is