Options

Moral Refusal Clauses - Evil Or Very Evil?

145791014

Posts

  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Becoming a pharmacist and refusing to dispense medication prescribed by a certified doctor is harming others.

    Refusing to take action to help somebody who you have not been explicitly charged to care for is not the same as harm.

    Really? I need anti-psychotics and you are charged with giving them to me... oh wait you don't feel like it?

    Pain relievers? No harm?

    I'm actually all for not making it illegal. You have every right to refuse to do anything you like.

    You also have the right to get fired for it.

    We're not saying there should be a law preventing you from giving meds. We're saying that the legal protection provided an actual doctor should not be extended to a vending machine. At the end of the day, Pharmacists don't TREAT anyone, they hand them bottles of pills.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Somebody lives in a neighbourhood, 500 miles away from the next pharmacy? That's a real shame. Now I really don't mean to have this sound like "Tough breaks kiddo". This is where my "ousted from the community" comment comes in. Your only pharmacist is acting like the local Hitler with the medicine, then you as a community need to do something about that if you don't agree with it. Because, and I am assuming here, that if you live 500 miles away from the next pharmacy, then you must live in a pretty small and gated community to begin with.

    First, to bring the rhetoric down to more realistic levels, it's more likely that you'd be in a situation where you're 100+ miles from a pharmacy willing to dispense it. And no, you probably don't live in a gated community. You probably live in the middle of fucking nowhere. Like, Podunk. The problem with your little "ousted from the community" idea is that, more than likely, your community is okay with it. The pharmacist probably has popular opinion on his side. Hell, there might even be a couple pharmacists...who both refuse to, and can still keep their jobs/stay in business because you're surrounded by fundies.

    And no, the answer to this isn't, and shouldn't be, "move out of Podunk." We don't believe in the tyranny of the majority around here.

    First off, I fucked up with the gated community comment. Your description is more close to what I meant there.

    Now for all that, you admit to the "tyranny of the majority" of that situation, yes? But you also believe that the government should have the right to step in and say "Hey. Stop that. Start acting this way. Our way or the highway"? That's the answer? Make it against the law?

    Once again, we all agree these people are dicks and shouldn't have that kind of control. Governmentally illegal though? No, I'm sorry. You open that door and you give precedent to open a hell of a lot more.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And if they were fucking with a rubber, and it broke?

    Oh, shit. Bet you didn't even think about that one, huh?
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE...

    If birth control is 99% effective, what do you suppose happens that other 1% of the time?

    We're marching into personal beliefs, one I kinda wanted to stay out of, but I already went there, huh. But how I was raised, the belief was that you really shouldn't be having sex if you're not also completely ready to have a baby.

    Now, I also believe in a woman's right to choose. But if you're living in this podunk that unfortunately doesn't, my suggestion is to think twice. There's always that 1% chance. If you're absolutely not ready for that 1%, there's also a way that guarantees a 100%.

    I am very pleased to know what your beliefs are. I also don't give a shit as long as you don't harm others with them. Becoming a pharmacist and refusing to dispense medication prescribed by a certified doctor is harming others.

    And that pharmacist should be fired and never allowed to work in the medical profession again.

    Not thrown in jail because he didn't give a girl a morning after pill.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Now for all that, you admit to the "tyranny of the majority" of that situation, yes? But you also believe that the government should have the right to step in and say "Hey. Stop that. Start acting this way. Our way or the highway"? That's the answer? Make it against the law?

    Once again, we all agree these people are dicks and shouldn't have that kind of control. Governmentally illegal though? No, I'm sorry. You open that door and you give precedent to open a hell of a lot more.

    How so? We have quite a few professions that are constrained as such. A good example (and one near and dear to mcd) is being a soldier. A soldier cannot disobey a lawful order, under threat of punishment. And I don't see this being so devastating to our society.

    So, you say, people choose to be soldiers knowing this. Well, the point is that people become pharmacists knowing full well that they may have to fill scripts of all sorts. If you have a problem with that, then you should rethink being a pharmacist, just as if you don't like killing, being a soldier isn't the best job choice for you.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    You really don't see the potential long-term ramifications of a precedent in requiring people to act contrary to their morals in non-emergency situations? It's not just about the pharmacies, it's about the precedent it sets in all manner of shit. It's not "moral discomfort".

