Again; Should Pharmacists Be Allowed To Refuse To Dispense Drugs They Object To?

Great Debates
201

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Well, yes, they clearly CAN do it, because they do this kind of thing all the time. Doesn’t make it right.
[/QUOTE]

And that’s the argument. It’s not about conferring rights. It’s about one further, rather small, restriction on freedom that a person may be required to undertake in order to gain a significant benefit.

In my profession (the law) members must check certain free speech/expression rights at the door to become licensed (ask Matt Hale). I don’t think requiring pharmacists to cease from refusing to fill prescriptions based on their own prejudices or even requiring them to make all OTC drugs available (though not necessarily in stock, that would need to be worked out of course) is that great an imposition.

I understand your viewpoint, and respect it while thinking it is wrong. My issue was mainly with your language of “rights” here, and earlier your claim that such a requirement would be unconstitutional.

202

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
But I have to ask…why would it make a difference what another person is doing? If you are morally against something, doesn’t your obligation end at not committing that act yourself? I don’t see how enabling someone else’s choice has anything to do with your own moral code on the matter. “You” aren’t doing it; the other guy is. I fail to see how facilitating someone else can break one’s own moral code. It crosses the line between personal morality and “buttinskiism.”
[/QUOTE]

“But I didn’t actually shoot the abortion doctor. Sure, I knew he was going to do it, but I just sold him the gun.”

Or -

“I just sold the Zyklon B. I never actually gassed anyone.”

So, no problem, right?

Regards,
Shodan

203

[QUOTE=villa]
And that’s the argument. It’s not about conferring rights. It’s about one further, rather small, restriction on freedom that a person may be required to undertake in order to gain a significant benefit.

In my profession (the law) members must check certain free speech/expression rights at the door to become licensed (ask Matt Hale). I don’t think requiring pharmacists to cease from refusing to fill prescriptions based on their own prejudices or even requiring them to make all OTC drugs available (though not necessarily in stock, that would need to be worked out of course) is that great an imposition.

I understand your viewpoint, and respect it while thinking it is wrong. My issue was mainly with your language of “rights” here, and earlier your claim that such a requirement would be unconstitutional.
[/QUOTE]
I do get your POV as well, and likewise have respect for it. My personal view is very libertarian in nature, like Stratocaster said, anyone who is not actively causing harm to someone else, ought to be left to his own conscience. Your example of Matt Hale is an interesting one…I don’t even necessarily agree that his rights haven’t been violated, scumbag though he may be.

I won’t argue with a lawyer regarding what “constitutionality” is (because I would lose), but my personal POV is always to prefer the least government control that is possible in a given situation (indicated by my preference that Plan B simply be deregulated entirely).

204

[QUOTE=Shodan]
“But I didn’t actually shoot the abortion doctor. Sure, I knew he was going to do it, but I just sold him the gun.”

Or -

“I just sold the Zyklon B. I never actually gassed anyone.”

So, no problem, right?

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
You know, Shodan, in your inimitable way, you have made a terrific point here. Even in the law, we recognize abetting a crime. Not that I am saying that using Plan B or having an abortion is or should be a crime, but it shows that we as a society agree that one can be complicit in a bad act, even if we did not specifically commit the act ourselves. How is it different for someone who sees the act as a sin or a moral outrage, if not a crime?

205

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I do get your POV as well, and likewise have respect for it. My personal view is very libertarian in nature, like Stratocaster said, anyone who is not actively causing harm to someone else, ought to be left to his own conscience. Your example of Matt Hale is an interesting one…I don’t even necessarily agree that his rights haven’t been violated, scumbag though he may be.
[/QUOTE]

At the risk of making this a love-fest, I am far from convinced that the treatment of Matt Hale was correct under a ‘rights’ analysis. It sits very uncomfortably with my 1st Amendment defending nature.

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I won’t argue with a lawyer regarding what “constitutionality” is (because I would lose), but my personal POV is always to prefer the least government control that is possible in a given situation (indicated by my preference that Plan B simply be deregulated entirely).
[/QUOTE]

If it was totally deregulated, I’d agree no one should be forced to sell it (unless some huge problem developed). I think, though, that while it is restricted, the aim should be to ensure broad availability. I hope that as the internet spreads, this becomes a moot point - that the government, for example, could set up a delivery system whereby you could order it for overnight delivery.

Of course, if it was delivered by mail, there would be a thread here where you would be arguing for the right of the mailman to refuse to deliver the package to someone’s house… :wink:

206

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Even in the law, we recognize abetting a crime. Not that I am saying that using Plan B or having an abortion is or should be a crime, but it shows that we as a society agree that one can be complicit in a bad act, even if we did not specifically commit the act ourselves. How is it different for someone who sees the act as a sin or a moral outrage, if not a crime?
[/QUOTE]

Most moral systems recognize that enabling a bad act can be bad as well as committing one. That’s a truism.

