As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Moral Refusal Clauses - Evil Or Very Evil?

AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
edited December 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
Seriously, the more I read about these, the more I want to just throw up. For those who don't know what they are, moral refusal clauses allow medical professionals to refuse to perform procedures that they find immoral without repercussion. No matter how it affects the individual seeking medical care.

(Oh, you all get three guesses to figure out what procedure is usually the one we're taking about. And the first two don't count.)

These clauses are evil, for two reasons. First, they basically allow people to be denied medical care. If the professional in question is the only professional in that niche for the area, they can become an effective roadblock, basically closing the door to specific forms of medical care for the community that the professioinal finds distasteful. Second, it cheapens morality, by allowing people to practice without suffering. Morality isn't meant to be easy - it's meant to make you think about why you find acts moral or immoral. Making it easy just makes it cheap.

So yes, I find such laws evil. All they do is allow people to push their will onto others.

XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
«13456714

Posts

  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Seriously, the more I read about these, the more I want to just throw up. For those who don't know what they are, moral refusal clauses allow medical professionals to refuse to perform procedures that they find immoral without repercussion. No matter how it affects the individual seeking medical care.

    (Oh, you all get three guesses to figure out what procedure is usually the one we're taking about. And the first two don't count.)

    These clauses are evil, for two reasons. First, they basically allow people to be denied medical care. If the professional in question is the only professional in that niche for the area, they can become an effective roadblock, basically closing the door to specific forms of medical care for the community that the professioinal finds distasteful. Second, it cheapens morality, by allowing people to practice without suffering. Morality isn't meant to be easy - it's meant to make you think about why you find acts moral or immoral. Making it easy just makes it cheap.

    So yes, I find such laws evil. All they do is allow people to push their will onto others.

    Okay, I guess I'm a bit dense here.
    I'm presuming the operation you're talking about here is abortion.
    If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion why would said doctor work in an abortion clinic?

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I suspect that you only find them evil because they're associated with religious belief.

    Medical professionals have the right, in general, to refuse to provide non-emergency patient care. This has only become a political issue recently because that right has been extended to pharmacists.

    Yes, I believe that a pharmacist refusing to offer Plan B to a patient is being a complete dick. Plan B has to be administered within 72 hours of conception which means if a patient has to drive to another pharmacy or even go across state lines, they may be completely fucked. (Ironically, such a pharmacist has increased the chances that said patient will need to have an abortion in a couple of months.)

    However, I don't necessarily think that the law should prevent people from being dicks. I can't think of a set of legal principles requiring professionals to administer non-emergency care that, when separated from the religion/contraception issue and applied to other potential moral issues in medicine, wouldn't fuck doctors over.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Seriously, the more I read about these, the more I want to just throw up. For those who don't know what they are, moral refusal clauses allow medical professionals to refuse to perform procedures that they find immoral without repercussion. No matter how it affects the individual seeking medical care.

    (Oh, you all get three guesses to figure out what procedure is usually the one we're taking about. And the first two don't count.)

    These clauses are evil, for two reasons. First, they basically allow people to be denied medical care. If the professional in question is the only professional in that niche for the area, they can become an effective roadblock, basically closing the door to specific forms of medical care for the community that the professioinal finds distasteful. Second, it cheapens morality, by allowing people to practice without suffering. Morality isn't meant to be easy - it's meant to make you think about why you find acts moral or immoral. Making it easy just makes it cheap.

    So yes, I find such laws evil. All they do is allow people to push their will onto others.

    Okay, I guess I'm a bit dense here.
    I'm presuming the operation you're talking about here is abortion.
    If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion why would said doctor work in an abortion clinic?

    Actually, it's more along the lines of contraception. The typical example is the pharmacist who views contraception as immoral, and as such won't prescribe it. In some really bad cases, they'll even refuse to release the script to the patient so they can get it filled other places.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Seriously, the more I read about these, the more I want to just throw up. For those who don't know what they are, moral refusal clauses allow medical professionals to refuse to perform procedures that they find immoral without repercussion. No matter how it affects the individual seeking medical care.

    (Oh, you all get three guesses to figure out what procedure is usually the one we're taking about. And the first two don't count.)

    These clauses are evil, for two reasons. First, they basically allow people to be denied medical care. If the professional in question is the only professional in that niche for the area, they can become an effective roadblock, basically closing the door to specific forms of medical care for the community that the professioinal finds distasteful. Second, it cheapens morality, by allowing people to practice without suffering. Morality isn't meant to be easy - it's meant to make you think about why you find acts moral or immoral. Making it easy just makes it cheap.

