Options

Moral Refusal Clauses - Evil Or Very Evil?

2456714

Posts

  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Why are people not DOTS quoting me and then responding to some point I never made?

    I'm simply curious about how doctors feel about other doctors refusing non emergency treatment for moral reasons

    Medopine on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.
    Except no one here is advocating denying emergency services.

    Quid on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered 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.

    I do see the problem here. You don't need to explain the parameters of the discussion to me.

    I suspect that the issue you have with moral refusal clauses are because they are primarily used by fundamentalist Christians to screw over young women having sex. What I'm trying to tell you is that other professionals already have privileges that are tantamount to "moral refusal."

    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
    TheFullMetalChickenTheFullMetalChicken Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I don't understand why these people tell the patient that "I'm not going to sell this to you because I'm Catholic" and not "We're out" or "We don't carry XXX" (LOL XXX ahahaha any way). One allows the pharmacist to be instantly branded as a dick and the other allows some discretion.

    TheFullMetalChicken on
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o 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

    How so? He never has to tell his employer what his religious beliefs are.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    They can chose to not follow the lawful requirements of their employer. But in doing so, they become insubordinate. And last I checked, insubordination is legal cause for termination in every state.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana 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....
    You can't discriminate based solely on a person's religious beliefs. You can discriminate if those beliefs render them unable to provide the services you want them to provide.

    Quid on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I don't understand why these people tell the patient that "I'm not going to sell this to you because I'm Catholic" and not "We're out" or "We don't carry XXX" (LOL XXX ahahaha any way). One allows the pharmacist to be instantly branded as a dick and the other allows some discretion.

    Because both are insubordination, but only one lets you out through a moral refusal clause.

    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: »
    @ Feral - What about a librarian refusing to help you look up something because they don't agree with it? The postal employee?

    I don't think that the law should mandate that these people help.

    I think that as far as what happens to them in terms of their employment status, that should be between them and their boss.

    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
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    How so? He never has to tell his employer what his religious beliefs are.
    He does if they ask before hiring him.

    Quid on
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    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

    How so? He never has to tell his employer what his religious beliefs are.

    Though I'm pretty sure that would be part of the interview process. In any case the guy would get canned due to customer complaints pretty quick.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    You are a pharmacist, it is your job to concern yourself with adverse chemical and medical reactions to those prescriptions you fill, and to fill prescriptions as accurately as possible. You have no judgment over why the person might be taking these drugs, beyond concerns of addiction.

    The only reason I think a surgeon might be allowed to opt out is because he could say "Since I really hate this proceedure, I don't feel I would do a good job", as a Pharmacist it doesn't matter how much you hate those morning after pills, they are still going to work just as well as they otherwise might.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    They can chose to not follow the lawful requirements of their employer. But in doing so, they become insubordinate. And last I checked, insubordination is legal cause for termination in every state.

    Okay, so what you're saying is that you have a problem with insubordination.

    So if it were the lead pharmacist at a drugstore, and not a lowly employee, refusing to fill Plan B for religious reasons, you'd be okay with 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
    saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I originally thought this thread was going to be about circumcisions.

    Which kinda puts an interesting spin on things, in the opposite direction.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    I'm simply curious about how doctors feel about other doctors refusing non emergency treatment for moral reasons
    How do you feel about refusing to take a client for a case you morally disagree with? Same thing, really, I guess.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    How so? He never has to tell his employer what his religious beliefs are.
    He does if they ask before hiring him.
    You cannot ask that question as part of the hiring process. It's discriminatory.

    GungHo on
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    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

    How so? He never has to tell his employer what his religious beliefs are.

    Though I'm pretty sure that would be part of the interview process. In any case the guy would get canned due to customer complaints pretty quick.


    You don't think some crazy fundie would get the same number of complaints? The number of people on Birth Control is pretty huge.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    GungHo wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    How so? He never has to tell his employer what his religious beliefs are.
    He does if they ask before hiring him.
    You cannot ask that question as part of the hiring process. It's discriminatory.
    "Is there any reason you would not be able to do anything on this list of services"

    Quid on
  • Options
    skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    A moral refusal clause would prevent the employer from taking action over those complaints anyways.

    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
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    They can chose to not follow the lawful requirements of their employer. But in doing so, they become insubordinate. And last I checked, insubordination is legal cause for termination in every state.

    Okay, so what you're saying is that you have a problem with insubordination.

    So if it were the lead pharmacist at a drugstore, and not a lowly employee, refusing to fill Plan B for religious reasons, you'd be okay with that?

