Fucking Xian Idiots
28 January 2006 by Bob
Once again, I think we have a good companion to the “Why Are You So Angry?” post…
Pharmacists Sue Over Birth Control Policy
EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. - Four pharmacists who refused to sign a pledge promising to dispense the morning-after birth-control pill sued Walgreen drug stores Friday, alleging they were illegally fired. The lawsuits accuse Walgreen Co. of violating the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. The pharmacists were being represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, a public-interest group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson.
Now, I’ve tried to show how fucking stupid and illogical this is in another post, as did other people.
Enough with the xian bullshit already. Just don’t work as a pharmacist if you foresee a conflict. Other people have to sign Conflict of Interest statements all the time at their jobs. Just do one here when you’re applying for a job as a pharmacist. As with any other C.I. statement, if you can’t perform your duties, then you shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Oh, I’m sorry, that’s right, I forgot: that won’t work here BECAUSE IT’S FUCKING XIANITY. And xians aren’t really being assholes, but just following their consciences…right?
28 January 2006, on 9:48 am
Ever notice that clearly unconstitutional, right-wing fuckwad groups have to come up with names like the American Center for Law and Justice and Creative Response Concepts… All of which have a distinctly Orwellian mind-control feel to them?
Loathe am I to evoke Godwin’s Law, but it does seem rather Goebbels-like.
28 January 2006, on 12:21 pm
This is comparable to a mailman who would not deliver Playboy. I think that if you are not comfortable with the job then you should leave or be terminated. Notice also how the Initials of pat Robertsons group (ACLJ) looks just like the ACLU. More purposful deception?
28 January 2006, on 2:24 pm
If you really think about it, I’m not sure that there is a profession that a firm religious believer could work at and not be confronted with any religious conflict.
Waiting tables where alcohol and smoking is permitted, pharmacies, hospitals, libraries, grocery stores, video stores, banks. The list could go on and on.
The point I am trying to make is that we encounter countless moments when we are faced with differing moral standards. We do not live in a perfect world folks.
Maybe, and this has been mentioned before on repeated threads; those that have such strong world and moral views regarding their faith, should team up and buy a piece of land somewhere that only they can dwell. I say this in full sincerity. Why must a person of faith smear their beliefs all over another person? In my opinion, it is because they are afraid of something in which they don’t even know WHY they are afraid. It is a power/ego thing if you ask me. I also feel that at times, religious folk, because they claim to know the Truth, take it upon themselves to make decisions in the name of the Lord.
Blows me mind, mateys. Just blows me mind.
29 January 2006, on 3:49 am
I think I’ll get a job as a window washer even though I’m acrophobic. Or maybe a gig as an elevator operator even though I’m claustrophobic. Or a job as a male prostitute even though I’m a eunuch. Then, when I’m let go for not fulfilling my job duties, I’ll fuckin’ sue someone.
The religiously beshitted sure aren’t shy about using the court system. Isn’t there a Bible verse that implores Christians not to bring their disputes before secular judges (which U.S. courts are, at least in theory)?
29 January 2006, on 1:26 pm
I realize that Pat R. has taken up this cause based upon an attempt to strike down this law, and I am not ready to say I support that at all. I do want to address the issue of the pharmacists themselves. It has been said that these men are forcing their morality on the public, but I see it quite differently. I see the law imposing upon their right not to participate in something they do not believe in. To quote one of the Pharmacists in question, “I’m not imposing my beliefs on someone else, I’m telling them I choose not to participate in what they’re going to do. Now that’s not imposing my will on them, it’s just saying leave me out of this. On the other hand, they’re telling me I have to do this, so they’re imposing their will on me.” Another pharmacist was quoted as saying “I can advise people what pharmacies to go to. I mean, I can help them in every way. But I can’t actually fill them because of my religious belief.”
The point is, they are not trying to stop folks from getting these prescriptions, they just do not feel they should be FORCED to participate. I can’t support the Government forcing anybody to participate.