    So yes, I find such laws evil. All they do is allow people to push their will onto others.

    Okay, I guess I'm a bit dense here.
    I'm presuming the operation you're talking about here is abortion.
    If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion why would said doctor work in an abortion clinic?

    IIRC, it wasn't abortion specifically (or it was in hospitals that allowed them as normal proceedures?), but these came around because of Birth Control pills, and some doctors refusing to prescribe them.

    edit: beaten.

    I can see this in cases of questionable procedures (as in, likely to do more harm than good, and the doctors being able to opt out due to it being risky as shit or something), but if something is medically defensible, you should lose your ability to practice if you don't help your patient.

    kildy on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote on a friend's blog on the subject because I think it describes my position a little better than my post above.

    I have difficulties with this issue, ethically. I want to establish that I oppose the idea that pharmacists should be able to refuse to dispense birth control based on their religious beliefs. I think a pharmacist telling a woman, “Sorry, I can’t give you Plan B because I’m Catholic” is an immensely dickish and selfish thing to do, and somebody who would do that needs to step down and find another line of work.

    That said, I try to apply that principle to other hypothetical scenarios and I start to have difficulties.

    For example, let’s say a pharma company marketed a euthanasia drug like “Quietus” from Children of Men. Should pharmacists be forced to hand it out?

    What if a pharmacist knew that a physician was deliberately writing prescriptions for highly sought-after addictive medications like Oxycontin to people who really didn’t need them? Should the pharmacist be able to opt-out then?

    Every time I try to hit the dilemma from different angles I come to the conclusion that it should be okay for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medication if he believes that his refusal is in the best interests of the patient. But I’m sure that some pharmacists believe that refusing to dispense Plan B is in the best interests of his patient - but that thought makes me queasy.

    Mostly I want to make sure that it’s not the specific medication that defines my position on the issue, but rather a set of ethical principles that could inform similar issues involving any controversial medication.

    think what it boils down to is when you go to school to become a health professional and, later get licensed or board-certified, you’re not just a regular ol’ employee (or business owner) anymore. You’re agreeing to uphold the values of the certification board and, by extension, the medical community as a whole.

    You’re no longer a totally free agent, ethically, you’re now an agent of the medical community. It’s kind of like being a law enforcement officer; your own personal opinions matter only to the extent that the law (or, in this case, accepted medical opinion) allows them to matter.

    If the medical establishment at large accepts Plan B - if the FDA and the DEA allow companies to market it, if the AMA and state licensing boards allow physicians to prescribe it - then pharmacists should have to dispense it unless there’s an established medical reason not to (ie, it’s contraindicated with another medication the patient is taking).

    I’m still not wholly comfortable with that, because even though right now at this point in time I have quite a lot of trust in the medical community as an institution, it’s not a very difficult thought exercise to imagine a hypothetical world where corruption is widespread in the medical community. (I basically feel this way about law enforcement, actually.)

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    I suspect that you only find them evil because they're associated with religious belief.

    Medical professionals have the right, in general, to refuse to provide non-emergency patient care. This has only become a political issue recently because that right has been extended to pharmacists.

    Yes, I believe that a pharmacist refusing to offer Plan B to a patient is being a complete dick. Plan B has to be administered within 72 hours of conception which means if a patient has to drive to another pharmacy or even go across state lines, they may be completely fucked. (Ironically, such a pharmacist has increased the chances that said patient will need to have an abortion in a couple of months.)

    However, I don't necessarily think that the law should prevent people from being dicks. I can't think of a set of legal principles requiring professionals to administer non-emergency care that, when separated from the religion/contraception issue and applied to other potential moral issues in medicine, wouldn't fuck doctors over.

    Yes, Feral, people can be dicks all they want. But without a moral refusal clause, they do so at their own peril. That's why I detest them.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Seriously, the more I read about these, the more I want to just throw up. For those who don't know what they are, moral refusal clauses allow medical professionals to refuse to perform procedures that they find immoral without repercussion. No matter how it affects the individual seeking medical care.

    (Oh, you all get three guesses to figure out what procedure is usually the one we're taking about. And the first two don't count.)