    And what you've been saying is that the moral objections of a medical professional should be given equal weight with the heath and well-being of an individual. Can't you see where that view might be a tad problematic?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    GungHo wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    How so? He never has to tell his employer what his religious beliefs are.
    He does if they ask before hiring him.
    You cannot ask that question as part of the hiring process. It's discriminatory.
    You know what? If I'm running a drug store, I ask my potential employees "Are there any prescriptions you refuse to fill?"

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    They can chose to not follow the lawful requirements of their employer. But in doing so, they become insubordinate. And last I checked, insubordination is legal cause for termination in every state.

    Okay, so what you're saying is that you have a problem with insubordination.

    So if it were the lead pharmacist at a drugstore, and not a lowly employee, refusing to fill Plan B for religious reasons, you'd be okay with that?

    And what you've been saying is that the moral objections of a medical professional should be given equal weight with the heath and well-being of an individual. Can't you see where that view might be a tad problematic?

    I'm not sure how your question is a response to mine and how it's not fully answered by my prior posts in the thread, so I'll just repeat my question:

    So if it were the lead pharmacist at a drugstore, and not a lowly employee, refusing to fill Plan B for religious reasons, you'd be okay with 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
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    I'm simply curious about how doctors feel about other doctors refusing non emergency treatment for moral reasons
    How do you feel about refusing to take a client for a case you morally disagree with? Same thing, really, I guess.

    No, not really. Doctors have a higher ethical standards imposed by their profession than lawyers do.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    GungHo wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    How so? He never has to tell his employer what his religious beliefs are.
    He does if they ask before hiring him.
    You cannot ask that question as part of the hiring process. It's discriminatory.
    You know what? If I'm running a drug store, I ask my potential employees "Are there any prescriptions you refuse to fill?"
    That, you can do. You can also can someone for non-performance. You just can't couch it as referring to any of the person's religious beliefs. You can say, "he didn't serve our customers." You can't say, "he didn't serve our customers because he's a Scientologist."

    GungHo on
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    GungHo wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    How so? He never has to tell his employer what his religious beliefs are.
    He does if they ask before hiring him.
    You cannot ask that question as part of the hiring process. It's discriminatory.
    You know what? If I'm running a drug store, I ask my potential employees "Are there any prescriptions you refuse to fill?"
    That, you can do. You can also can someone for non-performance. You just can't couch it as referring to any of the person's religious beliefs. You can say, "he didn't serve our customers." You can't say, "he didn't serve our customers because he's a Scientologist."

    And then you all go to court because he served everyone just fine, except those who he had a moral objection to serving... which is based on his beliefs as a crazy person.

    Which is just fine, I'd love to see this happen and set a precedent.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I have difficulty with a law that demands that people blindly follow orders just because we don't want them to be dicks.
    What?
    Forcing some poor woman to get an abortion/have a child is just "being a dick"?

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    Hey, all you folks who say that we should just write a law that bars people from refusing to fulfill Plan-B presciptions, but let's them refuse to fulfill prescriptions that would, say, harm the patient, or that they feel isn't in the patient's best interests for non-moral reasons? Write up such a law. Write one that lets a pharmacist refuse to prescribe something that they think will harm the patient, but doesn't let him refuse to prescribe Plan B or birth control pills.

    Keep in mind that you can't reference "morality" or "religion" anywhere in the bill, and that it has to use very precise definitions to have any effect. When you write it up, we can go ahead and submit it to congress.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    To me a pharmacist not prescribing Plan B being acceptable is precisely on par with a pharmacist saying "Sorry, can't give you those, I don't like pills that are red. I won't prescribe you anything with red in it." In both cases you're basing it on non-medical information, and that's not right.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to downplay the importance of people's personal sense of morality. Out of the workplace, the pharmacist can hand out leaflets, protest, do whatever the hell he wants. But when he's on the clock, he needs to recognize that his decisions shouldn't be made based on his sense of morality, but on the sense of morality established by his company, the FDA, DEA, AMA, etc.

    When you step behind that counter, you're a pharmacist first, <insert civilian name here> second, and you need to follow the judgment of the aforementioned organizations. When you go home, you can go back to being <insert civilian name here> and do whatever the hell you please.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hey, all you folks who say that we should just write a law that bars people from refusing to fulfill Plan-B presciptions, but let's them refuse to fulfill prescriptions that would, say, harm the patient, or that they feel isn't in the patient's best interests for non-moral reasons? Write up such a law. Write one that lets a pharmacist refuse to prescribe something that they think will harm the patient, but doesn't let him refuse to prescribe Plan B or birth control pills.

