Options

Moral Refusal Clauses - Evil Or Very Evil?

1246714

Posts

  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Adrien wrote: »
    I don't understand why you would say this without actually reading the bill.
    Provides that a pharmacy is not prohibited from refusing to provide a contraceptive to a customer if: (1) it is unlawful to dispense the contraceptive to the customer without a valid, lawful prescription and no such prescription is presented; (2) the customer is unable to pay for the contraceptive; or (3) the employee of the pharmacy refuses to provide the contraceptive on the basis of a professional clinical judgment.

    I mean, seriously now.

    Fun fact: I actually did read the bill, actively hunting for such a clause, and managed to miss it. A looser is me.

    Still:

    - This covers a single medication. I'm not really a fan of crafting a bill to govern the use of every medication a pharmacist could possibly object to.
    - How hard would it be for a pharmacist to claim he denial of service is based on a professional clinical judgment? We can't really criminalize being mistaken, nor would we want to.
    - In the case of, say, Plan B, couldn't a pharmacist opposed to the pill refuse to give it out on the grounds that undergoing an "abortion" in this manner could cause psychological harm to the woman down the road? Risk of psychological harm is, in fact, a legitimate clinical issue in some cases. (ie, cases involving other medications or mixtures thereof)

    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
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    We aren't talking about imposing some extra duty on a pharmacist because it's "good for you."

    No, that's exactly what's being argued here.

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    I'd just like to point out that it's not the pharmacist's fault there are no other pharmacies/clinics in the area, or that the parents will beat the girl, or <insert_circumstance_here>.

    Nor is the pharamicist "fucking" the community. He is benefitting the community by being their pharmacist when, in this hypothetical, none other exists. He just isn't benefitting them in all the ways one might want him too.

    Yes, because it's so great that he won't dispense drugs legally prescribed because he makes moral calls. That's really beneficial.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I LOVE issues like this. They touch on so many different issues all at once that blur the lines between liberal and conservative viewpoints.

    First of all, as I understand it, there are a few different possibilities here that are getting confused:

    1) We could have a law that forces doctors and pharmacists to perform and distribute treatments they disagree with morally.

    2) We could have no law, and doctors and pharmacists would be subject to the marketplace consequences of their actions, i.e., people going to another pharmacy or the pharmacist getting fired.

    3) We could have a law that shields medical pros and allows them to make moral-based medical decisions without penalty. Patients can still find other pharmacies/doctors, but the medical pros can't get fined or fired.

    Depending on the specifics in-between, such as how medical regulatory agencies handle it, how the laws are written, etc., I'm ok with any of these. There are analogous situations for all three.

    Yar on
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Why would that law be any more or less objectionable than current laws that prevent store owners from selling alcohol to, say, 20 year olds?

    Clearly more objectionable, since there's a difference between restricting what you can sell and requiring that you sell it at all, especially given there are moral issues involved.

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    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
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    We aren't talking about imposing some extra duty on a pharmacist because it's "good for you."

    No, that's exactly what's being argued here.

    No, what's being argued is that when it comes down to pharmacist's morals vs. health and well-being of the individual, the health and well-being of the individual wins EVERY FUCKING TIME.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    We aren't talking about imposing some extra duty on a pharmacist because it's "good for you."

    No, that's exactly what's being argued here.

    No it's fucking not dude.

    Pharmacists are trained and hired to dispense medication. This is their duty. When they refuse to do so because of a personal belief that has nothing to do with medical judgment they are breaching their duty to the patient and the board that licensed them.

    The fact that you don't really think a woman being denied Plan B is harmful or that an abortion is not a greater harm than using emergency contraceptives really speaks volumes, so I think I can be done here anyway.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    ParagonParagon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Quid 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....
    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.

    I wish that was true everywhere.


    More on topic, plan B has been available over the counter here in Norway for ages. It's not the only thing that makes me look at the US and shake my head.
    As for the moral refusal clauses themselves I find them way too open for abuse by idiots, which...really fits a lot more categories, now that I think about it. I also think it would be nice with a law to protect people from idiots, isn't that what the purpose of law itself really is anyway?