    These clauses are evil, for two reasons. First, they basically allow people to be denied medical care. If the professional in question is the only professional in that niche for the area, they can become an effective roadblock, basically closing the door to specific forms of medical care for the community that the professioinal finds distasteful. Second, it cheapens morality, by allowing people to practice without suffering. Morality isn't meant to be easy - it's meant to make you think about why you find acts moral or immoral. Making it easy just makes it cheap.

    So yes, I find such laws evil. All they do is allow people to push their will onto others.

    Okay, I guess I'm a bit dense here.
    I'm presuming the operation you're talking about here is abortion.
    If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion why would said doctor work in an abortion clinic?

    "Abortion clinics" is a misnomer. There are clinics that perform abortions, but these clinics also perform many other types of medical care (for women or for people in general).

    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    In those cases, filling the scrip will actively harm the patient. It falls under refusing to fill overdose levels of a scrip, too. You call the hospital that provided it or the cops.

    If it's a medically sound drug/dosage, pharmacists specifically should not be allowed to alter the order.

    kildy on
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    If a pharmacist wanted to decide what patients can and cannot have, they should have gone to medical school. That's like working at a taco bell and deciding to not serve nachos.

    It's your fucking job, you are not the patients physician. There's a reason they don't get a nice MD after their name.

    Education and training. Pharmacists must earn a Pharm.D. degree from an accredited college or school of pharmacy. The Pharm.D. degree has replaced the Bachelor of Pharmacy degree, which is no longer being awarded. To be admitted to a Pharm.D. program, an applicant must have completed at least 2 years of postsecondary study, although most applicants have completed 3 or more years. Other entry requirements usually include courses in mathematics and natural sciences, such as chemistry, biology, and physics, as well as courses in the humanities and social sciences. In 2007, 92 colleges and schools of pharmacy were accredited to confer degrees by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). About 70 percent of Pharm.D. programs require applicants to take the Pharmacy College Admissions Test (PCAT).

    Courses offered at colleges of pharmacy are designed to teach students about all aspects of drug therapy. In addition, students learn how to communicate with patients and other health care providers about drug information and patient care. Students also learn professional ethics, concepts of public health, and medication distribution systems management. In addition to receiving classroom instruction, students in Pharm.D. programs spend about one-forth of their time in a variety of pharmacy practice settings under the supervision of licensed pharmacists.

    Not to cheapen what a Pharmacist does, mine is awesome and quite honestly he keeps a damn fine eye on interactions and such and knows a hell of a lot of information. A lot of people think they're somehow doctors or something, they aren't.



    Edit: About the abortion thing, we have nurses who don't do abortions for "moral reasons" in the surgical department at my work. Of course, they're just using it as an excuse as I've heard them say "I just think they're icky!" a couple of times. I don't really like the ocean, so I didn't become a fucking lifeguard. It's a lame ass law and I think they should be able to fire people over refusing to engage in treatment.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    If a pharmacist wanted to decide what patients can and cannot have, they should have gone to medical school. That's like working at a taco bell and deciding to not serve nachos.

    It's your fucking job, you are not the patients physician.

    This is completely and totally false, and frankly pretty insulting. Pharmacists typically know more about clinical pharmacology than most GPs. They're authorized, in some situations and in some jurisdictions, to perform substitutions and dosage or administration changes. And in some cases they're authorized to refuse to fill a scrip. They do have decision-making power; they're not fast food counter workers.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Pharmacists are pretty highly trained and yeah, they're actually the last chance to catch a fucked up dosage and refuse it (or call the doctor and ask what the hell on it)

    Hell, I'm pretty sure two years of their schooling is just learning how to read the damned scripts.

    That said, I don't think they should deny them for moral/ethical reasons as much as "will this hurt the patient, yes/no"

    kildy on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    If a pharmacist wanted to decide what patients can and cannot have, they should have gone to medical school. That's like working at a taco bell and deciding to not serve nachos.

    It's your fucking job, you are not the patients physician.

    This is completely and totally false, and frankly pretty insulting. Pharmacists typically know more about clinical pharmacology than most GPs. They're authorized, in some situations and in some jurisdictions, to perform substitutions and dosage or administration changes. And in some cases they're authorized to refuse to fill a scrip. They do have decision-making power; they're not fast food counter workers.

    As long as they're making a decision from a purely medical standpoint, that's fine. But the moment they're making a decision based on their morality, they can go work the fast food counter.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Yes, I believe that a pharmacist refusing to offer Plan B to a patient is being a complete dick. Plan B has to be administered within 72 hours of conception which means if a patient has to drive to another pharmacy or even go across state lines, they may be completely fucked. (Ironically, such a pharmacist has increased the chances that said patient will need to have an abortion in a couple of months.)

