Which is, in essence, what is happening now with the pharmacists. It is being decided, by the courts and legislatures, if it is OK for the pharmacists to refuse to place an order if they feel it is immoral.
It is sort of like Carter pardoning the folks who ran to Canada to avoid service in Viet Nam. After the fact, some authority decided that they were morally justified (or at least their offense was forgiveable). Same here.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s sort of that, but I think there’s a difference. In the case of soldiers, they’re being compared to an outside standard of morality. Possibly not one that’s set in stone (like I said, I don’t know much about the military) but certainly it isn’t dependant on the soldier’s personal view of the matter. Whereas in the case of pharmacists, it is only their moral system that matters.
I would say they’re essentially quite different things. Soldiers are compared to an outside standard, while pharmacists are only beholden to their own standards. A similar system would be one in which there is a central list of what drugs it is moral to dole out and which aren’t, which the pharmacist’s choices are then compared against.
Soldiers may not disobey an order on the basis of its morality. Soldiers can refuse to comply with an *illegal * order that violates the USCMJ, but that is very different from refusing to comply with an order on the grounds that it violates their personal morals. Any soldier trying to exercise that prerogative will find themselves in the stockade.
Bolding mine.
FFS, the courts and legislatures are not deciding the morality. They are enforcing the laws, as determined by the citizens through the representative government. The laws are based on a number of things. Although at this time, it appears that too many people want to lean more towards one particular groups’ beliefs, laws are not supposed be based on morals. I will not argue the concept of a Christian nation here, but I will say that this isn’t one and legislating as if we are a theocracy of any type is unacceptable in my view.
I’m glad that my state is working to instill laws that are based on ethics, not morals. Ethics are easier for people to agree on–at least for those people who understand the difference between the two.
I’m unhappy that a stupid grocery store* company and a couple of its pharmacists think that what they believe is more important than someone else’s well-being. I’m not too happy that those pharmacists are still licensed, actually, because their willingness to let their belief trump reality is a worrisome trait, IMO.
I’m not satisfied with half-way measures on this. I don’t think it’s good enough that Joe Pharm can refuse to fill a scrip because it offends his ‘morals’ but that’s okay, he’ll just have Susie Pharm fill it. At work, I don’t get to refuse to keep some information confidential, but then decide to release other information because I think everyone should know about it. Doesn’t matter what my morals are. If they are doing something illegal, I can report. If they are just doing something I don’t agree with, I can try to get it changed or I can get a different job. What I can’t do is refuse to do my current job until the world changes to suit me.
*which is a shitty store anyway in my opinion; I’m glad I’ve never thrown much money that way when I lived in / visited Oly. And now I will surely never go to that store again.
So this is the pharmacist’s version of a doctor’s refusal to do a surgical sterilization on a healthy adult woman who is fully capable of providing informed consent because their personal beliefs are against it.
Either way, both have forgotten that their job is to help the person standing in front of them obtain the medical care they request, not to decide that ‘everyone wants babies’ and that they know better.
I only hope that these pharmacists don’t make birth control pills as hard to get as surgical sterilization - which is damn near impossible if you’re under 35, unmarried, healthy and don’t have kids.
and using the same type of logical inversion as you have used, one could say they are witholding medical treatment on the basis of religion, which IIRC would be illegal in all states under a variety of federal civil rights laws.
Having worked in a medical profession, the thought that someone viewed a patients medical needs through some kind of religious/moral lens is repugnant to me. Generally you exist to solve a problem or a set of problems as presented before you. You don’t try to change their lives or worse yet start witnessing at them about the evil of their lives while they have a need and you have the tools to fill that need at your fingertips. How morally or ethically can you withold that treatment?
In emergency care circles, this type of mindset would see you out of a job in days. This is because to us there is only one class of people, human, nothing else matters.
Please let the record state at this time and date, me and catsix agreed on something :eek: . This must mean the pharmacists doing this are wrong 
.
So, along the same lines, should someone who had moral issues with abortion just not become a doctor? I suppose any kind of doctor could conceivably be in a situation where he needs to perform an abortion. It seems like a stretch, but frankly, if Whynot 's argument about having any moral issues whatsoever with any conceivable medication is met with a chorus of, “then don’t become a pharmacist,” I think that one could argue that no one morally opposed to abortion should ever become a physician.
Gestalt.
Well, one probably shouldn’t become an OB or gynecologist, I guess. I’m not sure an orthopedic surgeon is going to be called upon to provide abortions, although I’m sure they have the skill and knowledge to do so. Once more with feeling: retail pharmacy is not the only thing to do with a pharmacy degree. There are other jobs, like research, education and institutional pharmacy which can allow a person with a pharmacy degree to work in the field and never run the risk of needing to sell contraceptives (or HIV drugs or Viagra or whatever gets your panties in a twist.) The license in question isn’t for “pharmacist”, it’s for “Pharmacist, Level 1” or something like that - Level 1 being retail pharmacy to the public. There are different licenses with different rules for pharmacists in hospitals, nursing homes or schools. But being licensed to serve the public means serving women of childbearing age who want access to legal contraception. But it’s entirely possible to become a pharmacist and take a job which doesn’t put your morals at risk OR my health at risk.
I doubt that this is quite accurate. The orders given to German soldiers in WWII were quite legal, according to their military code, but they were convicted nonetheless.
Does this include the “conscience clause” mentioned earlier?
But this would go back to the “right to choose” idea - let private individuals decide for themselves what is moral, and arrange things so that no one can impose their morality on someone else - neither by preventing someone from obtaining Plan B, nor by forcing someone to participate.
