Look, idiots, if you knew ahead of time (which you did) that a presumably unavoidable part of the occupation you were choosing violated your moral tenets, why did you choose that career path to begin with??
And having chosen it, it’s pretty damned presumptious of you that you feel you should both be exempted from that part of your job, and have the right to keep your job anyway.
Exactly why should the consciences of pharmacists be singled out for protection? If I were a geologist for a petroleum company, would I have the right to keep my job if I objected to helping plan the ANWR drilling, if I believed it was immoral on environmental grounds? Hell, no. If I were working for a company that got a contract relating to the Iraq war, would I have the right to keep my job while refusing to work on that? Nope.
But fundie pharmacists feel that right should belong to them, and their supporters have apparently passed laws in Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, and South Dakota backing them up on this, and similar laws have been introduced in a half-dozen other states.
If any state wants to pass a law protecting employees’ freedom to refuse work on grounds of conscience in all employment situations, that would at least be equally fair to everyone. Commerce would likely grind to a halt, but it would be equally fair to everyone. :rolleyes:
Lots of people are going to come in here and bitch about how they (the pharmacists) should be allowed to make their own moral choice. :rolleyes: x 1000.
No one ever thinks about the rape victim, date rape/family rape/stranger rape, who tries to get a morning-after pill only to be greeted by a snotty pharmacist.
The last time this came up the case was in a tiny little town, so it’s not like the woman had any alternatives, either.
This is just so wrong. Would these people also agree that a librarian has the right to withold books from use because he/she objects morally to their content?
I actually think it should be acceptable for the pharmacist to refuse to fill it on personal grounds (though I would second the :rolleyes: and the “why did you enter this field” sentiments). To refuse to send it to another pharmacy (or refuse to fill it if there is no other pharmacy) though should be grounds to revoke the pharmacist’s license.
Interesting concept of allowing people to be protected from firing for not doing work due to moral obejections. That could make for some interesting discussions
With all due respect, I think they’re doing this deliberately. I think they’re going into this work specifically to deny birth control and so forth. It’s not something they didn’t think through; to the contrary, they thought it through very thoroughly.
You missed the part in the article where some pharmacists have seized the prescriptions and refused to return them to the woman involved. Because, you know, birth control is evil.
Strangely enough, I have yet to hear of a case where a man has been denied his Viagra.
My apologies - I skipped past that part because it seemed pretty obvious.
My point is, they don’t have a legitimate claim to be doing what they’re doing. What this leaves is a straightforward power play to tell women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies.
This has been my line of thought, too. Does any church or established religion have a specific stance on the use of Viagra? Because it seems they should. After all, if it’s god’s will that women not mess with their reproductive organs (i.e., birth control pills and other contraception), shouldn’t it also be the same for men? Or is it that people are supposed to procreate whatever it takes?
No, not filling it should be grounds for revoking licenses. That is their job. Their chosen career. I don’t really care what their morals are, you leave them at home, and if you really disapprove of something legal, you leave the job.
I work for a not-for-profit. I disapprove highly of some of our fundraising tactics. However, if I outright refuse to do them, I’m going to have a serious talking-to from my boss. And my job is in no way related to the health industry.
How do the laws in SD, GA, MS and AK address the nonmaleficence principle? Conception for some women could cause great harm. Does the pharmacist with a moral objection to filling, for example, a birth control pill prescription interview the woman to find out why she’s filling it?
I’m totally for a pharmacy owner’s rights to not stock birth control pills or morning-after pills. If a pharmacist works for such a pharmacy, he or she can tell the prescription-holder that the place doesn’t carry it. If a pharmacist elects to not fill a prescription he or she finds morally reprehensible, I am not in favor protecting his/her job if his/her employer disagrees with and wishes to fire him/her because of his/her decision.
Well, see procreation for men is a right, but procreation for women is a responsibility. You can’t really like it, because if you do, you’re a slut. You’re supposed to only like it when you’re doing it with your lord and master, but…I haven’t really figured it out. I’d like to know how to reconcile the Viagra-is-okay people with the BC-is-evil people.
Fire them for refusing to provide medical care to those who do not share their religious beleifs. This is flat out religious discrimination. As someone who has worked in a medical field this is one of the most abhorrent things I have seen come down the pike. Personal moral objections my ass…
What about women who require the pill for severe menstrual cramps and PMS, or to treat endometriosis?
If I had a pharmacist grab my prescription and refuse to give it back, I’d whip out my cell phone and tell him I was going to call the doctor who prescribed it, and inform him that said pharmacist is doing this. THEN, if he still didn’t give in, I’d tell him I would also be phoning the local police and reporting him for fucking theft.
Too bad your line of thought is idiotic and irrelevent. The church doesn’t have a stance on viagra the same way they don’t have a stance on fertility treatments. The objection isn’t to women messing with their reproductive organs, the objection is to artifically preventing the creation of life.
My line of thought is the same as UrbanChic’s. It should be between the employer and the employee. If the employer has no problem with the employee not filling them out then OK, but the employee should get no protections if the employer doesn’t approve of his refusal.