    I mean, it's fine if you disagree. That's cool. I like debate. I just don't like people who are all, "RARRR YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU ARE EEEEEEVIIIIIIL!"when the disagreement is over what to do about a group of people we all agree are kind of dicks.

    Coercing private citizens to administer something that is fundamentally contentious is probably not the best way to go about dealing with things.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    You really don't see the potential long-term ramifications of a precedent in requiring people to act contrary to their morals in non-emergency situations? It's not just about the pharmacies, it's about the precedent it sets in all manner of shit. It's not "moral discomfort".

    I mean, it's fine if you disagree. That's cool. I like debate. I just don't like people who are all, "RARRR YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU ARE EEEEEEVIIIIIIL!"when the disagreement is over what to do about a group of people we all agree are kind of dicks.

    I'm all for being afraid of terms like "long-term ramifications of a precedent" but after a long day of work I really can't think of any. :-( Help!

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Becoming a pharmacist and refusing to dispense medication prescribed by a certified doctor is harming others.

    Refusing to take action to help somebody who you have not been explicitly charged to care for is not the same as harm.

    Um, I think that the whole licensture process would count as an explicit charge.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    If pharmacists are allowed to make choices based on their morals that effect the people who seek out their expertise then doesn't that set a precedent which would allow other professions the same ability to deny service based on moral values?

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Becoming a pharmacist and refusing to dispense medication prescribed by a certified doctor is harming others.

    Refusing to take action to help somebody who you have not been explicitly charged to care for is not the same as harm.

    So you're suggesting that physicians should be required to stock and dispense their own meds now?

    I think that as a pharmacist, and especially as the sole pharmacist in a sparsely populated area, you're taken on a certain implied duty of care for everybody in the surrounding community. Enough that you should be fired, or lose your license, for failing to fill a prescription from a doctor.

    EDIT: I should probably replacing "failing" with "refusing" in there, and with some kind of "on non-medical grounds" disclaimer. But you know what I meant.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Now for all that, you admit to the "tyranny of the majority" of that situation, yes? But you also believe that the government should have the right to step in and say "Hey. Stop that. Start acting this way. Our way or the highway"? That's the answer? Make it against the law?

    Once again, we all agree these people are dicks and shouldn't have that kind of control. Governmentally illegal though? No, I'm sorry. You open that door and you give precedent to open a hell of a lot more.

    How so? We have quite a few professions that are constrained as such. A good example (and one near and dear to mcd) is being a soldier. A soldier cannot disobey a lawful order, under threat of punishment. And I don't see this being so devastating to our society.

    So, you say, people choose to be soldiers knowing this. Well, the point is that people become pharmacists knowing full well that they may have to fill scripts of all sorts. If you have a problem with that, then you should rethink being a pharmacist, just as if you don't like killing, being a soldier isn't the best job choice for you.

    I'm not too familiar with military stuff. But if a soldier refuses to follow an order, depending on the severity of such order is he not just given a dishonourable discharge? They basically say GTFO and don't come back. He's not imprisoned or anything because he broke no "law". Unless the law broken was something serious like purpousfully firing on innocents, then he is imprisoned. Like I said, I really don't know anything about military junk, so you'd have to fill me in.

    I agree with you totally on the second though. If you have a problem with giving out some medicine, don't become a bloody pharmacist. There should be a system in place to weed out such acts. Legal jail time just shouldn't be one of them, that's all.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Potential side effects? You've got to be shitting me.

    on one side: possible unwanted pregnancy from plan B, and the host of other medical issues that may or may not come up, depending on the moral flavor that day. Anti-HIV drugs? None for you sir!

    on the other: Moral discomfort.

    Which is worse? Which is a bigger drain on society? Which is more harmful to the parties involved?

    Plan B is extremely harmful to one party in particular, to call attention to the elephant in the room.

    Bottom line: if you believe life begins at conception, you should not be forced to kill someone as part of your job (excepting roles like soldier or policeman where it's clearly a possibility).