    However, I don't necessarily think that the law should prevent people from being dicks. I can't think of a set of legal principles requiring professionals to administer non-emergency care that, when separated from the religion/contraception issue and applied to other potential moral issues in medicine, wouldn't fuck doctors over.

    The law should prevent this bullshit. Absolutly. Require hospitals & pharmacies to carry plan-b and that one person without a "moral objection" be avalible to dispense it all times. Solved. That shit should be OTC anyway.

    Their morals should have nothing to do with wether or not I can fill my prescription. MY body, MY decision, so MY morals are the only ones that matter.

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    So, you believe that a girl sould be denied the right to be treated for severe, disfiguring acne, Feral? That's pretty fucking heartless.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    If a pharmacist wanted to decide what patients can and cannot have, they should have gone to medical school. That's like working at a taco bell and deciding to not serve nachos.

    It's your fucking job, you are not the patients physician.

    This is completely and totally false, and frankly pretty insulting. Pharmacists typically know more about clinical pharmacology than most GPs. They're authorized, in some situations and in some jurisdictions, to perform substitutions and dosage or administration changes. And in some cases they're authorized to refuse to fill a scrip. They do have decision-making power; they're not fast food counter workers.

    As long as they're making a decision from a purely medical standpoint, that's fine. But the moment they're making a decision based on their morality, they can go work the fast food counter.

    Do you really feel that it's a good idea to expect people to choose between quitting a career and upholding their own moral principles?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    Well I was speaking reminded of the Oklahoma bill that provided immunity from repercussion towards any medical worker that refused to help with an abortion procedure for moral or religious reasons.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    So, you believe that a girl sould be denied the right to be treated for severe, disfiguring acne, Feral? That's pretty fucking heartless.

    I believe that any given doctor should have the right to refuse to treat that girl, yes. I don't think any professional should be forced to offer services to anybody who asks.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    If a pharmacist wanted to decide what patients can and cannot have, they should have gone to medical school. That's like working at a taco bell and deciding to not serve nachos.

    It's your fucking job, you are not the patients physician.

    This is completely and totally false, and frankly pretty insulting. Pharmacists typically know more about clinical pharmacology than most GPs. They're authorized, in some situations and in some jurisdictions, to perform substitutions and dosage or administration changes. And in some cases they're authorized to refuse to fill a scrip. They do have decision-making power; they're not fast food counter workers.

    As long as they're making a decision from a purely medical standpoint, that's fine. But the moment they're making a decision based on their morality, they can go work the fast food counter.

    Do you really feel that it's a good idea to expect people to choose between quitting a career and upholding their own moral principles?

    Yup. Next question?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    So, you believe that a girl sould be denied the right to be treated for severe, disfiguring acne, Feral? That's pretty fucking heartless.

    I believe that any given doctor should have the right to refuse to treat that girl, yes. I don't think any professional should be forced to offer services to anybody who asks.

    Fine. But their employer should have the right to fire them because they refuse to do their job.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Why did they hire them in the first place?

    Quid on
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    So, you believe that a girl sould be denied the right to be treated for severe, disfiguring acne, Feral? That's pretty fucking heartless.

    I believe that any given doctor should have the right to refuse to treat that girl, yes. I don't think any professional should be forced to offer services to anybody who asks.
    Even Cops? fire fighters? Librarians? Postal employees shoudl be able to refuse service to someone becasue they don't agree with what they're mailing?

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    So, you believe that a girl sould be denied the right to be treated for severe, disfiguring acne, Feral? That's pretty fucking heartless.

    I believe that any given doctor should have the right to refuse to treat that girl, yes. I don't think any professional should be forced to offer services to anybody who asks.

    I'll ask my bf about this issue later if I remember. I'm curious how doctors feel about fellow doctors that refuse non emergency treatment.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    So, you believe that a girl sould be denied the right to be treated for severe, disfiguring acne, Feral? That's pretty fucking heartless.

    I believe that any given doctor should have the right to refuse to treat that girl, yes. I don't think any professional should be forced to offer services to anybody who asks.

    I'll ask my bf about this issue later if I remember. I'm curious how doctors feel about fellow doctors that refuse non emergency treatment.

    Cosmetic treatment, meh.

