Yes. He’s said “they are good and the people support them” not “they are good because the people support them”.
He’s also said “they are legal because the people said so”.
As I mentioned before (I think) my right to extend my arm ends at your nose.
These conscience clauses are trampling on one person’s right so another can have a clear conscience.
I submit if the job a person does conflicts with their conscience it is they who should find a new line of work (or never have gotten into that line in the first place).
The people visiting a pharmacist have a right to expect the health care decisions they have made with their doctor to be met (as regards filling a legal prescription).
A pharmacist who imposes his/her “conscience” into it is now affecting the doctor/patient relationship and substituting their own judgment. Never mind the woman’s health. Never mind what doctors have determined. Just input the pharmacist’s feelings and that is the end of it.
That is not proper in my view.
Not true.
Note, that was in response to Mole’s argument about how treatment should work and how doctors’ with regard to physicians and pharmacists. To be fair, Bricker has been quite… cagey… when it comes to actually stating his opinions, staking out a view, and trying to defend it. So far his argument has pretty much boiled down to ‘the court said it so nyeh nyeh!’ and sniping at tidbits he sees in other people’s posts. So far though, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck. So I’ll agree that it’s not an ad pop fallacy when Bricker offers anything at all more substantial as justification than ad pop reasoning.
Should I also mention the argumentum ad antiquitatem that was used in an attempt to gainsay the reasoning behind the current state of medical practice in America?
If I put a clear sign on my pharmacy, my website, and my flyers saying “I DON’T SELL CONTRACEPTIVES” and even call my pharmacy “THE NO CONTRACEPTIVES PHARMACY” can people expect me to have them?
People don’t have the right to force others into selling products they don’t want to, whatever their job is. If the law says it is legal to force people to sell a product or provide a service, it is still morally wrong, yet legal. The now-forced seller would have to choose between following their consciences or not.
And while I’m at it. Every time I mention “what if they choose to close shop?” it’s always either “good riddance” or “someone else will do it”, but these answers contradict the classic “she can´t get the pills”.
Sorry for the double post.
The people think it is right and have enacted laws. That’s what he said.
The fact that somethingis old doesn’t make it wrong or right, but mentioning it doesn’t make it an argumentum ad antiquitatem. Stating the statu quo is not a fallacy.
If I wanted to change the colours of traffic lights to brown, purple and grey it wouldn’t be a fallacy to say “dude, it’s been red-yellow-green for ages so changing it has to be thought very carefully”.
(I’ll stop defending **Bricker **now, he can do it better.)
This is simply not true.
If you want to open, say, an Emergency Room (hospital) then there are very distinct regulations that demand what they must provide at a minimum to be deemed one. If you run a nursing home same thing. Same for an ambulance service (you can’t just paint “Ambulance” on the side of your car and advertise yourself as an ambulance service…you must meet minimum requirements). I am unaware of what the requirements are to open a pharmacy and call yourself a pharmacy but I am willing to bet they also have minimum requirements.
No one can force you to work (that would be slavery). If you are a pharmacy owner and want to close your doors that is fine. No town is obligated to have a pharmacy. No individual is obligated to run a pharmacy.
If you are a pharmacist and want to open shop it is prudent to look for places that have a need and open one there.
The US had Jim Crow laws for 90 years.
Didn’t make them right or proper or moral.
The only arguments he’s really advanced are that it’s good because a court decided it, or it’s good because it’s the will of the people, or it’s good because we can force people to do some things that they abhor as part of work (but not others), and he hasn’t explained what governing principle he’s using, other than ad pop, to explain why not providing meals to blacks at lunch counters is bad but not providing drugs to women at pharmacies.
As he hasn’t really offered an argument on why that law is right, and why its potential unintended consequences are okay to ignore besides their (potential) likelihood, and has in fact steadfastly resisted calls for him to actually provide and support his own position, all that we really have is that ad pop fallacy.
That’s not what happened. Jack offered a reasoned claim as to why the medical profession had evolved certain rules and regulations to govern its behavior, and countered with the argumentum ad antiquitatem by claiming that there was an older tradition that took precedence. He didn’t simply mention it in passing, but as a rebuttal.
Again though, as his argument has been downright dainty when it comes to actually taking and supporting a position, maybe it was just an attempt to snipe at Jack and not an attempt at an actual rebuttal. Sure looked like one to me though.
Lets see, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Formation 1916.
I’m 47
- serious sex ed education at ~14 or 15
= yeah, 30+ fucking years.
