# Pharmacists and refusals **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713 "2011-04-08T20:18:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/201 "2011-04-11T08:10:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If you are ok with killing babies you are not human. See how that works. We could argue where the line is drawn but not that the baby doesn’t count. I would venture to say that pregnancies are a guaranteed risk factor to a mother’s health. Anything short of 100% mortality becomes a choice for both the doctor and the patient. No. I do not see how that works. The woman in question was 11 weeks into the pregnancy. Far, far before viability of the baby outside the womb. If mom dies, baby dies. Period. And you are still dodging the question. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/202 "2011-04-11T08:19:55Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No. I do not see how that works. > > The woman in question was 11 weeks into the pregnancy. Far, far before viability of the baby outside the womb. > > If mom dies, baby dies. Period. > > And you are still dodging the question. I guess we’re done discussing it if you don’t understand. I’ve explained my position as best I can. If it’s not 100% then there is room for ethical disagreement as to whether the doctor should have to perform an abortion. If it were me I’d have discussed this before conception (with my wife) so as to cede to her wishes but I don’t control a doctor’s ethics. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/203 "2011-04-11T08:45:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The opinion of what defines “actual” people was defined by 9 people. That you can delude yourself into believing it’s OK is your business. But if a pharmacist chooses not to participate in the imoral destruction of a growing human being that is their right. We’re not talking about RU-486, we’re talking about birth control pills and Plan B, which is in fact just very high-dosage birth control pills. The primary way in which they work is to suppress ovulation. There isn’t any “growing human” because there is no egg from which one can be made. If for some reason an egg _is_ released (a minor chance) and _is_ fertilized (an even more minor chance on top of the initial minor chance) it won’t implant. Just like **more than 50%** of _all_ fertilized eggs in women who aren’t using hormonal contraceptives at all. If contraceptives cause the “destruction of a growing human” they do so less frequently than nature itself. And in fact, since the majority of fertilized eggs never implant at all, (and there’s rarely any physical evidence of their existence) it’s impossible to know whether the vanishingly rare fertilizations that occur in women using contraceptives didn’t implant because of the contraceptives or didn’t implant because they never would have to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/204 "2011-04-11T14:00:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Forget about closing up shop. They should have their license revoked and be forbidden from any job in the medical sector. And imprisoned if someone is hurt or killed because of their bigotry. They are a danger to the community. So, the law changes listing a “must-carry, must-sell, no-questions-asked” list of medicines and the pharmacist goes to prison. It is interesting that a rational atheist goes bible-thumping fundamentalist with moral absolutes. Do you moreal absolutes have a chemical formula? Can they be found with double-blind studies? Can I describe the using the scientific method? Or are they your deeply-held pesonal opinions which you want forced on ohers? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Absolutely. > > If you cannot do the job then do not do the job. > > You may claim this could leave an area without a pharmacist but I believe in the market system and someone else who is willing to do their job will fill the gap in short order. We agree, then. In legals matter, follow the law and principles are more important than results, i.e. the principle of carrying certain pills is more impoiratnat than the result of maybe nor having a pharmacy for a while. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Did you see my cite in post #161? > > The hospital performed an abortion. The Catholic Church excommunicated the nun who allowed it to happen. > > All other administrators of Catholic hospitals will be aware of that an unwilling to to allow it in the future. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > MY POINT IS THAT I AM ASKING WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HAD THAT HOSPITAL NOT ALLOWED AN ABORTION AND SHE HAD DIED? > > Is that better? Sorry, but I’m tired of repeating myself. You’re acting like I’m arguing with you. I’m not. I was musing aloud. Clearly you don’t know the answer. Movin’ along now… [purely technical stuff]Excommunication in the case of abortions are automatic or Latae sententiae, nobody needs to pronounce it At most it is confirmed.[/purely technical stuff] The directives of the Catholic Church in the (statistically very rare) cases of the mother’s life being in danger because of the pregnancy are clear. Direct killing is never allowed, so no abortion, but the embryo/fetus can be removed even if there is a medical certainty that no matterwhat we do it’s going to die. It’s the difference between killing and allowing inevitable death. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > But if he decides to kill a woman, the bitch deserves it, right? One-trick pony all the way. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/205 "2011-04-11T14:05:27Z")
> [@villa](#): > > So explain to me why a Catholic pharmacist should be protected but a Christian Science pharmacist or a Christian Identity pharmacist shouldn’t. In a constitutional way of course. I’ll try one more time to make my point. After you indicate you understand the point I’m trying to making, whether you agree with it or not, we can discuss your increasingly absurd hypotheticals. If the courts were to hold the conscience clause exemptions invalid, the government would be one step closer to becoming \* the\* moral compass of our medical professionals. It should be an individuals right to exercise moral/ethical/religious judgment, not the government’s duty to legislate that judgment. That’s what’s being discussed here. Not whether women deserve the medical care they need. The above is an opinion, not a judgment on the morality of contraception. once more… The above is an opinion, not a judgment on the morality of contraception. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/206 "2011-04-11T14:41:52Z")
