Some WA pharmacists want to continue forcing their morality on customers

[LilShieste]

[QUOTE=mswas]
If the pharmacist closes up shop you are in the same predicament.
[/quote]

True, but then nobody’s prescriptions are being filled. Otherwise, it’s just anyone with a script for Plan B.

@mswas

You have presented your case better than most in this thread, so I would love to discuss this further with you at some point.

I think this is a very interesting debate. Especially so, since I don’t have a dog in the fight, so-to-speak (as a man). If I were a woman, I’d probably find it more infuriating than interesting, though.

@mswas

Basically the premise is that technology is selectively redefining what we consider to be human. At a certain point the legality may reach a breaking point where the value of any human life is merely that of any other commodity.

I think this is venturing into other debate territory (existentialism, more specifics on religion, etc.).

The underlying debate here, though, isn’t whether or not Plan B should be accepted by everyone. Plan B could be replaced by any other kind of prescription drug, and the debate should be able to continue.

IOW, I’m not trying to debate the morality of abortion. I’m trying to debate the morality of denying someone their prescription.

@mswas

And the dialectic integrates as always.

At first, I thought this said “dielectric”. :smack:

@mswas

Heh, if you think mathematics is safe, you’re not doing high enough maths.

Well, you don’t have to worry about moral-based decisions. (Outside of deciding whether or not you want to sell your soul to the devil.)

@mswas

Perhaps. I wonder if there will reach a point where Catholics cannot be pharmacists.

I don’t think it will ever reach that point, since that’s not the direction this is heading. More likely, is that there will be a point where Catholics choose not to be pharmacists.
LilShieste

[Zakalwe]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
However, the pharmacists would disagree that these three are in alignment.
[/quote]
Jesus. Are you terminally dense?

I DON’T THINK MORALS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW ARE ALIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE PHARMACISTS!
I DON’T THINK MORALS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW ARE ALIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE PHARMACISTS!
I DON’T THINK MORALS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW ARE ALIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE PHARMACISTS!
I DON’T THINK MORALS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW ARE ALIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE PHARMACISTS!
I DON’T THINK MORALS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW ARE ALIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE PHARMACISTS!

Got it through your thick fucking head now?

I do think ethics and the law are aligned. There is an ethic that pharmacists are there to dispense drugs legally and safe. Plan B is legal and safe.

Public ethics in the form of Roe v. Wade says that ethics shouldn’t overrule morals (if that is what is meant by ethics vs. morals).

Cite? I want the specific reference in the Opinion that makes this statement.

The pharmacists don’t agree. I imagine they know at least as much about the action of Plan B as a drug as I do.

Well apparently fucking not. Here is the manufacturer’s site. Will you accept them as a cite? If not, please state why not.

@Duramed

Plan B® is not RU-486 (the abortion pill); it will not work if you are already pregnant.

Abortion is defined as:

the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

No pregnancy, no abortion.

The pharmacist has the choice on whether or not to particpate in the transaction.

Not in Washington state. He is required to participate as part of his contract (license) with the state.

[drachillix]

[QUOTE=Alan Smithee]
I think there is a clear conflict of rights here: the right of the client to receive medical care (a right I support, but that frankly isn’t legally recognized in almost any case) and the right of the pharmacist to practice his profession without violating his religious beliefs. I don’t think there is an obvious answer, and I have no problem in principle with different communities choosing to resolve the issue differently (as the states have done).

Of course, if the issue arises in my state or on the national level, I will have to use my own judgment of whose rights are more severely infringed in this conflict to decide where to place my political support. What you have just told me (and everyone else has implied through their silence) is that the infringement of the women’s right isn’t that significant. After all, doctors’ power to deny prescriptions is potentially a much greater infringement of that right, but it isn’t worth making a fuss over because pharmacists are an easier and more tempting target. Lashing out at an easy and tempting target without seeking to address greater and more basic sources of conflict is recreational outrage in its purest form. Which is fine, have at it, but don’t expect my vote as a result.
[/quote]

The act that this is a drug of use only to women is secondary IMHO. A pharmacist would refuse to issue any medications to any patient based on his religious POV, is asshole of the first order.