BTW I’ve always thought ground fetus was a savory not a sweet, now that I think I know what carapulcras is (I’ll take Peruvian Cuisine for $500 Alex.) sounds good, extra red chilis and light on the ground zygote, if you please!
It has “childbirth” twice too (as if the number of times either appears in a goddamn Wiki cite means anything). So now that the reason Methergine was prescribed is back to a coin toss (since there actually is a doctor in this [del]house[/del] thread I am kinda curious about just what Methergine is most commonly prescribed for) we’re just left with the problem that the pharmacist isn’t flipping a fair coin. Whether it was a Planned Parenthood nurse or the patient that went to the pharmacy it seems damn clear that it was “PP” and NOT the “C20H25N3O2” that offended the pharmacist’s delicate sensibilities. Anybody really doubt that if the 'script was from the town’s beloved OB-GYN it would have been filled without even the batting of an eyelash?
Why not?
We seem to have established that the abhorrence of abortion and abortion-related treatments is a reasonable basis for refusing to serve a particular client a particular medicine.
Hell why stop there?
“Had an abortion” isn’t a protected class. Why shouldn’t Larry the Landlord’s First Amendment protected, deeply held convictions, and religious beliefs trump your . . . wait I can’t seem to find any Rent an Apartment Amendment.
Penicillin and Band-Aids aren’t the stretch. The question has gone from “I shouldn’t be forced to provide chemicals that directly cause the death of fertilized eggs/zygotes/embryos/fetuses/babies” conscience clauses to “I shouldn’t be forced to provide chemicals that might have been prescribed to deal with the after effects of having an abortion”. The former is at least arguable, the latter is NOT.
Fine, but that’s not the issue with the Idaho pharmacist.
The pharmacist didn’t say “Sorry, this pharmacy doesn’t stock that drug”. The only issue for the pharmacist was why the drug was needed, “Sure, this pharmacy stocks that drug, but I won’t sell it to you if you need it because you had an abortion”.
As Jules Winnfield so elegantly said;
“Ain’t the same fucking ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same fucking sport.”
CMC fnord!
And sometimes they stop at the pharmacy on the way home from the ER and stand in line waiting because there’s no one else to do that for them, even though they’re exhausted and hurting and want desperately to be in their bed, but have no choice. Or sometimes the person who stands in line is someone who’s been nice enough to do it on behalf of the patient. Are we now suggesting that if someone isn’t hospitalized or bedridden then there’s no harm to come from them from being sent on a runaround to get needed medication?
Which is why Orthodox Jewish men who follow the proscription of kol isha don’t work as stage managers at places where women sometimes sing, even if they’re great stage managers. Pentecostal Christian abstentionists don’t work in restaurants that have liquor licenses. An anti-abortion OB-GYN never gets training in abortion and can work at a hospital where they’re not performed and in a practice that neither performs nor refers for them.
And a pharmacist who has moral problems with performing the job in a retail pharmacy because of contraceptives and “abortion-related drugs” could work in a Catholic hospital, a childrens’ hospital, a nursing home, in a managed care pharmacy that doesn’t involve direct patient contact or a vast variety of different jobs that require a PharmD and don’t require getting close to icky bad birth control pills or Methergine for icky bad sinning abortion-getting women or Plan B for those sluts who got raped or had a condom break.
If you “abhor” a central part of the work that you do – knowing that a majority of women will use prescription contraceptives at some point in their lives, and knowing that they are amongst the most common drugs prescribed in this country – then you find a line of work that won’t cause such vast moral conflict. You take personal responsibility for managing your moral wellbeing while limiting the impact upon others.
Unless, of course, you see your role as evangelical and want to refuse to fill prescriptions because it gives you an opportunity to preach your gospel of “birth control kills the widdle babies” to all and sundry who might have the misfortune of needing to have a prescription filled while you and your holy crusade are behind the pharmacy counter.
To an extent. But I don’t believe that we are going to be united in agreeing that it’s reasonable to refuse to treat a woman for complications after the fact of an abortion or, as in the Idaho case, on the possibility that she might have had an abortion, based on the nature of her prescription. Or that broad conscience clause laws that aren’t crafted to specifically relate solely to contraceptives and abortifacients are acceptable, for exactly that reason.
Beyond being non-responsive to questions and ultra-coy about your beliefs, it appears you have not read and/or failed to comprehend what’s been said in your own thread, as we have been discussing the Idaho case of pharmacist refusal and its ramifications in multiple posts since I first brought it up (see post #4).
Hell, you’re not even paying attention to your own posts. By defending the existence of Conscience Pharmacists as not affecting the “vast majority” of patients, you yourself are suggesting that a minority have been or will be affected.
