What do you think of this case?
Imagine it was your wife or GF. Imagine it was a baby you wanted. Imagine the hospital you ran her to in a crisis told you they have a “conscientious objection” to terminating the pregnancy. There is no time to get to another hospital. Your wife/GF and baby die as a result of their refusal of service.
Explain to me how that is ok and I’ll be swayed to your side.
No, it means they are woman hating scum. And what makes a person a person is defined by brain function, not nine people.
So; what would you choose if it came down to saving a canister of a hundred frozen embryos or a six year old girl? The canister of embryos, or the little girl? If you really believe what you are saying, you’d lug away the can of frozen cells and let the girl burn.
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.
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.
Hm…what about places like South Dakota where abortion services aren’t accessible? Or places in Appalachia or bfe Wyoming where doctors and specialists are scarce? Not all health care needs are filled.
I would just must rather prefer that pharmacists cannot refuse to dispense perfectly legal medications.
In your opinion.
If you read the briefing they closed a shop over this. The children who were aborted would disagree with your definition of danger.
Not sure what your point is here.
I am saying do the job you are required to do. If your job is ti dispense medications it is not your place to second guess the doctor’s orders (except when the doctor fucks up…it is a pharmacist’s job to act as a check on the doctor to make sure the prescription will not harm the patient).
The little blobs of cells lack the neuro capability to agree or disagree with anything.
My point is that I would rather see strict enforcement of this idea in the hopes that people who can’t live up to it just won’t become pharmacists. It is not a pharmacist’s job to treat patients, nor is it a pharmacist’s job to act on his moral objection to medications. The latter just undermines the one with the actual medical degree.
How do these unborn children have an opinion?
Everytime a woman her menstrual cycle a potential baby is lost.
Everytime you jerk off that is sperm that could have made a baby.
Indeed it is quite common after fertilization occurs (sperm meets egg) for a woman’s body to self-abort. Very common occurrence.
And you have not answered my question above.
It is the pharmacist’s job to fill prescriptions. They act as a check on doctors to know if the prescription is amiss or to spot drug interactions the doctor may not be aware of.
It is not their place to second guess the doctor’s reasoning. If a woman has a valid prescription the pharmacist needs to fill it. If there is a problem the pharmacist needs to call the doctor and discuss it.
At the end of the day it is the pharmacist’s job to fill the prescription. Period.
That’s what I’ve been saying. :o
I disagree with the Illinois laws and rulings. I’d like to see that BS changed. Unless of course you want to open pharmacists up to malpractice suits. 
She had high blood pressure that raised her mortality rate but is a treatable disease. Normally this is a treatable disease but according to everything I read she was in serious distress and would have lost the child anyway. So I don’t see the comparison to the discussion. I agree with the administrator who was removed.
No, as a matter of objective reality, and going by the standards we use all the time except when we want to torment women. We don’t define a blob of cells as a person when it comes to removing a tumor, or an organ transplant, or an appendectomy, or a wart removal. That definition is used only as a justification for tormenting and humiliating women, it has no other purpose.
They weren’t children and had no opinions. Nor is using them as a weapon to beat women down the noble thing you are trying to pretend it is.
There are states that allow suicide. A pharmacist should not have to participate in this act.
As someone once said…
What If they want to be shot in the head?
It is relevant because it is the same thing.
Someone is withholding treatment because of their personal beliefs.
The Pope can excommunicate me if he wants and I wouldn’t give a shit.
But they excommunicated a nun. I am guessing she’d care about that.
They sent a message so if you find yourself bringing your sister/wife/GF to the hospital they may choose not to provide necessary services because of their personal beliefs.
Are you ok with that?
A pharmacist needs to fill a legally written prescription.
What happens with it is not their concern.
A physician should not be forced to murder a baby to maintain a license. So yes, I’m OK with it.
Definitely not okay with a hospital refusing an emergency service to someone because of a religious belief. I think that if a “Catholic” hospital refuses to provide an emergency abortion to a woman who will die without it, then they should be prosecuted and shut down as a hospital.