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Narian wrote: »
    If pharmacists are allowed to make choices based on their morals that effect the people who seek out their expertise then doesn't that set a precedent which would allow other professions the same ability to deny service based on moral values?

    We already all have that right. I'm a teacher - I wouldn't teach someone who was violent towards other students. Or an adult student who just came here to sleaze at other students. We all make moral choices about who we'll work for all the time - it's just we think those choices are common-sense so we don't notice them.

    There are two points being debated here:

    (1) Should pharmacists, due to unique aspects of their job, not be allowed to pick and choose their customers based on morality?

    This is an interesting point.

    (2) Should people be able to make moral judgements which others (e.g. Angel Hedgie) don't agree with?

    This is not.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Now for all that, you admit to the "tyranny of the majority" of that situation, yes? But you also believe that the government should have the right to step in and say "Hey. Stop that. Start acting this way. Our way or the highway"? That's the answer? Make it against the law?

    Once again, we all agree these people are dicks and shouldn't have that kind of control. Governmentally illegal though? No, I'm sorry. You open that door and you give precedent to open a hell of a lot more.

    How so? We have quite a few professions that are constrained as such. A good example (and one near and dear to mcd) is being a soldier. A soldier cannot disobey a lawful order, under threat of punishment. And I don't see this being so devastating to our society.

    So, you say, people choose to be soldiers knowing this. Well, the point is that people become pharmacists knowing full well that they may have to fill scripts of all sorts. If you have a problem with that, then you should rethink being a pharmacist, just as if you don't like killing, being a soldier isn't the best job choice for you.

    I'm not too familiar with military stuff. But if a soldier refuses to follow an order, depending on the severity of such order is he not just given a dishonourable discharge? They basically say GTFO and don't come back. He's not imprisoned or anything because he broke no "law". Unless the law broken was something serious like purpousfully firing on innocents, then he is imprisoned. Like I said, I really don't know anything about military junk, so you'd have to fill me in.

    I agree with you totally on the second though. If you have a problem with giving out some medicine, don't become a bloody pharmacist. There should be a system in place to weed out such acts. Legal jail time just shouldn't be one of them, that's all.

    I do believe depending on the circumstances there exists an outcome of being shot. So the military thing is just a really bad analogy.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Now for all that, you admit to the "tyranny of the majority" of that situation, yes? But you also believe that the government should have the right to step in and say "Hey. Stop that. Start acting this way. Our way or the highway"? That's the answer? Make it against the law?

    Once again, we all agree these people are dicks and shouldn't have that kind of control. Governmentally illegal though? No, I'm sorry. You open that door and you give precedent to open a hell of a lot more.

    How so? We have quite a few professions that are constrained as such. A good example (and one near and dear to mcd) is being a soldier. A soldier cannot disobey a lawful order, under threat of punishment. And I don't see this being so devastating to our society.

    So, you say, people choose to be soldiers knowing this. Well, the point is that people become pharmacists knowing full well that they may have to fill scripts of all sorts. If you have a problem with that, then you should rethink being a pharmacist, just as if you don't like killing, being a soldier isn't the best job choice for you.

    I'm not too familiar with military stuff. But if a soldier refuses to follow an order, depending on the severity of such order is he not just given a dishonourable discharge? They basically say GTFO and don't come back. He's not imprisoned or anything because he broke no "law". Unless the law broken was something serious like purpousfully firing on innocents, then he is imprisoned. Like I said, I really don't know anything about military junk, so you'd have to fill me in.

    I agree with you totally on the second though. If you have a problem with giving out some medicine, don't become a bloody pharmacist. There should be a system in place to weed out such acts. Legal jail time just shouldn't be one of them, that's all.

    Yes, you don't know anything about the military stuff. While a soldier is unlikely to go to jail for refusing to follow a lawful order, he still most definitely can. Simply refusing to follow a lawful order is breaking the law in the military, whether it's an order to rush a machine gun nest or to peel a potato. If somebody gets a bug up their ass, either one can land you behind bars.

    But that's because soldiers are subject to a separate legal system, which is the only one under which that law is valid. A legal system they voluntarily agreed to abide by.

