You’re so close to a conceptual breakthrough here, it’s amazing you’re still so belligerent. Let’s take your own statement of principles one sentence at a time, shall we?
“There is a right to decide for yourself about abortion.” Indeed there is. The customer has that right indeed.
“There is none to decide for someone else.” Yet that is precisely what the pharmacist is doing, or attempting to do, by interfering with or actually withholding the means to execute that decision, an action that makes the decision meaningless. For some reason you’re defending his actions.
“Your right to decide about abortion is violated only when steps are taken to prevent you from getting or assisting in an abortion if you want to.” Read those of your own words again, carefully. Again, that is what the pharmacist is attempting to do. Have you seen the light yet?
“or forcing you to get or assist in one if you don’t.” Typical strawman from you. That is not the situation here, and actual instances of this happening have to be damn rare. Do you even know of any? If not, why bring it up?
When can we formally welcome you to the ranks of, what’s your term, “the usual idiots” ?
That’s the rub. The pharmacist can have any opinion or religious/political/ethical belief he or she wants to. The issue is when this pharmacist starts using that position in a way that impacts someone else who may not share the same views or needs. Many of the rights we all holler about, come with the condition that they do not take away from someone else’s rights.
I have a right to live. So does the other guy. It means I can’t murder him.
I have the right to pursue happiness (no guarantee of happiness but I have the right to try for it). But it’s not cool if by making everyone else miserable is my version of happiness.
I have freedom of religion. So does the other guy. I can’t force my version of Og on him. I can’t force my Og given rules on him. Freedom of relisgion also means freedom from religion.
Just because someone has rights, does not give him license to deny the same rights for someone else.
The bartender who only serves milk and cookies was a good example. Bars have served alcohol for centuries. It’s understood. It’s common knowledge. If anyone takes a job as a bartender, and then refuses to serve drinks to anyone, then WTF did he take the job for?
It’s not the pharmacist’s place to decide moral issues or medical issues for someone else. It’s not his place to countermand a doctor’s orders (the prescription). It’s none of his damn business if some lady wants to buy birth control, morning after, or any other pill. It’s her business. Nobody appointed the pharmacist to be anyone’s spiritual guardian or leader. Nobody elected him to make our decisions for us.
If he doesn’t want to fill the prescription for any reason, he’d better call over a co-worker who will, or give a referral to another store. Other than that, the best thing he can do is STFU and mind his own business.
That’s correct, he is not. You notice that the pharmacist (if he did not refuse to return the scrip) is taking no steps to actively prevent the woman from obtaining an abortion. He is refusing to assist her.
If you are asserting that there is a moral duty to make it easy for others to obtain abortions, I believe you are mistaken, as I have explained.
Very good. So does the pharmacist.
Wrong. See above.
Wrong, again. The pharmacist is not preventing her from obtaining an abortion. He is refusing to assist her in doing so.
It’s in the OP. Again, it might help if you actually read it.
When will I be on your side? When the rules don’t abruptly change for those who refuse to toe the party line on abortion.
And when you are less voluntarily stupid and mendacious. No sign of either, yet.
The pill has been on the market since, what, 1962. Why, oh why, is this an issue now?! Pharmacists have been dispensing it for thirty years! All of a sudden, pill=abortion? They told us in school it makes the uterine lining unsuitable for implantation of the zygote…
so why, after thirty years, is this suddenly an issue for the right-to-life crowd now?
If the pharmacist takes the prescription “in custody” and refuses to fill it or give it back, he has taken away the other person’s right to choose. He has set himself up as the Morals Police. That’s not his job title.
True, but the pharmacist made that choice when he took the job. Dispensing birth control pills–note that’s the subject, not abortions–is what he signed on to do, so he can’t very well decide to take a job and then not do it.
Quick question. OB/GYN, trained to do D&C. Woman comes into the office and requests D&C for removal of unwanted first-trimester fetus. OB/GYN has the skills, it is a normal procedure for the field and this particular doc has done them in the past for other reasons. OB/GYN refuses to perform a D&C, despite the procedure being normal in the field the doc works in and in the list of duties this doc has performed in the past, on this particular patient for moral reasons. Has the doc done something illegal? Unethical? Immoral?