Actually, the religion aspect strengthens the pharmacists’ case rather than weakens it. There is no legal requirement to accommodate a worker’s moral beliefs. There is a legal requirement to accommodate a worker’s religious beliefs, if such accommodation is “reasonable.” It can certainly be argued (and I would agree) that the pharmacists are demanding accommodation that goes beyond what is reasonable, but such an argument is required only because the issue is religious in nature.

A big part of my issue here is also that the pharmacist is the authority figure here, he says yes or no and you do or do not get your medication. When he uses that position of authority as a bully pulpit s/he has surrendered his moral highground.

Part of the protections afforded religion in the workplace is the assumption that it will not interfere with job duties, you would never see me say someone who is Jewish, Buddhist, Athiest, or an IPU follower would make a better or worse pharmacist because they are all perfectly capable of learning the meds, the rules, and the chemistry needed to perform the job. I have no idea what my pharmacists religious beliefs are, why do I care? If he has my stuff packed and gives me good advice WRT to my meds I don’t care if he goes home and worships a stuffed squirrel.

There is no universal legal requirement that service providers not allow their own religious beliefs to limit or effect what services they perform or who they provide services to.

Bolding mine. This is the crux of my argument and it is not true, they are refusing to service those who do not share their religious POV because if someone did share it, they would not request the service. Several cited instances have involved unmarried women, marital status is a protected class issue as well in many instances. If you hold yourself out to the public for trade you don’t get to specify who walks in the door and refuse to serve someone because they disagree with your religious POV. Since religion can be almost totally unregulated all you have to have is a couple KKK members scrape together the funding for a hospital, create a religion called wedontserveblacksism, and insist that their religion prohibits contact from those “stained by god for their sinful ways”. Gotta give them their religious freedom :rolleyes: .

Religious freedom was built on preventing tyranny of the majority from supressing the rights of the individual. When a majority religion orders gives its membership a decree to actively supress the rights of others by using the authority of their individual stations in life, you are begging to see epic problems in our society.

[VinylTurnip]

(Post deleted.)

[mswas]

[QUOTE=LilShieste]

I think this is venturing into other debate territory (existentialism, more specifics on religion, etc.).
[/quote]

Which is why I gave a synopsis and didn’t go into it more than that.

IOW, I’m not trying to debate the morality of abortion. I’m trying to debate the morality of denying someone their prescription.

I think that both are relevant to this issue.

I don’t think it will ever reach that point, since that’s not the direction this is heading. More likely, is that there will be a point where Catholics choose not to be pharmacists.

That’s what I meant.

[VinylTurnip]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Why is it mean? I am just taking his notion one step further. He says the fertilized zygote is not magically a human being, and I am saying that by that logic the fully mature organism does not magically become a human being.
[/QUOTE]

Cool, you’ve stretched it lengthwise; now let’s spread it wider.

“If an acorn isn’t a tree, then a fully grown oak isn’t a tree either.”

“If a fertilized egg isn’t an ostrich, then there’s no such thing as an ostrich.”

If these are “jingoistic fantasies,” I think I’d like to get off the tour now, please.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Vinyl Turnip seeks me out looking to insult me, on a pretty regular basis.
[/QUOTE]

Put yourself in my place. I’m like a guy who keeps showing up at various parties to find— aw, shit. That mswas weirdo is here again? Great, another conversation monopolized by his pompous pronouncements and pseudomystical/crypto-fascist bullshit.

Being that we have a tacit agreement not to shoot each other in the face (and I do appreciate that, by the way) I have occasionally used insults to express how I feel about the high-handed bilge that you pass off as reasoned thought. I’m hopeful that one day even they will be unnecessary, but neither am I holding my breath.