    Hmm...I'm having difficulty even imagining a single situation where moral refusal clauses are actually a good thing, could anyone help me out here?

    Paragon on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    No, what's being argued is that when it comes down to pharmacist's morals vs. health and well-being of the individual, the health and well-being of the individual wins EVERY FUCKING TIME.
    Yes but you should accept that people who refuse on moral grounds usually aren't thinking to themselves, "muhahahaha - my will be done, more power to me and my arcane religious texts!!" but rather consider themselves to be doing the most for the health and well-being of the individual. And that when a law gets passed to protect them, maybe that means the community agrees. If the pharmacist and the community are against the doctor on it, who gets to win?

    Yar on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    No, what's being argued is that when it comes down to pharmacist's morals vs. health and well-being of the individual, the health and well-being of the individual wins EVERY FUCKING TIME.
    Yes but you should accept that people who refuse on moral grounds usually aren't thinking to themselves, "muhahahaha - my will be done, more power to me and my arcane religious texts!!" but rather consider themselves to be doing the most for the health and well-being of the individual. And that when a law gets passed to protect them, maybe that means the community agrees. If the pharmacist and the community are against the doctor on it, who gets to win?

    So, you're big on that whole "tyranny of the majority" thing, aren't you? Just because the community "agrees" doesn't mean that the community isn't completely fucking wrong.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    No, what's being argued is that when it comes down to pharmacist's morals vs. health and well-being of the individual, the health and well-being of the individual wins EVERY FUCKING TIME.

    They're considering of the heath of the other individual so :P

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    I'd just like to point out that it's not the pharmacist's fault there are no other pharmacies/clinics in the area, or that the parents will beat the girl, or <insert_circumstance_here>.

    Nor is the pharamicist "fucking" the community. He is benefitting the community by being their pharmacist when, in this hypothetical, none other exists. He just isn't benefitting them in all the ways one might want him too.

    It's very likely that, were the pharmacist to leave, another would take his place. So... not a great point.

    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
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    Pretty much every one of Feral's posts said "non-emergency procedures."

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    No, what's being argued is that when it comes down to pharmacist's morals vs. health and well-being of the individual, the health and well-being of the individual wins EVERY FUCKING TIME.
    Yes but you should accept that people who refuse on moral grounds usually aren't thinking to themselves, "muhahahaha - my will be done, more power to me and my arcane religious texts!!" but rather consider themselves to be doing the most for the health and well-being of the individual. And that when a law gets passed to protect them, maybe that means the community agrees. If the pharmacist and the community are against the doctor on it, who gets to win?

    #1. When you start making decisions about my health because you think I'll end up in hell otherwise, a made-up place full of lava and a guy with horns and a pitchfork, we have a serious issue at hand.

    #2. If the pharmacist and the community are against the doctor, who gets to win? The fucking patient. Remember, that person? The one who needs help? The patient should win. The patient, backed by the AMA, DEA, FDA, etc.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Why would that law be any more or less objectionable than current laws that prevent store owners from selling alcohol to, say, 20 year olds?

    Clearly more objectionable, since there's a difference between restricting what you can sell and requiring that you sell it at all, especially given there are moral issues involved.

    And that difference is what, exactly?

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Pharmacists are trained and hired to dispense medication. This is their duty. When they refuse to do so because of a personal belief that has nothing to do with medical judgment they are breaching their duty to the patient and the board that licensed them.

    They have a moral qualm with the medical result of the pill.
    The fact that you don't really think a woman being denied Plan B is harmful or that an abortion is not a greater harm than using emergency contraceptives really speaks volumes, so I think I can be done here anyway.

    But abortion is a consitutional right, it can't be good or bad.

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    consitutional right, it can't be good or bad.
    What?

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    Pretty much every one of Feral's posts said "non-emergency procedures."

    Easy for him to say. I'm pointing out the reality.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    So you're saying that pharmacists should be legally required to give free heroin to anyone who asks for it?

    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
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Can I have mandated porn too please.