    Keep in mind that you can't reference "morality" or "religion" anywhere in the bill, and that it has to use very precise definitions to have any effect. When you write it up, we can go ahead and submit it to congress.

    Plan B - Now avalible over the counter without a prescription!

    So... anything else?

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hey, all you folks who say that we should just write a law that bars people from refusing to fulfill Plan-B presciptions, but let's them refuse to fulfill prescriptions that would, say, harm the patient, or that they feel isn't in the patient's best interests for non-moral reasons? Write up such a law. Write one that lets a pharmacist refuse to prescribe something that they think will harm the patient, but doesn't let him refuse to prescribe Plan B or birth control pills.

    Keep in mind that you can't reference "morality" or "religion" anywhere in the bill, and that it has to use very precise definitions to have any effect. When you write it up, we can go ahead and submit it to congress.

    We don't need some special law. Just need them to be subject to discipline from their employer.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hey, all you folks who say that we should just write a law that bars people from refusing to fulfill Plan-B presciptions, but let's them refuse to fulfill prescriptions that would, say, harm the patient, or that they feel isn't in the patient's best interests for non-moral reasons? Write up such a law. Write one that lets a pharmacist refuse to prescribe something that they think will harm the patient, but doesn't let him refuse to prescribe Plan B or birth control pills.

    Keep in mind that you can't reference "morality" or "religion" anywhere in the bill, and that it has to use very precise definitions to have any effect. When you write it up, we can go ahead and submit it to congress.

    Already done, Jeffe. Thanks for playing, though.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hey, all you folks who say that we should just write a law that bars people from refusing to fulfill Plan-B presciptions, but let's them refuse to fulfill prescriptions that would, say, harm the patient, or that they feel isn't in the patient's best interests for non-moral reasons? Write up such a law. Write one that lets a pharmacist refuse to prescribe something that they think will harm the patient, but doesn't let him refuse to prescribe Plan B or birth control pills.

    Keep in mind that you can't reference "morality" or "religion" anywhere in the bill, and that it has to use very precise definitions to have any effect. When you write it up, we can go ahead and submit it to congress.

    Plan B - Now avalible over the counter without a prescription!

    So... anything else?

    Tons. I personally think denying a woman treatment for severe, disfiguring acne over moral objections is disgusting.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hey, all you folks who say that we should just write a law that bars people from refusing to fulfill Plan-B presciptions, but let's them refuse to fulfill prescriptions that would, say, harm the patient, or that they feel isn't in the patient's best interests for non-moral reasons? Write up such a law. Write one that lets a pharmacist refuse to prescribe something that they think will harm the patient, but doesn't let him refuse to prescribe Plan B or birth control pills.

    Keep in mind that you can't reference "morality" or "religion" anywhere in the bill, and that it has to use very precise definitions to have any effect. When you write it up, we can go ahead and submit it to congress.

    We don't need some special law. Just need them to be subject to discipline from their employer.

    Exactly. I have no idea why this even exists. If your boss is asking you to kill someone, you're okay to refuse because that's ILLEGAL. If your boss is asking you to work 100 hours a week without overtime or whatever requirements allow for these things then it's also ILLEGAL.
    If your boss just asks you to do your job, completely within the boundaries of legality, well, go find another job. Your boss isn't firing you for your religious beliefs, he's firing you for being incapable of providing the services he hired you for.

    Here's the example floating in my head: Say there's this tiny female, like, 4'9, 90 pounds, that kind of thing. She gets a job at some shipping company where the job requires that like 50% of the time is being spent carrying huge boxes. Well, she can't carry these boxes, and the boss wants to fire her. Should she be protected? I mean, this isn't even morality, something you can choose. She didn't choose to be female or 4'9, that's just who she is, should she really be fired for something she can't control? Yes. She should. Because she was hired to carry boxes, and she can't carry boxes. He's not a sexist, he's not discriminatory against short people, he's just discriminatory against people who aren't fulfilling the job requirements.

    Same thing here. Not religious persecution, just discrimination against people who can't do their job.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    And then you all go to court because he served everyone just fine, except those who he had a moral objection to serving... which is based on his beliefs as a crazy person.

    Which is just fine, I'd love to see this happen and set a precedent.
    Why did they hire someone that can't serve their customers again? And what's keeping them from firing them because they feel their company could do better without them just cause?