    Anything else? Not Fond Of Them. But when I asked it was in DC, which is pretty pinko commie.

    Basically that you should be allowed to deny treatment in general, but the application of it is horrible.

    kildy on
  • Options
    Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I believe that the rule in Canada is that you can refuse, but you are obligated to direct the patient to someone who will fill their prescription or perform the operation. If there isn't someone else who can reasonably do it, I don't think the health care provider is allowed to refuse.

    Seems like an okay system so long as there are no real consequences for the patient . . . though the people refusing to do something as unintrusive as fill a prescription are still dicks.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Options
    skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Do you really feel that it's a good idea to expect people to choose between quitting a career and upholding their own moral principles?

    This is correct. If you can't handle shooting someone, police officer is not a career for you, even if the vast majority of police officers will never shoot anyone. If you can't handle the basic duty of providing patients with the drugs that their doctors prescribe for them, and knowledge of how to use those drugs safely with discretion and empathy, you should not become a pharmacist.

    skyknyt on
    Tycho wrote:
    [skyknyt's writing] is like come kind of code that, when comprehended, unfolds into madness in the mind of the reader.
    PSN: skyknyt, Steam: skyknyt, Blizz: skyknyt#1160
  • Options
    NerissaNerissa Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Yes, I believe that a pharmacist refusing to offer Plan B to a patient is being a complete dick. Plan B has to be administered within 72 hours of conception which means if a patient has to drive to another pharmacy or even go across state lines, they may be completely fucked. (Ironically, such a pharmacist has increased the chances that said patient will need to have an abortion in a couple of months.)

    However, I don't necessarily think that the law should prevent people from being dicks. I can't think of a set of legal principles requiring professionals to administer non-emergency care that, when separated from the religion/contraception issue and applied to other potential moral issues in medicine, wouldn't fuck doctors over.

    The law should prevent this bullshit. Absolutly. Require hospitals & pharmacies to carry plan-b and that one person without a "moral objection" be avalible to dispense it all times. Solved. That shit should be OTC anyway.

    Their morals should have nothing to do with wether or not I can fill my prescription. MY body, MY decision, so MY morals are the only ones that matter.

    I can actually see both sides of this, but it should certainly be encouraged for one of the questions a pharmacist need answer to get a job would be whether they are willing to provide birth control / plan B / whatever regardless of the patient. If not, the pharmacy is perfectly within their rights to not hire them and shouldn't be liable to discrimination lawsuits.

    Also, it's perfectly reasonable to mandate that a pharmacy should have someone on staff at all times who is willing to dispense any legal prescription. If that means having 2 pharmacists on duty part of the time, then so be it. Larger pharmacies do that anyway. Now, it's not unreasonable for someone to have to come back in an hour or something if that one is taking a break, I wouldn't say mandated "on duty at all times" but definitely the majority of the time.

    Finally, this whole "refuse to release the prescription to another pharmacy" thing that someone mentioned should be illegal to start with. As the consumer, you should have the right to choose who fills your prescription. Handing it over to one pharmacy isn't a binding contract.
    Also, the whole

    Nerissa on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    So, you believe that a girl sould be denied the right to be treated for severe, disfiguring acne, Feral? That's pretty fucking heartless.

    I believe that any given doctor should have the right to refuse to treat that girl, yes. I don't think any professional should be forced to offer services to anybody who asks.

    Fine. But their employer should have the right to fire them because they refuse to do their job.

    No offense, but you're demonstrating that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

    There are an uncountable number of morally acceptable reasons that a doctor may refuse to treat a patient. Do I need to list them for you? They include, but not limited to: that patient misses too many appointments and presents too much of a scheduling hassle; the patient is behind on paying their bills; the doctor has a pre-existing relationship with the patient and his objectivity might be impaired... just for a few examples of the top of my head.

    Again, no professional that I can think of is mandated by law to offer non-emergency services to everybody who walks in the door. I am not wholly certain that we need to make pharmacists an exception to that.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    So, you believe that a girl sould be denied the right to be treated for severe, disfiguring acne, Feral? That's pretty fucking heartless.

    I believe that any given doctor should have the right to refuse to treat that girl, yes. I don't think any professional should be forced to offer services to anybody who asks.

    I'll ask my bf about this issue later if I remember. I'm curious how doctors feel about fellow doctors that refuse non emergency treatment.