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Pharmacists are trained and hired to dispense medication. This is their duty. When they refuse to do so because of a personal belief that has nothing to do with medical judgment they are breaching their duty to the patient and the board that licensed them.

    They have a moral qualm with the medical result of the pill.

    Newsflash - if they have such a fucking problem, they should have gone into another fucking profession.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    So you're saying that pharmacists should be legally required to give free heroin to anyone who asks for it?

    Oooh, that strawman never had a chance. Now answer the question.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    So you're saying that pharmacists should be legally required to give free heroin to anyone who asks for it?

    Yes, because just like heroin, abortion and emergency contraception are both illegal.

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    Pretty much every one of Feral's posts said "non-emergency procedures."

    Easy for him to say. I'm pointing out the reality.
    Look dude if you can't see the difference between refusing to provide emergency medical care and refusal to provide drugs then I don't see how there can be an intelligent discussion here.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    No, what's being argued is that when it comes down to pharmacist's morals vs. health and well-being of the individual, the health and well-being of the individual wins EVERY FUCKING TIME.
    Yes but you should accept that people who refuse on moral grounds usually aren't thinking to themselves, "muhahahaha - my will be done, more power to me and my arcane religious texts!!" but rather consider themselves to be doing the most for the health and well-being of the individual. And that when a law gets passed to protect them, maybe that means the community agrees. If the pharmacist and the community are against the doctor on it, who gets to win?

    #1. When you start making decisions about my health because you think I'll end up in hell otherwise, a made-up place full of lava and a guy with horns and a pitchfork, we have a serious issue at hand.

    In the case of abortion pills or contraception, the thought process is more along the lines of "By refusing this prescription, I am saving the life of an innocent child." It's not a spiritual issue, it's a matter of life and death for them. I mean, I disagree with them as strongly as you do, but let's not mischaracterize their thinking.

    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
    dgs095dgs095 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    I LOVE issues like this. They touch on so many different issues all at once that blur the lines between liberal and conservative viewpoints.

    First of all, as I understand it, there are a few different possibilities here that are getting confused:

    1) We could have a law that forces doctors and pharmacists to perform and distribute treatments they disagree with morally.

    2) We could have no law, and doctors and pharmacists would be subject to the marketplace consequences of their actions, i.e., people going to another pharmacy or the pharmacist getting fired.

    3) We could have a law that shields medical pros and allows them to make moral-based medical decisions without penalty. Patients can still find other pharmacies/doctors, but the medical pros can't get fined or fired.

    Depending on the specifics in-between, such as how medical regulatory agencies handle it, how the laws are written, etc., I'm ok with any of these. There are analogous situations for all three.


    3) is what we have right now, and it is/has been extended from Doctors to anyone in the medical professions. And it is implemented badly so as to facilitate discrimination against unmarried and pregnant women. That is why we are pissed off.

    edit: ok technically I'm in Canada, and our laws might be a little different, but I'm still pissed off.

    dgs095 on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    consitutional right, it can't be good or bad.
    What?

    He has a problem with women having autonomy over their bodies.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    Pretty much every one of Feral's posts said "non-emergency procedures."

    Easy for him to say. I'm pointing out the reality.
    Look dude if you can't see the difference between refusing to provide emergency medical care and refusal to provide drugs then I don't see how there can be an intelligent discussion here.

    Nope. The point I'm making is that it's not as simple as Feral would like to make it out to be. The people trying to get these clauses written get them written as broadly as possible. So Feral saying "let's ignore emergency care" is a bit naive. That said, as I pointed out - it's pretty reprehensible to tell a woman with severe, disfiguring acne that she can't be treated for it because you don't believe in contraception. (And if you don't think those are linked, then you don't understand how an Accutane script works.)

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    So you're saying that pharmacists should be legally required to give free heroin to anyone who asks for it?

    As long as it was given as part of a treatment by a doctor for a condition. They give methadone, you know.