[Alan_Smithee]

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
But only one of the parties involved had any kind of choice in the matter at hand. That kind of tips the balance one way, doesn’t it?
[/quote]
It is a factor to consider, but I don’t think it is the determining one.

Yeah, we’re just picking on the poor ol’ pharmacists. Next on my list: swirlies!

What are these “greater and more basic sources of conflict”, that seem to be missing from our argument? AFAICT, they’ve been present since page one.

The greater and more basic source of conflict is that medical professionals at many levels, including hospital administrators and doctors, can do quite a lot to affect the health care a woman can receive based on their own religious and moral beliefs. If you don’t see that as something worth addressing (and I don’t remember seeing it on page 1) then I can’t see how it becomes a matter of utmost significance after the script is written.

[stretch]

[QUOTE=Alan Smithee]
My understanding is that a pharmacist is legally required in most or all states to refuse a prescription if they believe the customer is an addict and the drug was prescribed inappropriately.
[/QUOTE]
I see you are waiting for someone to debunk this rather than you citing it, but still…cite? I can’t find anything in WA pharmacy laws that state that pharmacists are to refuse to fill a prescription if they believe the customer is an addict or that the drug was prescribed inappropriately.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Cool, you’ve stretched it lengthwise; now let’s spread it wider.
[/quote]

Unfortunately my eye muscles do not allow for the full 360 degree roll that this warrants.

“If an acorn isn’t a tree, then a fully grown oak isn’t a tree either.”

An Acorn is a seed, like a sperm, or an egg. It is fundamentally different from a Zygote. That, and it is also not human, therefore commodifying its flesh whether seed or oak is governed by a different set of ethics.

“If a fertilized egg isn’t an ostrich, then there’s no such thing as an ostrich.”

I’d like to say you can do better than this, but I am not sure.

If these are “jingoistic fantasies,” I think I’d like to get off the tour now, please.

Yeah, I think you hate strawmen with as much as you flog them and then hand them over to be burned.

Put yourself in my place. I’m like a guy who keeps showing up at various parties to find— aw, shit. That mswas weirdo is here again? Great, another conversation monopolized by his pompous pronouncements and pseudomystical/crypto-fascist bullshit.

I cannot monopolize a discussion where no one responds.

Being that we have a tacit agreement not to shoot each other in the face (and I do appreciate that, by the way) I have occasionally used insults to express how I feel about the high-handed bilge that you pass off as reasoned thought. I’m hopeful that one day even they will be unnecessary, but neither am I holding my breath.

Yes, because I am the one that came in with my sniper rifle and said, “Everything you and a whole swath of other people I have deemed as being like you are insane.”, What’s funny though is your brush was broad enough that you painted 90% of humanity as insane, with your benighted little corner being the rational elect.

It’s unfortunate what people like you have done to the hard work of Newton, Bacon, Liebniz, etc… Of course, the enlightenment follows the same pattern as anything else. The vanguard is brilliant and then the dull commoners pick up on it eventually, to hold up the detritus of their advancement while dismissing the light as irrelevant.

There was this great quote by Bacon about removing spirituality from science that I wish I had today. It actually made me think of you when I saw it. It’s funny how even though I pretty much always take a radical pro individualist stance that you think of me as a crypto-fascist.

‘Oh all those thousands of years of history are mere gobbledygook, the purveyors of culture that sustained it, at best idiots, and at worst charlatans. If only they were enlightened enough to see the dull matte of pure physicality like me, then maybe they’d see the way!’

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Jodi]
When come back bring coherency. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think many were unclear about my position. Sure, I didn’t fit into little stereotypes of people who thought my argument resembled closely some argument they’d heard before from someone they think resembles me, but I’ll gladly correct those.

[mswas]

I wonder what the real percentage of people who do not have a choice as to which pharmacy they can go to is. When I grew up in a small town in New Mexico I had at least 4 or 5 pharmacies I could ride my bike to.