But I would hope that a truly pro-choice position would recognize the right of anyone to decide whether or not to obtain, or assist in obtaining, an abortion. It is meaningless to talk about such a right if the choice not to assist can be overridden by the state - that is morally no different from enforced abortion.

A woman decides to use this Plan B drug dose. Well and good - I can recognize her right to do so. A pharmacist declines to assist her - same thing. Even a pharmacy chain declines to stock the drug - same thing. The chain decides to stock the drug, but offer their employees the option to not participate in its dispensation - same thing, and more respectful of the rights of all than forcing anyone to do anything. I would hope the “right to choose” would include the right to draw the line for yourself on what you will and won’t do, and includes no right to force that line onto someone else - even by threatening their job or livelihood.

Regards,
Shodan

207

So presumably, Shodan, you would find it acceptable for a state employed, pro-life bus driver to leave a pregnant woman beside the street rather than drive her into the next town for her appointment at an abortion clinic?

208

[QUOTE=villa]
At the risk of making this a love-fest, I am far from convinced that the treatment of Matt Hale was correct under a ‘rights’ analysis. It sits very uncomfortably with my 1st Amendment defending nature.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, no love-fest here, or I’ll be forced to Pit you just on general principles! :wink: Interesting what you say about you opinion on the Matt Hale thing. I kind of hesitated even posting that, for fear some would take me for a Nazi supporter. People can jump to those kinds of conclusions around here.

Well, they could just use the old tried-and-true “plain brown paper wrapper” that they used to use for porn!

209

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Most moral systems recognize that enabling a bad act can be bad as well as committing one. That’s a truism.

But I would hope that a truly pro-choice position would recognize the right of anyone to decide whether or not to obtain, or assist in obtaining, an abortion. It is meaningless to talk about such a right if the choice not to assist can be overridden by the state - that is morally no different from enforced abortion.

A woman decides to use this Plan B drug dose. Well and good - I can recognize her right to do so. A pharmacist declines to assist her - same thing. Even a pharmacy chain declines to stock the drug - same thing. The chain decides to stock the drug, but offer their employees the option to not participate in its dispensation - same thing, and more respectful of the rights of all than forcing anyone to do anything. I would hope the “right to choose” would include the right to draw the line for yourself on what you will and won’t do, and includes no right to force that line onto someone else - even by threatening their job or livelihood.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Way back in the thread, I made the comment that if people want freedom of choice, that has to be for everyone, not just a select segment of society. What you say here elaborates on that point…each person needs to be allowed their own freedom of conscience, or “pro-choice” is indeed meaningless, as you say. There is no such thing here, in my mind, as the “moral superiority” that Bridget Burke claimed in her earlier post. I see it as different moral codes, which each person has to decide for themselves, and should not be imposed on others…certainly not by the state.

210

[QUOTE=villa]
So presumably, Shodan, you would find it acceptable for a state employed, pro-life bus driver to leave a pregnant woman beside the street rather than drive her into the next town for her appointment at an abortion clinic?
[/QUOTE]

Assuming all the necessary conditons to have been met to make this analogous to a pharmacist and Plan B, yes. Just to semi-Godwinize the thread, it would be like some conscientious German train driver in 1940 refusing to drive to Bergen-Belsen.

Let me guess - we are going to try the “what if she is black” thing next, right? :smiley:

Regards,
Shodan

211

Well, I really wanted to know how far you will take this. Presumably a lecturer who refuses to teach medical students subjects unrelated to abortion, but necessary to graduate med school, unless they take a legally enforceable pledge never to perform an abortion would be fine and dandy too.

As to the race comment, I didn’t bring it up, but if you want to go there, I would wonder why this one belief should be protected whereas others aren’t.

212

[QUOTE=villa]
Well, I really wanted to know how far you will take this. Presumably a lecturer who refuses to teach medical students subjects unrelated to abortion, but necessary to graduate med school, unless they take a legally enforceable pledge never to perform an abortion would be fine and dandy too.

As to the race comment, I didn’t bring it up, but if you want to go there, I would wonder why this one belief should be protected whereas others aren’t.
[/QUOTE]

Good point. Can you discriminate on the grounds of race because “you just don’t feel it’s right”?

213

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Nope, no love-fest here, or I’ll be forced to Pit you just on general principles! :wink: Interesting what you say about you opinion on the Matt Hale thing. I kind of hesitated even posting that, for fear some would take me for a Nazi supporter. People can jump to those kinds of conclusions around here.
[/QUOTE]

No sympathizer here either, just one of those ACLU nuts who would fight for the Klan’s rights to march through Skokie, and then defend (in court) anyone who accidently drove their car through a bridge full of Illinois Nazis.

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Well, they could just use the old tried-and-true “plain brown paper wrapper” that they used to use for porn!
[/QUOTE]

You seem to know an awful lot about mail order porn…

And wouldn’t that just mean mailmen should be allowed to refuse to deliver any packages the contents of which they cannot know for a fact, on the off chance that it offends their morality?