Bear in mind, those of you who lament they should have never become pharmacists if they couldn’t do the job, I do not know how old these men are, but judging that this is a new law, it is logical to assume they became pharmacists BEFORE this law was enacted and they may not have invested so much money pursuing a pharmaceutical career if these laws were indeed in place at the time. Judging from the photo of one of these pharmacists, I would gamble that he at least became entered the profession long before the morning after pill was even approved in this country.
At the same time however, Walgreens has claimed to offer them jobs in Missouri, just across the river, and has offered to assist them in obtaining license there and none of them have accepted that. One of the four has apparently returned to work and signed the document, leaving just the three unemployed.
I support Walgreens position in all of this, because if their pharmacist refuse to fill the prescription, it is Walgreens that will pay the penalty, not the pharmacist themselves. If I was in Walgreens place, I would have no choice but to let these men go as well. That is the sad part in all of this. Now Walgreens has to screen their employees based upon another’s morals instead of expertise in the profession.
And yes, I am aware that perhaps a raped 12 yr old girl might need this pill immediately to get rid of her grandfather’s possible embryo incubating inside her, and I personally would give her the script. I don’t even see this as abortion personally. But I don’t think the government has the right to force me to issue it when Super Drug down the street will fill it happily. I am not sure Pat R. should fight it. Maybe this one should belong to the real ACLU. It is civil liberties we are discussing, not religious rights at all.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=88456
29 January 2006, on 3:25 pm
There are a couple of things that really piss me off about these “wanna-be” pharmacists… 1) it takes a *lot* of time and effort to go to school to become a pharmacist and it isn’t like they spring it on them as a surprise when they graduate that they will be expected to provide all manner of drugs that they may personally never have a need for or even agree with 2) taking #1 into account they do it anyway, eagerly anticipating the day that they will be asked to either do their job or sign a piece of paper that will guarantee that they will do their job so that they can ascend to the oh so coveted position of media martyr 3) any pharmacist that denies medicinal products because of their “faith” should have every facet of their life under scrutiny and held up to the standards of conduct of that faith that they are oh so willing to judge others by and suffer the consequences as well and if that means stoning them for working on the sabbath, so be it…
so, um thanks for listening to my rant… that has to be my biggest pet peeve of all of the so-called “persecutions” that the xtian right “suffer” from living in today’s godless society (ooops, i just barfed a little in my mouth just typing that)
p.s. pardon my quote-happy typing folks!
29 January 2006, on 5:31 pm
Dan said:
But I don’t think the government has the right to force me to issue it when Super Drug down the street will fill it happily. I am not sure Pat R. should fight it. Maybe this one should belong to the real ACLU. It is civil liberties we are discussing, not religious rights at all.
In small town ‘Merica, “Super Drug” is not necessarily down the street. What’s the “real” ACLU? I have been a member all of my adult life. They fight for our civil liberties, no matter what the issue, including religious rights. For those that don’t get it, freedom of religion (whether right to practice or not) folds in under civil liberties, not the other way around.
I guess this is what you are saying… Sorry, but it just pisses me off when people try to differentiate the two… Because the religious right does that all the time. They don’t realize that the ACLU will stand up for them just as soon as they will stand up for liberal secularists. That’s what they do… And that’s why, like Amnesty International, they are one of the greatest charitable institutions on the planet.
A pharmacist who chooses to violate someone’s rights based on his own moral convictions, rather than on the law of the land, is an outlaw. He’s a drug dealer who has delcared his own set of morals, despite what society has constructed.
29 January 2006, on 6:36 pm
It has been said that these men are forcing their morality on the public, but I see it quite differently. I see the law imposing upon their right not to participate in something they do not believe in.
Well, again, the scope of this phrasing is just way too broad, as I’ve already mentioned. Phrase things in the way you have above, and you’re going to have to answer all those other situations in the same way. Just saying, “But I don’t believe in that” doesn’t really work all that much in other occupations (other than, of course, just leaving them and working somewhere else).
Bear in mind, those of you who lament they should have never become pharmacists if they couldn’t do the job, I do not know how old these men are, but judging that this is a new law, it is logical to assume they became pharmacists BEFORE this law was enacted and they may not have invested so much money pursuing a pharmaceutical career if these laws were indeed in place at the time.
