This may be the most succinct explanation of what it feels like to be a liberal. Or maybe (hopefully) it’s just you.
I would say that you may well have a right to “impact other people negatively.” It all depends on the specifics. Punching someone else in the nose is a good example of when you don’t. Offering up offensive opinions or speech is. A rape survivor may be traumatized by dismissive langauge about date rape, but the speaker has every right to utter it, even if she is “impacted negatively.”
The view that people are required to avoid “negatively impacting” others is dangerous, in a very totalitarian, Orwellseque way. We’re not all a family that must get along; we’re entitled to piss off our fellow humans. That’s why the punching nose statement works so well, because it gives a clear example of te delimiter of rights, of action contrasted with passive inactivity.
Holy shit, am I glad you’re not in charge of… anything.
I’ve been waiting for someone to make this error. Thanks for being the one to do it.
While there is no duty to rescue, it is possible to create such a duty by your own actions. If you invite your friends’ kids to the pier, and tell their protective parents that they should not worry, because you will keep an eye on them at all time, and you will make sure nothing bad happens to them, then you are going to look pretty damn foolish in court claiming that you had no duty to rescue.
Similarly, refusal to act when, by participating in a state licensing scheme you have undertaken the responsibility to act, can be seen as punching the nose.
Obviously this isn’t the end of the argument - the question still exists of what responsibilities you undertake through licensing. But it should be an end to the whole “this is inaction, it cannot be regulated” crapola.
Yes, I’m dodging the question a bit, but the question is essentially pointless. Pharmacist receive a general qualification, not a specialist one; every pharmacist is essentially qualified to do every other pharmacist’s job (within the state), absent non-critical things like using different pharmacies’ computer systems and the like. Given the widespread use of combined oral contraceptives, dispensing the same would be considered an integral part of the pharmacist’s role.
However, doctors are further specialized, and doctors with personal objections to dispensing birth control don’t go into requiring it.
However, since you ask, I would favor requiring a qualified physician to write a prescription for birth control if asked to do so, absent any medical reason to object.
By the same token, I fully support the right of an individual pharmacist to refuse to fill a script because of a drug-drug interaction, drug-seeking behavior or any other valid pharmacological or medical reason.
No, but I agree that it may not be practicable based on existing law.
The pervasiveness of the practice has to be measured against the likelihood that a pharmacist objects to dispensing.
Here is an old story from 2005 about it. It includes a brief bit about the pharmacist who would not give back the prescription that he refused to fill, and that he believed that it was his moral duty (or whatever, I’m not quoting, I’m just summing up) that he should not tell this person what other options they had for getting their prescription filled. And he directly compared birth control pills to murder.
As far as this claim that everyone has access. The town of State Line in MS has 1 pharmacy. Independently owned. So if in this pharmacy they have a pharmacist that refuses to dispense birth control pills, the person requesting would have to go to the next nearest town, which to be fair is only 4 miles away. funny though, when I mapquest looking for a pharmacy in Yellow Pine (nearest town), I get referred back to State Line. So if State Line won’t fill it, then I have to go to the next nearest pharmacy (which is also an independent) and is 13 miles away. If you look at the stats of this town you can see that its not a hotbed of affluence, so reliable transportation is not a guarantee, and public transportation is highly unlikely.
It took me 5 minutes to find a pretty crappy situation for someone to be in, if their doctor prescribed BC pills and the pharmacist wouldn’t fill them. If 1 place exists where one person’s belief system could potentially interfere with another person receiving their prescribed therapeutic medication, then that’s too many places.
The real distinction has to do with physicians and patients. The physician-patient relationship is at the top of the pyramid when it comes down to medically-related decisions (to get more precise, virtually everyone would put the patient’s interests at the very top).
Ancillary medical personnel may have important roles, but they are of lesser importance. You cannot have subordinate personnel short-circuiting health care for non-medical reasons that their job does not entail.
A vastly better analogy than Damuri’s is this: Let’s say a woman should not have/does not want children. Her physician recommends a tubal ligation and the patient agrees. Surgery is scheduled. Just before the procedure is scheduled to start, the nurse anesthetist in the OR refuses to provide anesthesia. He disapproves of tubal ligations because “God tells us to be fruitful and multiply”. Should that be a stance protected by law?
No one doubts that a nurse anesthetist is important, or that he/she has a right to withhold services for a medically valid reason (i.e. the patient is allergic to the scheduled anesthetic agent, or the surgeon is drunk). The nurse anesthetist’s personal beliefs do not enter into the equation, and cannot/should not stand in the way of a medically valid decision undertaken by the patient and physician.
See above. Pharmacists are not equivalent to physicians. In that analogy, a validly arranged service has not been agreed to and then countermanded by a third party outside the scope of their job. And it is likely in any case that a physician who won’t prescribe contraceptive medication for personal reasons and who causes a delay in care by refusing to arrange prompt referral to a physician who will, is likely to come under scrutiny by their state medical board and/or specialty board.
Why, he’s a veritable Gandhi! :dubious:
Answer: Get your limp, passive-aggressive self out of the way and stop attempting to deny patients needed health care.
You’re just wrong. The pharmacist doesn’t care what you do; just don’t involve him in the use of contraception. Go get your pills somewhere else. I don’t see how he’s forcing you to conform to his own moral standards. If he closes his business on Sunday morning is he forcing you to go to church?