Of course you are also trying to avoid addressing the point I made - that in enacting laws to protect certain classes of people, we do not do so with the understanding that it’s OK to have those rights violated if it happens only a certain small percentage of the time. “Our voting rights laws work great 96% of the time, sorry remaining 4%.” Um, I don’t think so.
And lastly, that brilliant contention of yours that patients denied legally prescribed drugs can just walk four blocks to the next drugstore (no matter how small the community they live in and the possibility that there either is no conveniently located alternative drugstore that will be free of Conscience Pharmacists). Let’s extend that contention to being denied lodging on the basis of race or religion. “No biggie, just walk a few blocks over and somebody will surely have an apartment for you to rent.”
That’s not a tenable and just solution, and you know it.
**Jackmannii **
There is one very important thing I believe you, and most of the participants in this thread have missed.
The Idaho case is not a harbinger of public peril. In fact, the Idaho law is specific with respect to exigent need cases. If there was not another, non-objecting provider available to dispense the medication in question, the CC pharmacist would have, under Idaho law, been required to dispense it.
The law does not act to the detriment of women, instead, it allows, under specific circumstances, the right to refuse to fill. It is not designed to prevent women, under the most extreme circumstances, from receiving medication or services. Yet that’s the way it is being misrepresented herein.
We know that the Idaho authorities reviewed the case and found that the pharmacist acted appropriately under the provisions of the Idaho law. We also know the patient received her medication after the PP rep called a different pharmacy. Total inconvenience to the woman’s representative consisted of having to call the prescription to a different pharmacy.
So you offer up the Idaho case as an example of someone who was denied at a pharmacy and had no access to another one.
I failed to comprehend? Here are three Walgreen’s within five blocks of each other in Nampa:
Walgreens - Place page
www.walgreens.com - 2219 12th Ave Rd, Nampa - (208) 318-0536
Walgreens - 7 reviews - Place page
www.walgreens.com - 700 12th Ave South, Nampa - (208) 467-1560
Walgreens - Place page
www.walgreens.com - 932 Caldwell Boulevard, Nampa - (208) 318-0018
And that’s just Walgreens. I suspect there are other pharmacies.
No, I’m not. I’m suggesting that no one will be actually unable to purchase medicine they want. No one.
That’s not true at all. We routinely accept that the law isn’t perfect, and the general solution may not be the perfect solution in all cases.
Don’t tell me what I know. I know that I have repeated said that race is not the same thing as filling a prescription, and that I reject any attempt to equate them. And YOU know that. But that doesn’t seem to stop you from trotting out that canard again.
I also know that despite repeated requests, you can’t actually cite a single person who was unable to walk four blocks to the next pharmacy and get a prescription filled there. Because such people exist only in your tortured imagination. My invitation to you to produce an actual case led to the embarrassing example above, the Nampa Idaho women who was stymied at a Walgreen’s with two other Walgreen’s in a five-block area. Shall I list other Nampa, Idaho pharmacies?
Albertsons-Sav-on - Greenhurst & 12th - 2 reviews - Place page
albertsons.shoplocal.com - 2400 12th Avenue Road, Nampa - (208) 465-6597
Walgreens - Place page
www.walgreens.com - 2219 12th Ave Rd, Nampa - (208) 318-0536
Vic’s Family Pharmacy - 1 review - Place page
maps.google.com - 1603 12th Avenue Road # A, Nampa - (208) 319-1073
Walmart Pharmacy - Place page
www.walmart.com - 2100 12th Ave Rd, Nampa - (208) 467-5159
Paul’s Pharmacy -
11 reviews - Place page
www.pauls.net - 407 12th Ave Rd, Nampa - (208) 467-3913
Reddish Pharmacy - 1 review - Place page
maps.google.com - 215 E Hawaii Ave # 100, Nampa - (208) 466-7823
Sav On Pharmacy - Place page
www.albertsons.com - Ste B, 2400 12th Avenue Road, Nampa - (208) 463-2903
Yes, we can see how difficult it would have been for the only case you can find to get that prescription filled, can’t we?
That’s the best case you’ve got, and it’s crap, just like the rest of your argument.
Oh, and being “ultra-coy” about my beliefs? I have one belief I’ll make public, and that’s that your argument is the worst I’ve seen in a good while here. And that’s saying something.
Again;
The reason for refusing to fill a prescription for an abortifacient is it kills the <fertilized egg - fetus>.
The reason for refusing to fill a prescription for a blood vessel constrictor and smooth muscle agonist is . . . what?