Hahahaha. Good to know you’ve got a sense of humor.
Now quit playing dodgeball. Do you have a cite, besides another poster’s recollection of what s/he was taught in school? And if you don’t have a cite, would you mind adjusting your assertions accordingly?
Shodan Where does this end? Birth control is easy, what about blood pressure medicine for an overweight person. Should the pharmacist, be able to consider me a glutton and refuse to fill out my form? Can he deny my kid his ADD meds, because all my kid needs is a good spanking? No meds for the blacks, cause they have the stain of Cain.
My question to you is, is there any line in the sand? When does public duty and make no mistake that what this is, trump personal choice? Does it never?
And you contend that doesn’t make it more difficult for her, when she walks into a pharmacy that sells BC pills, and the pharmacist refuses to sell them to her?
I’m still waiting on you to bring your assertions into line with your citations. Until you provide a cite, we’re not talking about abortions here.
You are, but it’s a faith-based thing, given the absence of evidence you’ve been able to produce.
I’m asserting that if the pharmacy sells birth-control pills or morning-after pills, then the pharmacist who believes use of such pills is the equivalent of murder should find a more wholesome place to work for, don’t you?
How can he condone such conduct by making nice (at least, making nice enough to hang onto his job) to his employers and co-workers who are (in his belief) aiding and abetting murder on a mass scale? Have you no opinion about this?
According to the AMA’s “Principles of Medical Ethics,” A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals. . . " And from the AMA’s legal issues page on ending a patient-doctor relationship,
So if the doctor refused to perform a D&C because he wishes to impose his moral framework on his patient, he might be looking at an ethics review board hearing.
As for legality, I guess that would be up to the laws of each state to decide. and immoralitry, meh, who knows?
The main problem I have with this scenario is that the pharmacist is presuming knowledge he doesn’t actually have. As Qadgop pointed out, OCPs can be prescribed for a variety of reasons and are not exclusively used for contraception.
But the pharmacist hasn’t taken a history, hasn’t examined the patient, essentially knows nothing about the patient’s medical condition aside from what’s on the prescription slip (and, I suppose, whatever the patient chooses to tell him). So he shouldn’t assume that he knows what any given prescription is going to be used for.
Does your job involve expressing morals? If you are a minister or a counselor or Dr. Phil, yes. But if you clerk at the Kwik-Stop, and can’t keep from going tsk tsk when someone of legal age buys Playboy, or work in the gun department at K-mart and lecture purchasers on the evils of firearms, you should either shut up or get a new job.
If I were CJ’s friend, I’d tell that doctor that if I had wanted a minister I’d have gone to church, and then rammed his speculum up where the sun don’t shine.
Now, it’s time to assume arguendo that BC pills do indeed cause abortions.
Then in that case, a pharmacy that sells them is in fact a sort of outpatient abortion clinic. The pharmacist who believes abortion is murder is indeed condoning these murders: he is treating persons who he knows good and well are accessories to many murders as acceptable colleagues and employers; by doing so, he continues to support their good standing in the community, rather than howling in outrage at them, picketing the pharmacy, protesting outside their residences (as pro-lifers did with Michael Schiavo), and so forth.
Instead, you would have him collaborate with the evildoers, modestly reducing the number of murders they aid, but not raising his voice against them in the public square. What sort of morality is this? It’s the morality of “I’ll take a stand for my principles, as long as I can take that stand against someone with even less power than I have, and hidden away in the shadows where nobody else can see me take that stand. And in a way that doesn’t involve a great risk of any personal adverse consequences, like having to look for another job.”
It is good that we have men and women of such moral courage in our society.
Your cite fell through; the only other poster’s ‘cite’ that I’ve seen was Theobroma’s reference to what was once taught in school. If there’s a more reputable cite that I’ve missed, I will apologize. (Empasis on will; I don’t regard you as trustworthy.)
IOW: “I have no rebuttals for these arguments, so I’m going to play the victim card as I exit.”