And the “swinging fist” analogy is laughable. He’s literally not doing anything.
So getting licensed is like punching you in the nose? I guess if he had never gotten licensed, and had never opened that pharmacy, you’d have all the birth control you want?
And state oversight does not (as far as I know) require him to stock any specific drug.
This thread almost makes me want to become a pharmacist, just so I can piss people off by opening a pharmacy and not carrying any drugs. Then they’ll know harassment and coersion!
Wow - either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you just are never going to get it. Shades of banging my head against a brick wall.
Well, getting licensed isn’t identical punching you in the nose. However, it is, for the sake of this analogy, the action necessary to be taken. And if one person didn’t get licensed, I find it likely that another person would have taken their place in that market (which may only be big enough for one pharmacy), and better serve the community by not allowing their own personal prejudices to intrude on the welfare of others.
In some states state oversight does require that. In others it does not. Have you not been reading the thread, because I was pretty certain that was the issue that was being debated here.
Not giving the presciption back to the customer should be grounds for discipline by the state licensing board. I don’t know if it is, but it should be.
If the anesthetist works for the hospital she could be disciplined or fired if she was required to attend to that patient by her employement agreement with the hospital. If it was some kind of independent anesthetist, she can refuse to do the surgery, but I don’t know why she would wait until the patient was on the table. She’d probably decline it when she was approached to do it.
Here’s (head’s up - PDF) an even better cite from the Guttmacher institute. It does unfortunately include abortion, which is a completely different topic than just the pill/
Looks like New Jersey wins because the state laws indicate that pharmacies have a duty to fill valid prescriptions. It doesn’t say specifically in this pdf, but I would suspect that contra-indication refusals are still allowed.
I don’t want a doctor who discriminates based on his religious belief, no matter how good he is. It’s not a matter of skill, other pharmacists will fill that gap. But I want the discrimination to stop and that’s why it’s preferable to have him be a mechanic instead, no religious objections to spark plugs.
Lost in the debate and the suggestions of pharmacies banning Viagra or Rogaine is that fact that contraceptions are for women only. That is why its discriminatory. Until men can get pregnant, this fact will not change. And yes, I would also be for the firing of pharmacists who refuse to sell Viagra because it’s a product exclusively for men. Rogaine, not so much, since it’s pretty common.
Not to me. I don’t have a cite, but I’d wager that there are a lot more women buying contraceptives than blind people with seeing-eye dogs. There’s simply not a comparable scale to the discrimination. Plus, the consequences of missing a few taxis are not as severe as being unable to prevent a pregnancy. Lastly, I think most people think the blind as more sympathetic victims because of their conditions, but fail to think of women forced to carry pregnancies to term as victims as well
I don’t see how this applies as a favor to “my friends”. You must be talking about the religious aspects of it solely. I don’t see it as atheists vs. religious people since if an atheist somehow works in a church and had to sing hymns or something for his job, I would say he has to do it or get fired. I see this more as employer vs. employee, where if the employer says you have to do something that’s part of your job, something that is ubiquitous to your profession and you know you’ll run into if you pursue that career, then you have to do it or get fired. What the employer is asking isn’t to dig up a dead body and fuck it, he’s tell him to sell a perfectly legal product. It is only the pharmacist that is dragging religion into it. A better place would be if he sought help from his union.
So in summary: I think it’s discrimination because the product is one for a specific group, the reason for the objection is religious, and it’s not a first amendment issue and more like a dispute between labor and management.
Here’s a platitude for you: “Your right to stand passively in the middle of the road extends precisely as far as you’re not obstructing traffic.” Oh wait, that’s not a platitude, that’s the law. Must be a liberal law, then, huh? Damn liberals!!
So your pissed that I’m not falling for your pedantic semantic picking at my casual use of a platitude. Wah wah. I just want these pharmacists not to plant themselves in the middle of the pharmacy counter and then start obstructing traffic.
Of course he cares what I do - otherwise he’d sell me the contraception without worrying about whether I’ll use it. How can you say this with a straigt face? Seriously, if you have to misrepresent reality to support your position, how can I believe that your position could stand on its own without the misrepresentation?
Yes. Communities will not stand for a complete lack of access to pills; some avenue of attaining them will be available. Any argument that presumes otherwise is dismissable on the face of it.
Here, you’re probably right. Doesn’t stop me from arguing it should, though, does it?
The purpose of these articles is to get away from the argument that this is a matter of idealism. It is not. This has actually occurred, in the US, and according to the OP in the UK.
As a bonus, in this article the issue that all these pharmacists (and some GP’s and Gyno’s) have is that birth control pills cause the fertilized egg to not implant in the wall, thus causing a “silent abortion”. I believe I recall a poster saying that this was not their reason for refusing to fill the prescriptions. Turns out - yes it is their reason. Maybe I am misremembering what the poster said, but now we know exactly what the reason is - straight out of their own mouths.
I’d do it differently - I’d go all Mother Theresa and not sell any painkillers, or anything that might indirectly alleviate pain. Would that be a problem?
Great, so that solves our problem of access. If I don’t sell the birth control, someone else will come along and sell it and put me out of business. The system works!