Other than it is <occasionally - often> prescribed after an abortion.
Is the objection to the effect of the drug or an objection to the person buying it?
The former is defensible, the latter is not.
CMC fnord!
No. Do try and pay attention. Here’s what you said:
That’s exactly what I did; I cited (again) the case of an Idaho patient denied a legal prescription for an anti-bleeding medication.
You are continuing to dodge the issue of whether discrimination is OK if it only involves a minority within a protected class, while further arguing that discrimination is OK if those being discriminated against suffer inconvenience (as opposed to physical injury or death, though how you confidently exclude those possibilities remains a mystery). Do you find both those propositions tenable? Can you cite other instances where protected groups may be discriminated against if most of the group doesn’t suffer, or where “inconvenience” is the outcome (as in the renter unjustly denied lodgings, who supposedly can find an apartment elsewhere in the neighborhood)? How is 1) violation of patient rights such a unique proposition that it can’t be compared to violation of any other protected group’s rights, and 2) why should pharmacists be let off the hook for failing to perform their duty towards the patient, when obligations of health care providers in general to properly perform their duties towards patients are well-established in ethics codes and laws?
In the absence of any substantive argument from you (apart from “Your posts suck!”) we can only infer that you believe failure to perform professional duties and discrimination are fine, if they occur in the service of an anti-abortion rights agenda.
Is all this ducking and dodging making you dizzy? I’d suggest an anti-nausea prescription, which hopefully will be filled by a druggist whose conscience isn’t acting up.
Now that you’ve pointed out that the entire population of Idaho recides in Nampa, all my fears are alieved.
The fact is that the woman was not denied the medication. She was inconvenienced to the extend that her representative had to make an additional telephone call to obtain it. You’re sensationalizing this situation to fit the needs of your argument.
That patient was not “wronged.” That patient has no right have a prescription filled at a particular store by a particular pharmacist. This is called “begging the question,” a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly (or explicitly) in the offered premise.
This patient was not wronged. This patient was refused service. The patient could have walked out the door and gone less than five blocks to find another Walgreens, or even less distance to find another pharmacy. You are trying to prove she was wronged by defining “wronged” as “refused service.” But that’s the very point we’re debating.
Because all “rights” are not the same. The law recognizes this by assigning different levels of scrutiny to different types of classifications. In this case, the analogy is weakened even further because this is not a law that imposes a direct government action upon the class of “persons seeking prescription medication;” but rather simply permits pharmacists the right to refuse to serve such persons under certain circumstances.
I don’t agree this involves “protected groups” in such a way as to trigger Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection, or Due Process protections, and so far as I’m aware no court has agreed either.
And don’t tell me that obligations of pharmacists are well established in law, because the ability to refuse service is ALSO well-established in law. When you invoke this claim, you’re saying I should read only the parts of the law that favor your position, and toss out the parts inconvenient to you.
Sorry, chum, but it doesn’t work that way. You think there’s a remedy at law for this? Fine. Pursue it. Pluck it from the tree that you think it grows on.
You cannot switch nimbly back and forth between the law and your self-serving, amorphous and ill-defined concepts of “morality,” as pleases you. If you believe there’s a legal issue here, let’s discuss the legal authorities and decisions, and see who wins. (Hint: his names rhymes with Quicker and Picker).
Your best bet is to return to your half-baked claims about morality, where at least no one can definitively contradict you.
In the absence of any substantive argument from you (apart from “Your posts suck!”) we can only infer that you believe failure to perform professional duties and discrimination are fine, if they occur in the service of an anti-abortion rights agenda.
Is all this ducking and dodging making you dizzy? I’d suggest an anti-nausea prescription, which hopefully will be filled by a druggist whose conscience isn’t acting up.
[/QUOTE]
Good. Glad I could help.
SInce the complaint Jackmanii tossed out involved a Walgreen’s in Nampa, we know that the patient he claims was stuck with no other options was in Nampa, Idaho, at a Walgreens.
No matter which Walgreens was involved, another Walgreens was mere blocks away.
I think I’ll do a documentary about this fact.
Aw, shit. Turns out the title “An Inconvenient Truth” is already taken.
It is very odd that you are repeating this mistake, as you’ve already had your ignorance cleared up. Even if we ignore that there are several other states with similar laws and you are refusing to address any but this one’s, it still does not say what you are claiming.
So even when a pharmacist somehow determines that a condition is “life threatening” (undefined) and that there is “no other health care professional being capable of treating the emergency” (undefined), the pharmacist is explicitly not required to dispense the prescription and, instead, must provide “treatment and care” (undefined).