    Quid on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Here's the example floating in my head: Say there's this tiny female, like, 4'9, 90 pounds, that kind of thing. She gets a job at some shipping company where the job requires that like 50% of the time is being spent carrying huge boxes. Well, she can't carry these boxes, and the boss wants to fire her. Should she be protected? I mean, this isn't even morality, something you can choose. She didn't choose to be female or 4'9, that's just who she is, should she really be fired for something she can't control? Yes. She should. Because she was hired to carry boxes, and she can't carry boxes. He's not a sexist, he's not discriminatory against short people, he's just discriminatory against people who aren't fulfilling the job requirements.

    Same thing here. Not religious persecution, just discrimination against people who can't do their job.
    Quid wrote: »
    "Is there any reason you would not be able to do anything on this list of services"

    Quid on
  • Options
    GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    We don't need some special law. Just need them to be subject to discipline from their employer.
    Frankly, I think part of it will be solved when the patient at Walgreens says, "ok, fuck off" and heads down the street to the CVS or Wal-Mart. Granted, I live in "the city" so, we have tons of Walgreens, CVS, Wal-Mart, Sam's, Costco, and other places that do prescription drugs. I recognize that someone in a rural area may have issues as far as access to alternatives, but in the balance of things, I'm willing to let competitive forces help drum the bullshit out.

    GungHo on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    GungHo wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    We don't need some special law. Just need them to be subject to discipline from their employer.
    Frankly, I think part of it will be solved when the patient at Walgreens says, "ok, fuck off" and heads down the street to the CVS or Wal-Mart. Granted, I live in "the city" so, we have tons of Walgreens, CVS, Wal-Mart, Sam's, Costco, and other places that do prescription drugs. I recognize that someone in a rural area may have issues as far as access to alternatives, but in the balance of things, I'm willing to let competitive forces help drum the bullshit out.

    That bolded, though? That's a big one. Especially since rural areas where there is likely to be little to no competition are, conveniently, the exact kind of areas where this kind of fuckmuppetry is condoned.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    GungHo wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    We don't need some special law. Just need them to be subject to discipline from their employer.
    Frankly, I think part of it will be solved when the patient at Walgreens says, "ok, fuck off" and heads down the street to the CVS or Wal-Mart. Granted, I live in "the city" so, we have tons of Walgreens, CVS, Wal-Mart, Sam's, Costco, and other places that do prescription drugs. I recognize that someone in a rural area may have issues as far as access to alternatives, but in the balance of things, I'm willing to let competitive forces help drum the bullshit out.

    Unfortunately that fucks over people who do live in rural or deeply Christian communities.

    There are some states - like Utah - where there are no abortion clinics. It's conceivable that finding a pharmacist willing to dispense Plan B in such a state within the 72 hour window of opportunity would be nearly impossible. That pretty much means that such women are completely fucked.

    Edit: exactly what mcdermott said.

    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
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    just discrimination against people who can't do their job.

    I'm sorry, was that sarcasm or is firing somebody who is physically or intellectually unable to do their job now called "discrimination"?

    zeeny on
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Here's the example floating in my head: Say there's this tiny female, like, 4'9, 90 pounds, that kind of thing. She gets a job at some shipping company where the job requires that like 50% of the time is being spent carrying huge boxes. Well, she can't carry these boxes, and the boss wants to fire her. Should she be protected? I mean, this isn't even morality, something you can choose. She didn't choose to be female or 4'9, that's just who she is, should she really be fired for something she can't control? Yes. She should. Because she was hired to carry boxes, and she can't carry boxes. He's not a sexist, he's not discriminatory against short people, he's just discriminatory against people who aren't fulfilling the job requirements.

    Same thing here. Not religious persecution, just discrimination against people who can't do their job.
    Quid wrote: »
    "Is there any reason you would not be able to do anything on this list of services"

    Hell, wanna hear my new morals? Well, I've already decided I'm the most awesome person ever (duh), but now I realized that, wait a second, why should the most awesome person ever have to work? That's completely amoral, for me to have to work when I'm so awesome, doesn't make any sense in my internal sense of right and wrong. So I'm not just going to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, or even psychiatric drugs, or even red colored drugs. I won't fill any prescriptions. Nor will I mop floors, stock shelves, anything. It's totally against my set of right and wrong.
    But don't you dare try to fire me, this is my moral code!

    Now all I have to do is go find some non-corporate pharmacy where the little old man behind the counter won't realize how evil I am and won't even think to ask about what services I can or cannot provide. Because really, why should anyone have to ask "If I hire you, will you do your job?"

    King Boo Hoo on
This discussion has been closed.