    At the same time, I see no reason that a pharmacist can't be forced to abide with a law he morally objects to as a stipulation of his licensure. Nobody's forcing anybody to become pharmacists, after all. It's every bit as voluntary as military service, and some compelling arguments have been made as to why this law might be just as necessary as some of the more draconian portions of the UCMJ.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Potential side effects? You've got to be shitting me.

    on one side: possible unwanted pregnancy from plan B, and the host of other medical issues that may or may not come up, depending on the moral flavor that day. Anti-HIV drugs? None for you sir!

    on the other: Moral discomfort.

    Which is worse? Which is a bigger drain on society? Which is more harmful to the parties involved?

    Plan B is extremely harmful to one party in particular, to call attention to the elephant in the room.

    Bottom line: if you believe life begins at conception, you should not be forced to kill someone as part of your job (excepting roles like soldier or policeman where it's clearly a possibility).

    Bottom line: If you believe that life begins at conception, maybe being a pharmacist isn't a job choice you should explore.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    If pharmacists are allowed to make choices based on their morals that effect the people who seek out their expertise then doesn't that set a precedent which would allow other professions the same ability to deny service based on moral values?

    We already all have that right. I'm a teacher - I wouldn't teach someone who was violent towards other students. Or an adult student who just came here to sleaze at other students. We all make moral choices about who we'll work for all the time - it's just we think those choices are common-sense so we don't notice them.

    There are two points being debated here:

    (1) Should pharmacists, due to unique aspects of their job, not be allowed to pick and choose their customers based on morality?

    This is an interesting point.

    (2) Should people be able to make moral judgements which others (e.g. Angel Hedgie) don't agree with?

    This is not.

    There's an epic canyon between making a moral judgement people disagree with and possibly harming someone through inaction.

    Pharmacists cannot diagnose. They are not Doctors. Their moral conviction is no more a reason to withold product than "I don't like the ones with orange labels." It's not their fucking job. They should be fired for it, and if they refuse to at least give the script back and point them to where they can get it filled they should be charged with a crime.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Bottom line: If you believe that life begins at conception, maybe being a pharmacist isn't a job choice you should explore.

    Uh okay o_O

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Potential side effects? You've got to be shitting me.

    on one side: possible unwanted pregnancy from plan B, and the host of other medical issues that may or may not come up, depending on the moral flavor that day. Anti-HIV drugs? None for you sir!

    on the other: Moral discomfort.

    Which is worse? Which is a bigger drain on society? Which is more harmful to the parties involved?

    Plan B is extremely harmful to one party in particular, to call attention to the elephant in the room.

    Bottom line: if you believe life begins at conception, you should not be forced to kill someone as part of your job (excepting roles like soldier or policeman where it's clearly a possibility).

    Bottom line: If you believe that life begins at conception, maybe being a pharmacist isn't a job choice you should explore.

    Because?

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    (2) Should people be able to make moral judgements which others (e.g. Angel Hedgie) don't agree with?

    This is not.

    You can make moral judgements freely all you want - up till you start harming people by doing so.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Potential side effects? You've got to be shitting me.

    on one side: possible unwanted pregnancy from plan B, and the host of other medical issues that may or may not come up, depending on the moral flavor that day. Anti-HIV drugs? None for you sir!

    on the other: Moral discomfort.

    Which is worse? Which is a bigger drain on society? Which is more harmful to the parties involved?

    Plan B is extremely harmful to one party in particular, to call attention to the elephant in the room.

    Bottom line: if you believe life begins at conception, you should not be forced to kill someone as part of your job (excepting roles like soldier or policeman where it's clearly a possibility).

    Bottom line: If you believe that life begins at conception, maybe being a pharmacist isn't a job choice you should explore.

    Because?
    If you cant figure it out yet, try re-reading the thread.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bottom line: If you believe that life begins at conception, maybe being a pharmacist isn't a job choice you should explore.

    Unless you happen to be a dick wanting to force your values on others.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bottom line: If you believe that life begins at conception, maybe being a pharmacist isn't a job choice you should explore.