    Edit;

    Were it a car salesman who refused to sell a blue Honda because he thinks blue Hondas are unsafe, and the dealership lost money from it, he'd be out on his ass in four seconds flat. Because you put a stamp of Morals! or Religious belief! on something doesn't make it any less fucking crazy.
    The difference here is that not only would a business lose out on the sale of a product, the person who needed to buy the product may miss their only opportunity to avoid further complications.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    So you're saying that pharmacists should be legally required to give free heroin to anyone who asks for it?

    Yes, because just like heroin, abortion and emergency contraception are both illegal.

    Oh, wait, I thought we were playing a game of Retarded Strawmen. Was that a serious question?

    If so, then no, I don't support refusal of emergency services. I know Feral doesn't support refusal of emergency services, because he said so. I think it's actually pretty easy to outlaw the refusal of emergency services. Mississippi's law is just flatly stupid and is probably in violation of federal laws mandating that hospitals provide emergency services to those who need them.

    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
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    PirateJon wrote: »
    If somebody would have passed a law that said that all migraine patients must be given Dilaudid in the ER if they're having an intractable migraine, it would have made my and my ex-gf's lives so much easier. But despite how much it would have benefited me, I wouldn't be able to justify that law to myself, for the same reasons I've outlined above regarding Plan B.
    Wait.. what? What you said first - i may have missed something else - was you don't want to legislate "someone being a dick". I think I and other think this loophole for medical care goes beyond not letting a guy pull into your lane in traffic.

    What I said was that I don't believe that professionals should be forced by law to render non-emergency services that they don't want to render. I would be sympathetic to the notion that Plan B could be considered an emergency medication because if it's not taken within 72 hours the consequences would be dire. (After all, we do call it "emergency contraception" for a reason.) Of course, that would open up a whole new can of worms and I think we'd need to be very, very careful how we word and justify such a law.

    However, I don't think that anybody should be forced to dispense non-emergency contraception.

    Why? Is it just the contraception part? or the 'force' part?

    The force part.
    Well for my part, the stakes here are too high to allow people to 'opt-out'. We either force them to provide the service, or we allow the slippery slope to remain. That D.kos post i saw linked - pharmicists are refusing to fill antibiotics to treat STDs.

    If this is their morals, well, force it is.

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, just to clarify, I'm pretty much in Feral's corner, here. The guys in question are dicks, even dicks doing demonstrable harm, but "dicks doing demonstrable harm" is not always a demographic that should be legislated against.

    So it's okay that an EMT can leave a woman to die because he refuses to transport her to a hospital where she may receive a medically necessary abortion?

    The details of that case are scarce, and the EMT's defense was that the "medically necessary" part was falsified, presumably to sidestep the requirements of other abortion laws in place that had out-clauses for medically necessary abortions. As for "leaving her to die..." she was already at the hospital emergency room when the driver refused to take her to the abortion clinic, so I doubt that's the case. There's no evidence that she died.

    That's also what I like about this issue. Like it or not, Roe v. Wade was a decision profoundly at odds with the role of the courts and the Constitution. Regardless of whether you think it was a great decision or a horrible one, declaring that the Constiution specifically guarantees that no government anywhere in the country can write a law that denies a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy is such a strange and complicated application of our laws that it is inevitable that we will be sorting out legal wrangles such as this one for decades.

    Yar on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The pharmacist situation makes me try to think of some other equivalent with less controversy but an equal level of logic. The closest I can come up with is a waiter who works in a steakhouse. Let's say this waiter is a vegetarian, and one day decides that he's not going to take or deliver any orders that have meat in them. No health reason, he just has some personal beliefs that interfere with his job, and he's choosing to go with those beliefs.

    So now this waiter can't fulfill a pretty big chunk of his job description. Should he get to keep his job? Fuck no - if he's voluntarily not doing the work he was hired to do, then he gets fired, whether the reason behind it is vegetarianism or religion or just pure laziness.