    We're not talking about a pharmacist realising that someone on valium just got a script for vicodin and has a standing refill for oxycontin. We're talking about someone who's hardcore belief in the Jesus needs to force this belief on others by witholding treatment sometimes already prescribed by an actual doctor.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    These type of clauses would allow a nurse or doctor working in a medical clinic to go about their daily jobs, but when it came time to help with an abortion procedure for a woman, they could say "I refuse to help with that particular procedure" without repercussion.


    As I said before, doctors already have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency care.

    Moral refusal clauses extend that right to pharmacists.

    So, you believe that a girl sould be denied the right to be treated for severe, disfiguring acne, Feral? That's pretty fucking heartless.

    I believe that any given doctor should have the right to refuse to treat that girl, yes. I don't think any professional should be forced to offer services to anybody who asks.
    Even Cops? fire fighters? Librarians? Postal employees shoudl be able to refuse service to someone becasue they don't agree with what they're mailing?

    I should have included the phrase "non-emergency" in there. Emergency services are an understandable exception.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Even Cops? fire fighters? Librarians? Postal employees shoudl be able to refuse service to someone becasue they don't agree with what they're mailing?
    All of those people provide services for the people by the government which can't allow them to refuse service to people over moral grounds since everyone is equally entitled to those services by the government. CVS, however, is under no such restriction.

    Quid on
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »

    Well I was speaking reminded of the Oklahoma bill that provided immunity from repercussion towards any medical worker that refused to help with an abortion procedure for moral or religious reasons.
    This is pretty different from having a clause in your employment contract saying that.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Also, it's not like the employers can't just make up a reason to fire them anyway.

    Quid on
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    @ Feral - What about a librarian refusing to help you look up something because they don't agree with it? The postal employee?


    @ quid - you don't think pharmacies take in a ton of government cash from medicare/ medicaid / federal, state, local govt insurance? it would be trivial to add such a clause to the ability to take federal funds, or to the state license they need to operate.
    I believe that the rule in Canada is that you can refuse, but you are obligated to direct the patient to someone who will fill their prescription or perform the operation. If there isn't someone else who can reasonably do it, I don't think the health care provider is allowed to refuse.
    Brilliant.

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    No offense, but you're demonstrating that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

    There are an uncountable number of morally acceptable reasons that a doctor may refuse to treat a patient. Do I need to list them for you? They include, but not limited to: that patient misses too many appointments and presents too much of a scheduling hassle; the patient is behind on paying their bills; the doctor has a pre-existing relationship with the patient and his objectivity might be impaired... just for a few examples of the top of my head.

    Again, no professional that I can think of is mandated by law to offer non-emergency services to everybody who walks in the door. I am not wholly certain that we need to make pharmacists an exception to that.

    Actually, you're the one demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about. Moral refusal clauses are clauses that allow for the refusal of treatment on purely moral grounds without repercussion. What that means is that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a script for birth control (which, by the way, is used for more than contraception) purely on the grounds that he doesn't see her wearing a wedding ring. If you can't see the problem here, then you're really not looking.

    And it's getting messier. MS has begun extending the clause to EMTs. So now if you're a woman that's severely ill, the EMT can leave you to die if he feels that you'll be given an abortion to save your life at the hospital.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    What about a librarian refusing to help you look up something becasue they don't agree with it? The postal employee?

    Depending on their reasons, those people are probably being dicks.

    I have difficulty with a law that demands that people blindly follow orders just because we don't want them to be dicks.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    What about a librarian refusing to help you look up something becasue they don't agree with it? The postal employee?
    Government employees are not the same as private employees.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So, let's strawman.

    A Scientologist becomes a Pharmacist.

    He can safely refuse the filling of all psychiatry drugs without ever being disciplined.

    This is okay with you?

    Or does the moralilty only come from the Jesus and not wacky cults?

    Especially with laws preventing you from not hiring someone based on their religious belief system....

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    @ quid - you don't think pharmacies take in a ton of government cash for medicare/ medicaid / federal, state local govt insurance?
    Lots of private business get government assistance of some sort. They don't become government entities because of that.

    Quid on
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    So, let's strawman.

    A Scientologist becomes a Pharmacist.

    He can safely refuse the filling of all psychiatry drugs without ever being disciplined.

    This is okay with you?

    Or does the moralilty only come from the Jesus and not wacky cults?

    Especially with laws preventing you from not hiring someone based on their religious belief system....
    Pretty sure he would have trouble finding work

    deadonthestreet on
This discussion has been closed.