[QUOTE=Villa] So explain to me why a Catholic pharmacist should be protected but a Christian Science pharmacist or a Christian Identity pharmacist shouldn’t. In a constitutional way of course. [/quote] > [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’ll try one more time to make my point. After you indicate you understand the point I’m trying to making, whether you agree with it or not, we can discuss your increasingly absurd hypotheticals. > > If the courts were to hold the conscience clause exemptions invalid, the government would be one step closer to becoming \* the\* moral compass of our medical professionals. It should be an individuals right to exercise moral/ethical/religious judgment, not the government’s duty to legislate that judgment. That’s what’s being discussed here. Not whether women deserve the medical care they need. > > The above is an opinion, not a judgment on the morality of contraception. > > once more… > The above is an opinion, not a judgment on the morality of contraception. It seems as if your “point” is an absolute avoidance of the question. Should or should not Christian Scientists and/or Christian Identity phamacists have the right to let their religious beliefs guide how and if they dispense medicines? (edited to add)This is not avoidance of _your_ point, but a clarification of its application. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/207 "2011-04-11T14:59:08Z")
Since **Morgenstern** disdains “increasingly absurd hypotheticals”, how about this quite realistic situation I postulated earlier in the thread? > [@Jackmannii](#): > > I wonder about some fundamentalist pharmacist in a small town in, for example Idaho, who has a prescription called in for an anti-retroviral drug. He has no idea if it’s intended for someone who was exposed to HIV through a needlestick, intravenous drug use, rape, consensual sex or whatever means. Should he be permitted to interrogate the physician or nurse calling in the scrip as to the exact medical circumstances and then refuse to dispense if he doesn’t get the information (or refuse to dispense if the patient was morally deficient in getting exposed to HIV)? Would you agree that the law should protect a Conscience Pharmacist refusing to dispense under these circumstances, or not? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/208 "2011-04-11T15:06:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It seems as if your “point” is an absolute avoidance of the question. Should or should not Christian Scientists and/or Christian Identity phamacists have the right to let their religious beliefs guide how and if they dispense medicines? (edited to add)This is not avoidance of _your_ point, but a clarification of its application. Or perhaps I’m avoiding participating in a Reductio ad absurdum argument. Pharmacist who don’t dispense **any** medications, are’t pharmacists are they? Hate groups aren’t recognized religions are they? Edited to add. My point, once again, is that I’m against the government legislating morality, in any form. Whether it’s who you marry, sleep with, or what color socks you wear on Monday. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/209 "2011-04-11T15:15:07Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Hate groups aren’t recognized religions are they? [Yep.](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/summer/secret-identity) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/210 "2011-04-11T15:15:31Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Or perhaps I’m avoiding participating in a Reductio ad absurdum argument. > > Pharmacist who don’t dispense **any** medications, are’t pharmacists are they? > Hate groups aren’t recognized religions are they? > > Edited to add. > My point, once again, is that I’m against the government legislating morality, in any form. Whether it’s who you marry, sleep with, or what color socks you wear on Monday. I’m sorry, I didn’t know you had to belong to a recognized religion to have religious beliefs. I believe the law pertains to religious beliefs, so should a Christian Identity Movement pharmacist be allowed to dispense medicine as guided by his religious beliefs? I am holding my breath while eagerly awaiting your direct reply to the question. ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/211 "2011-04-11T15:26:46Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > My point, once again, is that I’m against the government legislating morality, in any form. Whether it’s who you marry, sleep with, or what color socks you wear on Monday. But you’re perfectly fine with individuals forcing their religious views on everyone else. Religion and personal beliefs have no business being involved in a doctor patient relationship. If a pharmacist can’t handle that, they need to find another profession. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/212 "2011-04-11T16:25:02Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’ll try one more time to make my point. After you indicate you understand the point I’m trying to making, whether you agree with it or not, we can discuss your increasingly absurd hypotheticals. > > If the courts were to hold the conscience clause exemptions invalid, the government would be one step closer to becoming \* the\* moral compass of our medical professionals. It should be an individuals right to exercise moral/ethical/religious judgment, not the government’s duty to legislate that judgment. That’s what’s being discussed here. Not whether women deserve the medical care they need. > > The above is an opinion, not a judgment on the morality of contraception. > > once more… > The above is an opinion, not a judgment on the morality of contraception. Actually, what you are doing is exactly placing the government as the moral compass of medical professionals. You are having the government make the decision that opposition to contraception and abortion are “important” enough beliefs that a person should be allowed to maintain their job while refusing to perform it; whereas **other** beliefs, such as those held by Christian Scientists and Christian Identity members are not sufficiently important. These laws are the government holding certain beliefs up as more important than others. They’re placing the government in a position where it ranks the validity of different religious beliefs, in absolute violation of the First Amendment. I’m intrigued to see how you argue that religious opposition to abortion/contraception should be protected, and religious racism should not be, without making “a judgment on the morality of contraception.” It’s not that I don’t understand your point, it’s just that your point is completely wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/213 "2011-04-11T16:25:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m sorry, I didn’t know you had to belong to a recognized religion to have religious beliefs. I believe the law pertains to religious beliefs, so should a Christian Identity Movement pharmacist be allowed to dispense medicine as guided by his religious beliefs? > I am holding my breath while eagerly awaiting your direct reply to the question. You’re asking me whether a hate group, whose dogma is based on racial or ethnic discrimination based on a belief that maligns an entire class of people for their immutable characteristics, should have an honest religious/ethical/moral exemption form participating in a specific act based on that belief? Is that what you’re asking? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/214 "2011-04-11T16:37:24Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You’re asking me whether a hate group, whose dogma is based on racial or ethnic discrimination based on a belief that maligns an entire class of people for their immutable characteristics, should have an honest religious/ethical/moral exemption form participating in a specific act based on that belief? Is that what you’re asking? I’m asking more whether you can rationalize, under the First Amendment, giving such an exception to some religious beliefs and not others, while still maintaining you are not making a judgment on the morality of those beliefs… ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/215 "2011-04-11T16:41:42Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I’ve explained my position as best I can. If it’s not 100% then there is room for ethical disagreement as to whether the doctor should have to perform an abortion. If it were me I’d have discussed this before conception (with my wife) so as to cede to her wishes but I don’t control a doctor’s ethics. Discussing such things with your wife ahead of time is all well and good. However, you are in no position to diagnose your wife if she becomes critically ill. If that happens you do what anyone will do which is get her to the nearest hospital ASAP. Now, should the hospital have a sign on the door spelling out what procedures their ethics will not let them perform? Are you going to take the time to read it? Are you going to get back in the car and drive 30 more minutes to another hospital? Heck, you do not even know what is wrong with her yet. After some tests the doctor tells you the problem and they will do nothing about it. Time has been wasted, bundle up your wife and drive to the next hospital and hope they will save her assuming she doesn’t die before you even get there. You have a right to expect lifesaving care from a hospital and not some lesson in their personal morality while your wife dies. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/216 "2011-04-11T16:42:37Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You’re asking me whether a hate group, whose dogma is based on racial or ethnic discrimination based on a belief that maligns an entire class of people for their immutable characteristics, should have an honest religious/ethical/moral exemption form participating in a specific act based on that belief? Is that what you’re asking? Is there something so complicated and/or mystifying about this question: > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Should or should not Christian Scientists and/or Christian Identity phamacists have the right to let their religious beliefs guide how and if they dispense medicines? that you cannot answer it without playing the “In Other Words” game? What I am asking is contained within that quote, and I’m not going reword it into something you think you might be able to answer without embarassing yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/217 "2011-04-11T16:58:11Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, the law changes listing a “must-carry, must-sell, no-questions-asked” list of medicines and the pharmacist goes to prison. Nonsense. We are not talking about interfering with the professional judgment of pharmacists. We are talking about pharmacists deciding to ignore their professional training and duties so they can indulge in religious persecution. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > [QUOTE=Der Trihs] > But if he decides to kill a woman, the bitch deserves it, right? One-trick pony all the way. [/QUOTE] Hardly, I’m just pointing out the obvious. If a pharmacist or hospital can deny a woman an abortion out of religious malice, in order to punish her for her “sins”, then “killing the bitch because she deserves it” is exactly what they are doing on the occasions she dies from it. And it is an obvious and direct consequence of these so called “conscience” laws. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > You’re asking me whether a hate group, whose dogma is based on racial or ethnic discrimination based on a belief that maligns an entire class of people for their immutable characteristics, should have an honest religious/ethical/moral exemption form participating in a specific act based on that belief? Is that what you’re asking? No, that’s what you are saying should happen. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/218 "2011-04-11T17:05:54Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I’m asking more whether you can rationalize, under the First Amendment, giving such an exception to some religious beliefs and not others, while still maintaining you are not making a judgment on the morality of those beliefs… Do I need to point out that one is patent discrimination, disguised as a religion, and clearly violates public policy? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/219 "2011-04-11T17:18:56Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Do I need to point out that one is patent discrimination, disguised as a religion, and clearly violates public policy? What the hell do you mean “disguised as a religion”? That you simply don’t see you are sitting there and suggesting the government say “this religion good” and “that religion bad” is amazing. What you are doing is the absolute antithesis of the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_In_Black)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/220 "2011-04-11T17:21:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I cannot speak for **Der Trihs** but the issue is in that “deeply held personal belief”. > > You can cloak that belief in religious dogma if you like but it remains, at its core, a hatred for women. > > Perhaps “hatred” is too strong a word but certainly a willingness to oppress them. I know women who are against abortion. Does that mean that they want to oppress women too? I have a very hard time making any since of the argument that antiabortion = dosn’t like women. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=12)