[Alan_Smithee]

[QUOTE=drachillix]
The act that this is a drug of use only to women is secondary IMHO. A pharmacist would refuse to issue any medications to any patient based on his religious POV, is asshole of the first order.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, I don’t see what this has to do with what I wrote. I would feel the same if I needed vital meds that a pharmacist refused to provide: I don’t believe I have a right to receive medication (though I think I should have such a right, albeit a limited one). That th pharmacist is an asshole is neither here nor there, unfortunately. I can’t think of a good way to criminalize assholishness.

Part of the protections afforded religion in the workplace is the assumption that it will not interfere with job duties[…]

This is untrue. In fact, the law requires that we accommodate religion when it interferes with job duties, provided that the accommodations can be made reasonable. Note that I do not believe they can be in this case (or rather, that they have been, but that isn’t enough for some , but I nevertheless wish to tread on the 1st Amendment as lightly as possible or not at all.

This is the crux of my argument and it is not true, they are refusing to service those who do not share their religious POV because if someone did share it, they would not request the service. Several cited instances have involved unmarried women, marital status is a protected class issue as well in many instances. If you hold yourself out to the public for trade you don’t get to specify who walks in the door and refuse to serve someone because they disagree with your religious POV. Since religion can be almost totally unregulated all you have to have is a couple KKK members scrape together the funding for a hospital, create a religion called wedontserveblacksism, and insist that their religion prohibits contact from those “stained by god for their sinful ways”. Gotta give them their religious freedom :rolleyes:

You are wrong. Various licensing and professional regulations notwithstanding (they would beg the question here) you do get to specify who walks in your door and refuse to serve anyone you want. Race is a special case in which this is not permitted. So is religion, but the discrimination must be based on the religion of the victim, not incidental to it. If your religion says that pigs are unclean, you can absolutely deny service to pig farmers, even though if they practiced your religion they wouldn’t be pig farmers. You can also discriminate against people who have premarital sex or who procure abortions, even though they wouldn’t do those things if they were fundamentalists.

The question here is whether to make another special exception to these necessary freedoms, either for reproductive technologies or for pharmacists. I’m not necessarily opposed to making such an exception, but I set a very high bar for doing so.

[VinylTurnip]

[QUOTE=mswas]
It’s unfortunate what people like you have done to the hard work of Newton, Bacon, Liebniz, etc… Of course, the enlightenment follows the same pattern as anything else. The vanguard is brilliant and then the dull commoners pick up on it eventually, to hold up the detritus of their advancement while dismissing the light as irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you, sincerely. The image of you, Newton, Bacon, and Liebniz gazing down sternly from your lofty plane at the errant common folk gave me a much-needed laugh on an otherwise rotten day.

It’ll take more than name-dropping from a PHIL 101 text to convince me of your position, though, or persuade me that you are more than a philosophical starfucker.

Or, to quote the poet Robert Zimmerman:

I said, “You know they refused Jesus, too”
He said, “You’re not Him.”

You are correct that my beliefs lean toward physicality. I don’t believe in the existence of a “soul,” though I understand that places me in a minority. If I am wrong, then the “souls” of zygotes lost from the use of Plan B (or the Pill) will be annihilated/recycled/returned (whatever your belief happens to be) in the same manner as the millions upon millions of other zygote-souls that are lost when implantation/gestation fail “naturally.” Perhaps back to the same place where my own soul ostensibly passed the eternity of time prior to my own conception, a time and place about which I can remember precious little.

While I cannot speak conclusively to the existence of souls (the concept itself often tending to elude definition), I am convinced that a zygote, lacking a brain, does not have sentience, thoughts, feelings, or memories, and is thus very likely unaware of its own existence or potential “personhood.” If someone holds otherwise, yes, I would tend to think of that person’s belief as irrational, if not insane. At any rate, I would not want such a person making the decision to dispense or withhold a needed medication from me (or someone I knew), based solely on their irrational conviction.