The interesting part about this issue is that it doesn’t really have to do with any such law. It involves this law in this case, sure, but the logic, morality, and legality of this issue don’t have to be connected to it. For example, birth control has been available for quite some time, and pharmacists were also claiming (truthfully, I think) that such drugs could prohibit the implantation of a fertilized egg, thus giving you the same complaints.
Now Walgreens has to screen their employees based upon another’s morals instead of expertise in the profession.
But keep in mind that Walgreens didn’t originally have to do this, and they didn’t start this issue. Also, it should be noted that other professions can also have implicit expectations, depending on the type. Further, if these people had beliefs about, say, race or political affiliation (even if those people held those beliefs as strongly as anything else), none of this would even matter and no one would give a shit. But introduce religion, specifically xianity, into the subject and things change. Reason goes out the window, because now we’re talking about revelation.
But I don’t think the government has the right to force me to issue it when Super Drug down the street will fill it happily.
Well, a few things on this. First, there’s usually a reason why people go to a particular pharmacy, whether it be convenience or price or coverage or whatever. Second, as Sean has already noted, sometimes the pharmacy is the only one around, and the burden on the customer in those cases is clearly unreasonable. Third, again, watch your scope when you phrase things in this way.
30 January 2006, on 9:55 am
Sean, I’ve lived in “small town ‘Merica” a lot in my life. I’ve lived in some tiny, tiny places and I’ve yet to run across the town that didn’t have at least two pharmacies (usually more). There were surrounding towns that may have had just one but they were an easy drive to other towns with pharmacies.
Now, I’m not denying that small towns exist where there is only one pharmacy and they are a long distance from other towns. In those cases you have a stronger case for forcing a pharmacist to distribute drugs he or she finds morally wrong. In 99 percent of the cases in America it IS possible to drive down the street to “Super Drug” and get your prescription filled. In those cases it is a non-issue.
It’s a simple matter of the free market. The state should no more force a pharmacy to sell certain drugs (in the 99 percent situations) than it should dictate to the Ford Motor Co. what color car to sell. If Ford doesn’t want to make a blue car they don’t have to. People in the market for blue cars can always buy a chevy. Ford pays a price in lost revenue for their stand against blue cars but that stand may be worth the loss in revenue.
I know that’s the case for the pharmacists in question.
30 January 2006, on 10:43 am
Why don’t these dickhead pharmacists go pray instead of suing… do they believe that lawyers are more powerful than jeebus? If that worthless gawd has done so much for them in their lives then why use another source to deal with their problem?
Fuck these pharmacists …goto church and let a real pharmacist have a job.
30 January 2006, on 11:03 am
Frank,
Yes, but Ford refusing to manufacture a blue car does not violate any individual’s negative rights.
30 January 2006, on 11:18 am
In 99 percent of the cases in America it IS possible to drive down the street to “Super Drug” and get your prescription filled. In those cases it is a non-issue.
People keep saying this, as if one should automatically think that the place down the road is not going to have another xian moron working there with the same beliefs. You idiots make up anywhere from 76%-92% of the population, give or take, depending on the survey and where you happen to live. Exactly who, Frank, is supposed to know what wacky-ass shit the next person working at the one down the road is going to believe? If you only have two places, and they both happen to have wacky-ass xian morons, then I guess you’re out of luck?
It’s a simple matter of the free market. The state should no more force a pharmacy to sell certain drugs (in the 99 percent situations) than it should dictate to the Ford Motor Co. what color car to sell.
Still trying to find the proper analogues here. So, pharmicist-to-Walgreens-to-drug, as employee-to-Ford-to-(say)-making-blue-cars?
And if a person came up and said: “Look, according to my religious beliefs, which I hold very strongly, I cannot make blue cars. Blue cars are just wrong. I understand that it’s part of my job, and I knew that I could possibly make blue cars when I signed-on with Ford, but you’re just going to have to move me somewhere else where I don’t have to make them” — and Ford didn’t move that person, Ford would be in the wrong, violating that person’s rights?