    Now let's make this the only steakhouse available to the town for about 50 miles around. And there are some people who need to eat steak to live. OK, the metaphor is breaking down. Still, I think the logic is the same. If someone is choosing not to do part of their job, then they shouldn't keep that job. Especially if lives depend on it. Maybe a better example would be a fireman who refuses to rescue black people or gay people from burning houses. OK now I'm just thinking up bad analogies.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    That's also what I like about this issue. Like it or not, Roe v. Wade was a decision profoundly at odds with the role of the courts and the Constitution. Regardless of whether you think it was a great decision or a horrible one, declaring that the Constiution specifically guarantees that no government anywhere in the country can write a law that denies a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy is such a strange and complicated application of our laws that it is inevitable that we will be sorting out legal wrangles such as this one for decades.

    It was? Newsflash - the Constitution is all about personal autonomy. Not prohibiting abortions is part of that.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I honestly just don't feel like it's the pharmacist's place to refuse treatment on moral grounds. To me it's the equivalent of him sneaking around at night stealing people's contraceptives because he's morally against them. In both cases, you turn yourself into a vigilante, personally fighting against something you don't believe in.

    However, the work-area is no place for vigilante personal battles. When you go to work as a pharmacist, you shouldn't be John Doe, the pharmacist. You should be the pharmacist, named John. Pharmacist first. If AMA, FDA, DEA and assorted other organizations associated with pharmacology agree on a medication, you should to. When you refuse to sell the medication, you're essentially abusing your workplace by taking your personal battle to levels not accessible if it weren't for your job.

    When you go home, continue your personal battles. If you are unable to do the duties required of your profession, you need to change professions.

    As for alcohol, heroine, etc. All good examples. When the FDA, DEA, and AMA all decide that heroine is an excellent source of medicine for Disease X and give their thumbs-up to prescribing it, then the pharmacist should to. Once more, take your personal battle outside the workplace.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Nope. The point I'm making is that it's not as simple as Feral would like to make it out to be. The people trying to get these clauses written get them written as broadly as possible. So Feral saying "let's ignore emergency care" is a bit naive. That said, as I pointed out - it's pretty reprehensible to tell a woman with severe, disfiguring acne that she can't be treated for it because you don't believe in contraception. (And if you don't think those are linked, then you don't understand how an Accutane script works.)

    Accutane is not a controlled substance (neither are hormonal birth control pills). If a patient can't find a pharmacist in the area that will dispense them, they can be easily mail-ordered.

    This also applies to PirateJon's statement about antibiotics above.

    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: »
    Nope. The point I'm making is that it's not as simple as Feral would like to make it out to be. The people trying to get these clauses written get them written as broadly as possible. So Feral saying "let's ignore emergency care" is a bit naive. That said, as I pointed out - it's pretty reprehensible to tell a woman with severe, disfiguring acne that she can't be treated for it because you don't believe in contraception. (And if you don't think those are linked, then you don't understand how an Accutane script works.)

    Accutane is not a controlled substance (neither are hormonal birth control pills). If a patient can't find a pharmacist in the area that will dispense them, they can be easily mail-ordered.

    This also applies to PirateJon's statement about antibiotics above.

    You don't understand how Accutane is prescribed, then. And "mail-order" is a bullshit copout - not everyone can easily order the medication that way.

    Again, it comes down to the question I asked earlier that you tried to sidestep - do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual? Your arguments lead me to think you do.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    That's also what I like about this issue. Like it or not, Roe v. Wade was a decision profoundly at odds with the role of the courts and the Constitution. Regardless of whether you think it was a great decision or a horrible one, declaring that the Constiution specifically guarantees that no government anywhere in the country can write a law that denies a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy is such a strange and complicated application of our laws that it is inevitable that we will be sorting out legal wrangles such as this one for decades.

    Not to derail this thread, but I don't think Roe V. Wade was "profoundly at odds with the role of the courts and the Constitution", since it was part of a series of SCOTUS cases that expanded the implied Constitutional "right of privacy" to reproductive choice.

    I'm also of the opinion that "strange and complicated application of our laws" is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be doing. I really can't think of any way to square 20th or 21st century legal questions with an 18th Century document and the centuries of conflicting and complex legal precedence between the two that couldn't be described as "strange and complicated".

    Lawndart on
This discussion has been closed.