Those are very general words. Since the organization (and I assume you mean the American Pharmacists Association, whose code you quote, and not the American Psychological Association, whose name you invoke) adopted the very specific resolution supporting the right of a pharmacist to refuse to dispense in accord with his conscience, then these two dictates must be read together, giving effect to each. If there remains a conflict, then the later statement overrides the earlier.
The point where you read people’s minds, tell them what they think and then imply that they are a hypocrite?
Does not seem to be very productive.
No.
But I do acknowledge the legitimacy of the opposing view. By this I mean: abortion is – in my view – a moral wrong. But I recognize the law says it’s permissible, and so I regard the position of those that champion it to be reasonable. I disagree with them; I don’t say they’re illegitimate, crazy, evil, or any of the similar imprecations hurled at one’s opponents in these discussions.
And while I admit that the site I chose deserves to have its bias questioned…why is a poll commissioned for the “National Women’s Law Center and Planned Parenthood Federation of America” free from any accusations of similar bias?
So forget my mind reading. You tell me what you think of the legitimacy of the APhA’s position.
What about the Pew poll? Do you suspect that one is biased?
Apples and oranges. The significance of your choosing lifesitenews.com is that it apparently blinded you to the existence of numerous public opinion polls in which large majorities disapproved of pharmacists denying birth control prescriptions based on religious-oriented views (I did not say that the polls quoted on that site were biased and/or illegitimate). As for the NWLC/Planned Parenthood Poll, you may question whether or not it was biased, but then you’d have to explain why you’re, um, overlooking two other polls I explicitly cited (CBS News/New York Times and Pew Research Center on People and the Press polls) which arrived at similar results.
I think I remember a similar thread where Bricker showed that the woman in question had to do little more than walk across a street and down several doors to a competitor’s address. IIRC, he posted a Google map showing the outrage was over little more than a 2 or 3 minute walk.
That being the case, what’s the big deal over a pharmacist who sends business elsewhere due to moral issues? In no time the word will be out and referrals will cease to that location.
Assuming, of course, there is an reasonable alternative available for the woman, and the prescription script is not withheld.
I wouldn’t have a problem with a pharmacist refusing a prescription if:
1- he is obligated to return the prescription form or whatever the equivalent electronic process would be
2- there is a competitor within say 5 miles that will not refuse OR
3- every public hospital is required to stock and dispense medications that local pharmacists might refuse.
If either option 2 or 3 are not available, then the pharmacy is acting as a quasi-monopoly and has an obligation to serve its customers. If you have a problem with people getting contraception or morning-after pills, then you should either stop being such a judgmental asshole or find yourself a different job.
In any event, a pharmacist who would confiscate someone’s written prescription should be charged with theft and attempted battery.
It’s bigoted and shows a total lack of professional responsibility. Such a person has demonstrated that he isn’t trustworthy enough to do the job and should be removed. If he’s willing to violate his professionalism out of one kind of bigotry, there’s no telling where else he’ll violate it.
And that presumes that he’s alone and not part of an organized campaign, and that the woman can find another pharmacy that’ll serve her within a reasonable distance. This is equivalent to dismissing complaints about segregation by saying “Oh, the ‘colored people’ can just go to another store.”
I don’t recall the Google map. I do recall his pooh-poohing the consequences of being denied contraception by a Conscience Pharmacist because one could obtain the medication at another location within reasonable distance. I also recall mentioning that violating someone’s right to legally prescribed medication is not excusable on such grounds, comparing it to denying someone the right to rent an apartment on racial or religious grounds and then excusing such behavior on the grounds that other lodging is available in the area.
The woman mentioned in the OP and this woman might disagree with you.
*"After a sexual assault one recent weekend, a young Tucson woman spent three frantic days trying to obtain the drug to prevent a pregnancy, knowing that each passing day lowered the chance the drug would work.
While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.
When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections."*
The Pew poll seems to have confined its question to religious objections. As atheists are fond of reminding us, religious and moral are not the same sphere.
Three seconds of Google:
Why are you the one to declare what the standards of professional responsibility are for pharmacists?
Honestly, that’s a bit of a stretch I think. In what way is the pharmacist untrustworthy for, as it is in California (my state), following the law?
I think that was covered by the big IF within my previous post. If other sources are reasonably available for the medication. If they are not, then the situation changes.
“The two also attempted to obtain the drug at a Planned Parenthood clinic, but could not afford the $70 cost and apparently were not informed that Planned Parenthood will work out payment on a sliding scale fee.”
I can’t tell from this why there apparently was additional cost at the PP clinic (possibly PP would have required a repeat consultation with a physician, as to my knowledge PP clinics are not pharmacies that fill prescriptions from anywhere). The bottom line is that the woman was denied emergency contraception at a drugstore by a Conscience Pharmacist and stated she could not obtain it in a timely manner.
I await your explanation as to why you think it’s OK for a pharmacy to violate someone’s right to medical care on the grounds that if you take enough trouble to look around, you might find another pharmacy that takes its responsibilities seriously. And please clarify which other rights you think are appropriate to deny, based on the argument that not everyone is doing it.
I’m someone who doesn’t think that religious bigotry has any place is the medical profession, that’s who. I’m someone who doesn’t think that they should be allowed to used their government-privileged position as a tool of persecution.
They demonstrate a willingness to subordinate a purely medical matter to their religious hatred of women. How is it any different than them, say, refusing to dispense painkillers to someone with cancer because cancer is God’s Judgement on sinners? And besides that, I wouldn’t trust someone like that to not start deliberately handing out the wrong medication to people he considers sinners to punish them for their “sins”.
I’m willing to say (and have said, very recently) that professionals should be guided by the best practices and position statements of their professional bodies.
I’m also willing to say, in this case, that the APhA is wrong and immoral, and they should change their position.
These are not conflicting statements. They are separate statements, and both are true.
I don’t accept that a person has a “right” to buy this particular product. But if they do, then let the government, that is “us”, provide it. Don’t force private citizens to do so.
You have a right to free speech, but I don’t have to buy your soapbox for your or even agree to sell you one if I happen to be in the business. As a newspaper owner, I don’t have to print your editorial.
A national professional body of pharmacists is the appropriate body to set professional standards. I have said this clearly. So yes, it is legitimate.
I do not agree with it however - in my opinion they should direct their members to fill all legal prescriptions. If a pharmacist has a moral quandry with providing medication legally prescribed by a doctor, then they should be free to find a profession where they will not have to do what they don’t like.
Feel free to call me a hypocrite.
I’m quite curious. How did we get from a moral objection to a religious hatred in one sentence?