If that’s the reasoning here, then, again, you need to watch the scope of such claims, since the same logic can easily apply.
30 January 2006, on 12:13 pm
We Christian “idiots” may make up 76 to 92 percent of the population (give or take), but you make a huge mistake in lumping us all together as if we don’t have different opinions on practically every issue under the sun. Of that 76 to 92 percent there is a huge percentage who are marginally “Christian.” Meaning they are members of a Church because mom and dad were or because “it’s what we do,” or whatever. You are way off base to assume that every pharmacist who is a Christian is A) opposed to abortion, B) opposed to morning-after pills, and C) feels so strongly about the two that he or she would refuse to dispense the drug. Many will have the attitude that, “while I think this is wrong they are going to do it anyway, so why shouldn’t I get paid for dispensing the drug?”
I’d be willing to bet the vast majority of pharmacies in America DO have the drug available. Trying to paint this as some sort of crisis (as if the drug will no longer be available if these Christians get their way) is dishonest.
It is ironic that a big beef the atheists here have expressed with Christians is their tendency to want to force their lifestyle and beliefs on everyone else (a paraphrase of your sentiments, not mine). But here you are demanding that Christian pharmacists conduct their business according to your standards and beliefs.
I wonder if you see the irony.
30 January 2006, on 12:31 pm
Silly boy
30 January 2006, on 12:32 pm
“It is ironic that a big beef the atheists here have expressed with Christians is their tendency to want to force their lifestyle and beliefs on everyone else (a paraphrase of your sentiments, not mine). But here you are demanding that Christian pharmacists conduct their business according to your standards and beliefs.
I wonder if you see the irony. ”
I wonder if you understand the definition of irony.
My standards and beliefs have nothing to do with this. Neither should an asshole xian pharmacists. If you are not willing to do your job, you should not have that job. It is only because they are discriminating against women that you are so permissive about it.
If they refused to give you your herpes cream, you’d be up in arms.
Now THAT’S irony.
30 January 2006, on 12:56 pm
We Christian “idiots” may make up 76 to 92 percent of the population (give or take), but you make a huge mistake in lumping us all together as if we don’t have different opinions on practically every issue under the sun.
But I didn’t do that, Frank. Go back and read what I said. After I mentioned the stats, I said, “Exactly who, Frank, is supposed to know what wacky-ass shit the next person working at the one down the road is going to believe? If you only have two places, and they both happen to have wacky-ass xian morons, then I guess you’re out of luck?”
I’d be willing to bet the vast majority of pharmacies in America DO have the drug available. Trying to paint this as some sort of crisis (as if the drug will no longer be available if these Christians get their way) is dishonest.
I never said the word “crisis,” Frank. And I’m sure in places like NY or SF there really isn’t that much of a problem. But that’s not the issue, Frank. The issue is the logic of the request, and how far one wants to take that logic. If it’s not an issue in NY because of the reasoning, then it also can’t be an issue in rural Mississippi or anyplace else.
But here you are demanding that Christian pharmacists conduct their business according to your standards and beliefs.
Repeating stuff like this just makes me think you’re not concerned about the scope of these requests — or, further, that you’ve chosen to ignore your own Ford analogy. But these problems still remain, Frank, and ignoring them won’t make them go away. So, Frank, let’s tackle the examples given in a previous post, or your own Ford analogy.
Until a good explanation is given with those examples (take your time), it’s going to be hard to take seriously the claims of “forcing our beliefs on other xians” in this specific context.
30 January 2006, on 1:49 pm
I’m beginning to think we should get rid of pharmacies altogether, judging by the standards we expect now. Why not just make this over the counter instead of by prescription? Let’s face it, when a lady is in need of this drug, she might encounter a doctor that refuses to write the prescription based upon his own morality, religious based or otherwise determined by this doctor. Will that lead the state to force doctors to prescribe it against their morality? I never heard of it happening, I’m just thinking ahead. But no one forces a physician to participate in abortions. Shouldn’t the same logic and standards apply to pharmacists as doctors who oppose abortion based on moral or religious convictions?