    Uh okay o_O

    Going into a profession that requires you to violate your morals isn't the brightest idea in the world.

    If your religion does not allow blood donation, you shouldn't be in a position where you could be required to do blood transfusions. If it doesn't allow contact with pork, working at a non-Kosher butchers shop is probably a bad idea.. If you're required not to work on Sundays, maybe being a football player isn't for you.

    This isn't a new idea.

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    Bottom line: If you believe that life begins at conception, maybe being a pharmacist isn't a job choice you should explore.

    Unless you happen to be a dick wanting to force your values on others.

    Like being a vegan in a slaughterhouse.

    Edit:

    What if instead of birth control... they refused to give fertility drugs? I mean, it's the same thing really, some people have just a strong belief that the world is overpopulated.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Their moral conviction is no more a reason to withold product than "I don't like the ones with orange labels." It's not their fucking job.

    They can withhold pills if they would kill someone, though. In fact, they are bound to do so, it's part of their professional code of ethics.

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    We all make these moral decisions all the time. The fact that you guys apparently don't notice you're making them every day doesn't make them happen any less.

    Your definition of pharmacist seems to include 'must make moral decisions I agree with'.

    Non-sexist? Moral decision.

    Non-racist? Moral decision.

    Pro-life? Moral decision.

    Pro-abortion? Moral decision.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Their moral conviction is no more a reason to withold product than "I don't like the ones with orange labels." It's not their fucking job.

    They can withhold pills if they would kill someone, though. In fact, they are bound to do so, it's part of their professional code of ethics.

    Yeah, that sort of falls under "doing their fucking job". Denying a script because of a moral objection...not so much.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Bottom line: If you believe that life begins at conception, maybe being a pharmacist isn't a job choice you should explore.

    Uh okay o_O

    Going into a profession that requires you to violate your morals isn't the brightest idea in the world.

    Yeah they should have known 20+ years ago when they became pharmacists that plan B would be developed o_O

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Their moral conviction is no more a reason to withold product than "I don't like the ones with orange labels." It's not their fucking job.

    They can withhold pills if they would kill someone, though. In fact, they are bound to do so, it's part of their professional code of ethics.

    Yeah, that sort of falls under "doing their fucking job". Denying a script because of a moral objection...not so much.

    Correct, the moral objection is that someone is being killed. So you see...

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Bottom line: If you believe that life begins at conception, maybe being a pharmacist isn't a job choice you should explore.

    Because?

    Because a facet of your job involves filling prescriptions you morally object to. Time to consider another line of work. Just like those that believe that life begins at ejaculation will find themselves routinely filling prescriptions they morally object to. That's just the way it goes.

    If we're allowing moral objections, how far does it go? Can a pharmacist refuse to fill "regular" birth control prescriptions? Only for young women? Only for single women? (Noting, of course, that there have been pharmacists that have done just that)

    I think in all these cases he should be fired and/or lose his license. The doctor prescribes, you fucking fill. The extent of your input in this process (and it's important, to be sure) is to monitor drug interactions and side effects. Aside from that, fill the fucking bottle and let people go on their way. If you think God doesn't want you to fill some of those bottles, find another line of work.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Your definition of pharmacist seems to include 'must make moral decisions I agree with'.

    No, our definition of pharmacist includes "needs to leave his moral judgements at the door". If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be one. Period.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Their moral conviction is no more a reason to withold product than "I don't like the ones with orange labels." It's not their fucking job.

    They can withhold pills if they would kill someone, though. In fact, they are bound to do so, it's part of their professional code of ethics.

    Yeah, that sort of falls under "doing their fucking job". Denying a script because of a moral objection...not so much.

    Correct, the moral objection is that someone is being killed. So you see...

    They're in the wrong fucking line of work. Period.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    (2) Should people be able to make moral judgements which others (e.g. Angel Hedgie) don't agree with?

    This is not.

    You can make moral judgements freely all you want - up till you start harming people by doing so.

    If this is the stance being taken, could we please stop using Plan-B as the example? Nobody is being physically harmed* via refusal of the drug.

