No, no, no. Bottom line: no one can “impose” anything on anyone by simply remaining passive. Imposition requires positive action.
See, that’s where all of your analogies fall apart. In this example, you actively wish to make me do something – practice tzedakah. In the case of the pharmacists, the are simply remaining passive. They are not taking any action at all. That’s the difference.
No, we haven’t. We have required super-majorities in some cases; we have never simply disregarded any sense of popular support. Even when we rest decisions upon constitutional principles, those principles have validity because they were adopted by super-majorities of sovereign voters.
Doesn’t matter, because two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment. without that, no income taxes. Every tax we pay has the support of a majority of a legislative body; none arise because some wise philosopher decides that paying taxes has “valid starting principles” and was “cogently connected and brought to reasonable conclusions.”
Bullshit. Three-fourths of the valid state legislatures ratified the Thirteenth Amendment. That’s how it happened.
He should be required to carry it regardless of whether or not it’s profitable, specifically because some of them refuse to do so for “moral” reasons. If he doesn’t like it, he shouldn’t have gone into government mandated & controlled profession.
And if he refuses he should be fired and forbidden from anything involved the medical industry; both because he’s too dangerous and to make an example of him.
I thought the article said that the exception to the "must dispense provision included a lot of things like “out of stock” or “doesn’t make business sense to stock” but specifically prohibited “religious objection” That’s targetting religious speech, isn’t it?
Alright, well then let’s extend that to every other possible prescription medication.
As an easy example, I happen to know that a very large number of pharmacies do not stock Desoxyn (methamphetamine), though it is a legal and valid prescription. Should they be forced to stock it even though it is very rare and thus unprofitable? Else risk losing their license?
Abortions are not equivalent to the dispensing of Plan-B, as it requires training and a knowledge base that does not translate to what is necessary to dispense the medication.
As far as the second part, that’s what this entire thread is about. IMO, Pharmacists should stock medications for which there is a demand, I can’t imagine a scenario in which we should permit health care workers to be able to only perform procedures / dispense medications which are profitable.
Thank goodness we don’t live in a world where you are philsopher king.
Seriously? You imagine that just because a person is a doctor that CAN perform a procedure, that doctor should have to?
This is like listening to some of Ayn Rand’s collectivist characters!
The doc has no room to decide he doesnt want to treat that patient?
Suppose he said to you, “Look, that woman is lawsuit happy – she’s had six prior abortions and sued each and every one of her doctors. I want no part of her business.” THEN could he refuse?
Suppose there are three doctors in the room when she asks. Which one must do it?
Would you stick to your guns of principle if it were something more medically dire? If a pharmacist had a religious objection to insulin, and a diabetic came in with an immediate need for his medicine, would withholding the medicine be “not doing a damn thing?”
Why extend it to every other medication? People aren’t refusing to dispense every other medication on moral grounds. The medication in question is technically an OTC. It only requires a prescription for patients under 17. Are your pharmacies in question refusing to stock it for religious reasons, or just because there hasn’t been a demand for the product? Because nobody is refusing to stock Plan-B because there is no public demand for the product, so to compare the two is disingenuous.
Yes, of course it would still be “not doing a damn thing.”
However, in the case of imminent grave lifesaving situations, I would weigh the value of not intruding on his personal liberty against the value of saving a human life, and I’d be comfortable with a regulation forcing the pharmacist to act.
I don’t reach that same conclusion weighing the need for Plan B against his personal liberty.
And note that I wouldn’t try to hide my decision by saying the pharmacist was trying to force his views on anyone. I’d say, instead, that as a society we were forcing our views on him, which is what we’d be doing, and in that circumstances I’d be sanguine about that forcing.
Yes, they can. My employers can impose poverty upon me by refusing to pay me my salary. A grocery store can impose hunger on you by refusing to give you food. A pharmacist can impose his religious views on you by refusing to allow you to engage in behaviors which are against his personal religious views.
I will remain 100% passive. Just as the pharmacist will refrain from giving Suzy her legally prescribed medicine, your employers will refrain from giving you 20% of your legally earned salary. If they do not then pay that 20% to charity, they will in turn have their citizenship refused (we’ll just have people renew their citizenship annually, so we don’t have to take it away, just refuse to give it to them… passively).
And how many years ago was that? So now we don’t actually need your claimed majority, we need long dead people to have voted in a majority. Or we have a majority of legislators, who are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population at large, and therefore there is no actual majority and indeed a handfull of people can make decisions that are binding on the majority. Your absolute claims are disintegrating.
To get in the minds of pharmacists is disingenuous, to ask why they don’t stock a particular product is also disingenuous. To ask if it is for moral, business, or religious reasons is unethical.
It would be unethical if they sold Plan-B over the counter but refused to sell it to someone with a prescription.
I assume that is what the thread is all about, please correct if I am mistaken.
I personally fall on the other side; that a pharmacist withholding medicine prescribed by a doctor is more a case of a religious belief being imposed on the patient, than the inverse imposes on the pharmacist. I understand the law may state otherwise. But I would be in favor of a change in the law, as I believe patients’ rights to acquire doctor-prescribed medications (which are necessary to the health of the patient, limited in points of acquisition, and sometimes time-critical) should trump any pharmacist’s right to withhold it.
I would say that a person who knows s/he will be morally obligated to withhold some medicines, should not become a pharmacist, in the same way a person who won’t work on Saturdays shouldn’t take a job as the weekend bus driver.
Which is not to say I don’t understand your position, or even disrespect it. I just disagree with it, is all.
Breaking an employment contract is not being passive. The grocery store is not imposing hunger upon you anymore than I am when I don’t feed you. The pharmacist is not imposing his religious views upon you, he’s incoveniencing you with them.
[quote=CA Business & Professional Code]
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a licentiate shall dispense drugs and devices, as described in subdivision (a) of Section 4024, pursuant to a lawful order or prescription unless one of the following circumstances exists…]
… (3) The licentiate refuses on ethical, moral, or religious grounds
to dispense a drug or device pursuant to an order or prescription. A
licentiate may decline to dispense a prescription drug or device on
this basis only if the licentiate has previously notified his or her
employer, in writing, of the drug or class of drugs to which he or
she objects, and the licentiate’s employer can, without creating
undue hardship, provide a reasonable accommodation of the licentiate’
s objection. The licentiate’s employer shall establish protocols that
ensure that the patient has timely access to the prescribed drug or
device despite the licentiate’s refusal to dispense the prescription
or order. For purposes of this section, “reasonable accommodation”
and “undue hardship” shall have the same meaning as applied to those
terms pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 12940 of the Government
Code.
Which an individual pharmacy isn’t. Or are you only concerned with those pharmacies in BF Washington that don’t have a competitor within 100 miles? Otherwise, this is a red herring.
There are plenty of things that individuals can do that the government cannot. The government cannot infringe on the right to bear arms, a private individual can ban firearms from their premises if they want.