[Alan_Smithee]

[QUOTE=stretch]
I see you are waiting for someone to debunk this rather than you citing it, but still…cite? I can’t find anything in WA pharmacy laws that state that pharmacists are to refuse to fill a prescription if they believe the customer is an addict or that the drug was prescribed inappropriately.
[/QUOTE]

From the DEA Pharmacist’s Manual.

[stretch]

[QUOTE=Alan Smithee]
From the DEA Pharmacist’s Manual.
[/QUOTE]
Can you quote the part that you think supports your belief? I’m not seeing it, and I read the whole thing.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
While I cannot speak conclusively to the existence of souls (the concept itself often tending to elude definition), I am convinced that a zygote, lacking a brain, does not have sentience, thoughts, feelings, or memories, and is thus very likely unaware of its own existence or potential “personhood.” If someone holds otherwise, yes, I would tend to think of that person’s belief as irrational, if not insane. At any rate, I would not want such a person making the decision to dispense or withhold a needed medication from me (or someone I knew), based solely on their irrational conviction.
[/QUOTE]

That’s fair enough. Just as I wouldn’t like to see you consulted on any moral issues regarding the value of a human life.

Basically, my comparison of philosophical greats was to point to people who used science to come closer to the divine whereas you see it as a tool to move further away from such ‘superstition’.

I do not consider myself as such a great as those I mentioned, but I use science for the same purpose. Luckily science is neutral to our ideological stances, so it may progress through mutual effor despite what either of us or our ilk would have it accomplish.

I just think it is sad that people have bought into this ridiculous notion that science has some opinion about the nature of God or the soul. It has created some of the dumbest fucking arguments in history, with ignorant atheists on one side and ignorant religious fundamentalists on the other side, vying for control of the shrill dialect.

[Alan_Smithee]

[QUOTE=stretch]
Can you quote the part that you think supports your belief? I’m not seeing it, and I read the whole thing.
[/QUOTE]

@the Drug Enforcement Agency

Purpose of Issue

To be valid, a prescription for a controlled substance must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of sound professional practice. The practitioner is responsible for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances. However, a corresponding responsibility rests with the pharmacist who dispenses the prescription. An order for controlled substances which purports to be a valid prescription, but is not issued in the usual course of professional treatment, or for legitimate and authorized research, is not a valid prescription within the meaning and intent of the CSA. The individual who knowingly dispenses such a purported prescription, as well as the individual issuing it, will be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties and administrative sanctions.

..

[Zabali_Clawbane]

mswas, are you also saying pharmacists should be able to refuse to give out birth control to people because of their religious beliefs? Plan B IS BIRTH CONTROL, IT DOES NOT CAUSE ABORTION! All your lectures on the sanctity of human life really have no place here, unless you also do the same with birth control and condoms.

[stretch]

Alan Smithee, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on what your cite says, because I don’t see it as saying:

@Alan Smithee

…that a pharmacist is legally required in most or all states to refuse a prescription if they believe the customer is an addict and the drug was prescribed inappropriately.

Thank you for your reply.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Zakalwe]
Jesus. Are you terminally dense?

I DON’T THINK MORALS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW ARE ALIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE PHARMACISTS!
I DON’T THINK MORALS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW ARE ALIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE PHARMACISTS!
I DON’T THINK MORALS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW ARE ALIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE PHARMACISTS!
I DON’T THINK MORALS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW ARE ALIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE PHARMACISTS!
I DON’T THINK MORALS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW ARE ALIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE PHARMACISTS!

Got it through your thick fucking head now?
[/quote]

@Zakalwe

I was speaking to our analogy of the Armed Forces. In those case, we have aligned societal morals, ethics, and the law.

I thought you were saying that, like our analogy of the Armed Forces, morals, ethics and the law were aligned. I thought “in those case” meant “in those cases”, and referred both to the analogy and its referent.

:shrugs:

Feel free to start yelling and calling people names whenever you make a typo, but don’t expect to be taken seriously when you do.

Regards,
Shodan