    Now, if it were something like: Doctor prescribes drug Acidenolyte** to a paitent who is terminally ill. If he does not get this drug, he will die. The pharmacist refuses to dispense the drug due to his personal beliefs. The paitent dies as a result.". THAT I could see, and which could probably be argued a case for.


    *Yes yes, besides the OBVIOUS fetus or mental harming, you don't need to bring those up.

    **Not a real drug...duh.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Their moral conviction is no more a reason to withold product than "I don't like the ones with orange labels." It's not their fucking job.

    They can withhold pills if they would kill someone, though. In fact, they are bound to do so, it's part of their professional code of ethics.

    Yeah, that sort of falls under "doing their fucking job". Denying a script because of a moral objection...not so much.

    Deacon is trying to make this about the poor unborn clump of cells, qualifying as a person. Giving Plan B would kill that person.

    Clump of cells has no rights, it may be alive but is not a person. Your decision not to give the pill may result in death for the mother if she has an autoimmune disease or a history of Ectopic pregnancy.

    I say again, the pharmacist is not in the position to make a judgment.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Their moral conviction is no more a reason to withold product than "I don't like the ones with orange labels." It's not their fucking job.

    They can withhold pills if they would kill someone, though. In fact, they are bound to do so, it's part of their professional code of ethics.

    Yeah, that sort of falls under "doing their fucking job". Denying a script because of a moral objection...not so much.

    Do you really believe that the only moral decisions are the ones you don't agree with? That the moral decisions people make that you would make in the same situation are magically not moral decisions?

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yeah they should have known 20+ years ago when they became pharmacists that plan B would be developed o_O

    There have been some pharmacists that have refused to fill plain old birth control as well. I'm pretty sure most of them went to school after that was developed. Really, the "it was developed after I got my education" bit is just an excuse.

    Also, I'd like to point out that legally there is no other life involved. Nobody's getting killed by filling a Plan B prescription, as far as the law is concerned.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    And saying 'Period' after your posts doesn't make them any more rational.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Deacon is trying to make this about the poor unborn clump of cells, qualifying as a person. Giving Plan B would kill that person.

    Clump of cells has no rights, it may be alive but is not a person.

    That's a MORAL JUDGEMENT though.

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    (2) Should people be able to make moral judgements which others (e.g. Angel Hedgie) don't agree with?

    This is not.

    You can make moral judgements freely all you want - up till you start harming people by doing so.

    If this is the stance being taken, could we please stop using Plan-B as the example? Nobody is being physically harmed* via refusal of the drug.

    Now, if it were something like: Doctor prescribes drug Acidenolyte** to a paitent who is terminally ill. If he does not get this drug, he will die. The pharmacist refuses to dispense the drug due to his personal beliefs. The paitent dies as a result.". THAT I could see, and which could probably be argued a case for.


    *Yes yes, besides the OBVIOUS fetus or mental harming, you don't need to bring those up.

    **Not a real drug...duh.

    Yes, I'm sure someone who's endangered by pregnancy would agree. Or the rape victim that needs an abortion instead of a pill. Or...you get the idea. They are in fact being harmed by that.

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Deacon is trying to make this about the poor unborn clump of cells, qualifying as a person. Giving Plan B would kill that person.

    Clump of cells has no rights, it may be alive but is not a person.

    That's a MORAL JUDGEMENT though.

    Nope. Legal. If the clump of cells happens to implant, the women is then free to have it removed. All the pharmacist can do is make the process more invasive and painful.

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Your definition of pharmacist seems to include 'must make moral decisions I agree with'.

    No, our definition of pharmacist includes "needs to leave his moral judgements at the door". If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be one. Period.

    Mine fucking doesn't.

    That should never be a part of a job definition.

    It isn't a part of military jobs even, if you look at the legal minutiae.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Your definition of pharmacist seems to include 'must make moral decisions I agree with'.

    No, our definition of pharmacist includes "needs to leave his moral judgements at the door". If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be one. Period.

    Mine fucking doesn't.

    That should never be a part of a job definition.

    It isn't a part of military jobs even, if you look at the legal minutiae.

    So, when are you going to come and live in the real world?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
This discussion has been closed.