214

[QUOTE=villa]
No sympathizer here either, just one of those ACLU nuts who would fight for the Klan’s rights to march through Skokie, and then defend (in court) anyone who accidently drove their car through a bridge full of Illinois Nazis.
[/QUOTE]
Believe me, I knew what you meant…I never meant to imply that YOU were a Nazi sympathizer, either.

Who, me?

Well, I already clarified further up thread that government employees would have different rights in this situation than employees of private companies. In any of these cases, the pharmacist would have to have an arrangement with his employer to waive his responsibility to sell a drug they stock, but I don’t think the government has the right to step in and force the employer or employee to sell the product. On the other hand, if the pharmacist is employed by the government, this gives the government the right to say “sell the drug, or you no longer work here” (just as I think any employer has the right to do).

So, I THINK the post office is still a government agency, so the postal worker would have to deliver it. Not sure this would apply to UPS or FedEx, however.

215

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Good point. Can you discriminate on the grounds of race because “you just don’t feel it’s right”?
[/QUOTE]
Race is a protected class. People who want to buy a particular drug are not a protected class.

216

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Believe me, I knew what you meant…I never meant to imply that YOU were a Nazi sympathizer, either.
[/QUOTE]

I know, just messing with ya…

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Who, me?
[/QUOTE]

Well if I want advice on how to order my porn secretively, it appears you are the person to come to… :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Well, I already clarified further up thread that government employees would have different rights in this situation than employees of private companies. In any of these cases, the pharmacist would have to have an arrangement with his employer to waive his responsibility to sell a drug they stock, but I don’t think the government has the right to step in and force the employer or employee to sell the product. On the other hand, if the pharmacist is employed by the government, this gives the government the right to say “sell the drug, or you no longer work here” (just as I think any employer has the right to do).

So, I THINK the post office is still a government agency, so the postal worker would have to deliver it. Not sure this would apply to UPS or FedEx, however.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, it is much easier for a private employee to say ‘do x or you are fired’ than for the government to do so. As a private employer, you are not required to give protection to the first amendment rights of your employees (as I have mentioned earlier, religion is a weird one in this because of ‘reasonable accomodation’ requirements that have screwed up the jurisprudence). The government on the other hand must.

Not that I think there is any constitutional problem (as I have said) with the government saying either stock this (to Pharmacist Phil) or deliver this (to Postman Plod).

The race question is kind of interesting, though. Your response (regarding race being a protected class) is correct, but kind of evasive, because it doesn’t answer why it should be the case. I find it intriguing that it is accepted that someone has the right to hold racist views, but that acting on those views may be restricted, but that you won’t accept that action on pro-life views can be restricted. (Well I am sure you do in some ways, but not this one…) Does it make a difference if the racist views are part of a religion or not?

217

[QUOTE=villa]
Actually, it is much easier for a private employee to say ‘do x or you are fired’ than for the government to do so. As a private employer, you are not required to give protection to the first amendment rights of your employees (as I have mentioned earlier, religion is a weird one in this because of ‘reasonable accomodation’ requirements that have screwed up the jurisprudence). The government on the other hand must.
[/QUOTE]
That is a good point, but I was thinking of it more along the lines of the government providing the drug at a government-run facility (such as a county hospital, for instance). Maybe they couldn’t fire a pharmacist who wouldn’t sell it, but they would have to ensure that someone on duty WOULD sell it, whereas at a private business, they have no obligation to the customer to make sure it is available.

Right.

I’m not sure we should get into whether or not I think there should even BE such a thing as protected classes, because I even have my doubts about that, actually. BUT, as long as there are (and I wouldn’t suggest changing it at this point), I don’t see how one qualifies as a protected class just from desiring to purchase one particular drug. What would the “class” be? That is, I’m not looking at this from the POV of the person who holds the opinion, but the person they are discriminating against. Is not selling someone a particular drug discriminating against them, or against the drug? And for that matter, wouldn’t the pharmacist be a member of a protected class, if his conviction was based on religion?

Oy vey this is getting complicated. Leave it to a lawyer.

218

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Race is a protected class. People who want to buy a particular drug are not a protected class.
[/QUOTE]

Yet.

219

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Yet.
[/QUOTE]
Right, and see, that’s why I question the wisdom of even having “protected classes,” or not at least limiting them severely. I can understand protecting certain classes against certain forms of discrimination, because of the earlier point that we should let people make their own moral decisions providing they are doing no direct harm to someone else. The problem comes in when “direct harm” becomes so loosely interpreted that it is meaningless. Therefore, I have always favored as limited government interference in this kind of thing as possible. Otherwise, the rights of the pharmacist are tread all over, because the “protected class” status has arbitrarily been afforded to someone else.

220

I think what I’m saying to both villa and Kalhoun is that you have to base the “protected class” status on something. So, let’s say that the customer is protected based on, I don’t know, her “pro-choice” views, wouldn’t the pharmacist be protected then based on her “pro-life” views? And then, aren’t we at a stalemate again? Whose rights then are paramount?