I am assuming that you aren’t using “moral” in the sense of “the highest good”, because if you are, then by definition the laws are intended to decide morality. If we are saying “the right to choose” is the highest good, then fine, pharmacists and women alike get the same treatment. It would not be right to say to a woman “you knew you could get pregnant when you had intercourse, since you didn’t use 100% contraception, so now you are SOL and don’t get to exercise your right to choose.” Similarly, it would not be right to say to a pharmacist “you made it thru school and got licensed, so you are SOL and don’t get to exercise your right to choose.”
Regards,
Shodan
They weren’t convicted under their military code. Does it surprise you to learn that an army is judged more harshly by their enemies? So it is entirely accurate to say soldiers cannot disobey lawful orders just because they have personal moral objections.
Sure does, and I’m on record in this thread as being someone who would fight to get such a law changed because it is based on morals rather than on ethics. Read the whole thread, etc.
Since we can’t all agree on morals they can’t represent the highest good. Morals are more to someone’s specific belief system, really…what you consider moral, I may not.
But you’re not asking them to tolerate it, you are asking them to facillitate it.
Siege I walk at least 1.5 miles every day, if not more. Three miles to get your retroactive contraception is nothing. My Father worked hard to get legislation through in New Mexico so that Pharmacists can prescribe some medications, for the very problem that you are complaining about, so I can sympathize, at least with the people he’s talking about, not with you. You’re a lazy motherfucker.
If you’ve got the energy to fuck, you have the energy to walk a few miles. Just think of it this way, the excercise will make you better at fucking, a greater core strength will keep you from coming in her prematurely.
Killing Jock itch doesn’t stop a potential human life. I do not have a social obligation to the bacteria on my taint.
Really? My Doctor didn’t seem to have much problem reaching into his cabinet for the vacuum sealed packages of Prilosec when I had acid reflux. Something tells me the chemist isn’t cooking up Levonorgestral at your Walgreens.
I thank you for not requiring that of me. In return I will not ask you to facilitate my ‘possibly an abortion’ and ‘possibly not an abortion’, ‘who knows?’ pill.
I did answer them. In the case of a hospital there is a bit of a difference between that and a little Mom and Pop pharmacy. As I have said, if Walgreens or Duane Reade wants to fire the pharmacist for non-compliance, i’m all for it. If he owns his own business, then he has the right to refuse service on that one. This isn’t a bacterium we are talking about it’s a human zygote.
This is from the Plan B FAQ. Notice the difference between the bolded and italicized sections. If the fertilized egg is not attached to the wall of the Uterus, then it can be flushed out. So maybe it’s an abortion maybe it isn’t. It’s like slots except when you win you get to kill a child, or not depending on which result you prefer! Isn’t it fun?
One of the amusing parts of this discussion is that your side wants it both ways. Miller would like us to believe that opposition to Plan B, comes from ignorance of its effects. You on the other hand would like us to believe that Pharmacists have a greater understanding of the chemicals they are prescribing than the Dr.
Of course the reality is the Pharmacist is handing the person a prepackaged pill branded by DuraMed a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. So either the Dr. or the Pharmacist could do it. Most Dr.'s I’ve been to have a supply of emergency meds to give their patients.
Oh, please, get over it. I know you’ve got your Straight Dope Freudian psychoanalysis cocked and ready, but you’re using the wrong ammunition for the game you’re hunting.
I am not at all saying the words you would like to put into my mouth. I am not saying that she should be punished for her unchastity. I am saying, she made a choice as an adult and needs to drive to another fucking pharmacy rather than expecting her decision to fuck as she pleases to be accomodated by her local pharmacist.
It’s not about obsession with the sexual. IT’S A FUCKING SEXUAL TOPIC! Stop using cheap recycled debates that you got from someone who sounded smarter than you but probably wasn’t, and start actually giving some thought to the context that you are discussing. It is not sexually obsessive to discuss sexual morality in a discussion about a (maybe)abortion pill.
Well in that case, I’ll make you a deal. You give me that respect, and I’ll give it to you. However, functionally, what you are arguing is that the person who wants to pill should not be responsible for her behavior, but her pharmacist should. I’m not putting words in your mouth, I am not saying that you said this, I am just saying it’s the logical conclusion to your argument.
*Let’s make this gender neutral shall we? The man who knocked the woman up also shares responsibility. He should do what he can to drive her to the next town to go to the pharmacist with different morals.
Here’s my solution. Let’s make it available like birth control and stop prescribing regular birth control. You just take it after you have an accident, and you can keep it around. Mail order it when you’re not in an emergency situation, or get a few pills from the Walgreen’s in whatever small city is nearest your little podunk town, and then you have nothing to worry about, and we don’t have to scandalize the poor Catholic pharmacist.
Siege is a woman, FWIW. That would be why they were walking to get retroactive birth control…
Ahh, well it’ll do her good, she can work on her kegals while she develops her core strength, so that she knows when her cum-too-fast boyfriend’s about to load, and she can shave him off in time to take it in the navel. ;p
It isn’t a moral argument, it’s ethics. It is unethical to prevent people who don’t want children from ensuring they don’t.
If only your mother had had access to contraception. You’re a pretty nasty piece of work.
Oh the horror! In a forum dedicated to cursing at people I suggested someone walk a couple of miles once in a while! Oh the humanity! I should have been aborted for such ill treatment of a hypothetical scenario!
If I weren’t such a coward, I’d find a gun and take care of your wishes retroactively. ;p
Adding to this, it is also very unethical to refuse to fill a prescription for a medicine because you disapprove of the place that wrote it. Just as it is unethical to refuse to give medicines to a psyciatric patient because you are a Scientologist, or refuse to operate on a car wreck victim who has AIDS.