I think part of the problem is that many uninformed people confuse the morning after pill pill with RU-486. The first is a contraceptive that prevents fertilization or implantation. RU-486 is a pill specifically designed to abort an older more developed fetus. I’m guessing these pharmacists believe that life begins at conception, or otherwise they would be filling this prescription. I wonder what they think of IUD’s? It seems to me the IUD and the MAP are simply different methods to the same ends. Like I said, just thinkin ahead.
And yes Bob, I did consider the scope of my statement, and I am limiting it to birth control only. I will let lawyers and legislators handle the proper legal terminology.
30 January 2006, on 2:10 pm
Hey franky boy,
Here’s the problem which you are not comprehending, a pharmacy is a business which serves the general public regardless of whether it’s located in a large city or the boonies. Not everyone is a damned dumbass christian and shares your idiot fantasy beliefs so no one working at such a place should be making decisions based upon such beliefs which can affect everyone.
Also one thing that ALL christians agree on is that there’s a make believe deity “up there somewhere” and they have an imaginary friend jeebus. This is plain stupid to believe in and it bothers some of you theists to no end that there are people who don’t ascribe to you foolish fairy tales beliefs but instead have a world view based on science, logic and reason and true morals not fear-based “don’t want to burn for eternity” phony morals.
30 January 2006, on 2:23 pm
Here’s a comparison: I work for a company that manufactures electronics for livestock production (specifically we make ultrasound pregnancy testers for livestock). So our products are used in the livestock and hence, the meat business.
A few years ago, we had to hire a new bookeeper. Job duties included the standard record keeping and filing, as well as phone answering.
We had two good candidates and settled on one. We offered her the job, but when she realized just exactly what we manufactured, she turned it down. She was a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and she couldn’t, in good conscience, work in the livestock industry, or so she explained to us.
While I don’t agree with her stance on meat-eating, I did admire her courage to turn down a job that would conflict with her beliefs.
30 January 2006, on 2:54 pm
But that’s the difference between taking a stand on an issue and being religious. While the woman who took a stand was smart enough not to take the job, the religious deliberately take the job so they can cause problems and then cry wolf.
30 January 2006, on 5:52 pm
“..the religious deliberately take the job so they can cause problems and then cry wolf.”
I don’t think this law affected these men before they took the job. It does affect them now that they are/were employed. It is a new law of course.
30 January 2006, on 6:21 pm
“I don’t think this law affected these men before they took the job. It does affect them now that they are/were employed. It is a new law of course.”
How could the law affect them before it was enacted ? That was a completely meaningless statement.
Anyway as a pharmacist they’re required to sell whatever is in the store regardless of their beliefs, if they had a problem with this then they should NOT have taken the job in the first place. The law was made because of fundies who are once again attempting to apply their stupid beliefs to everyone.
30 January 2006, on 6:27 pm
My problem with the situation is this: these pharmacists work in the health care industry. Access to adequate healthcare should be a civil right. I feel that if you are taking it upon yourself to work in an industry in which you are providing for the health of the public, whether it be as a doctor, a nurse, an EMT, a paramedic, a firefighter, a pharmacist, an x-ray technician, etc., that there is absolutely no place to impose your morality. Any of these jobs makes you but a link in the overall chain that is healthcare. The job of the doctor is to diagnose and treat the patient. The job of the pharmacist is to, at least in part, administer that treatment. The only time a pharmacist should refuse to fill a prescription should be for medical reasons, such as a combination of drugs which could result in harmful side effects or an allergy which the doctor did not check for. Other than that, fuflfill your duties or find a line of work which allows you more flexibility in exercising religious morals.
30 January 2006, on 7:04 pm
“Anyway as a pharmacist they’re required to sell whatever is in the store regardless of their beliefs, if they had a problem with this then they should NOT have taken the job in the first place.”
My point is that before this law was passed, a pharmacist was NOT required to sell whatever was in the store. I am not saying these men are right. According to the law NOW, they are wrong if they do not dispense this prescription. I personally feel they should just dispense it with-or-without the law against them. I don’t think it is even abortion to begin with. But opinions are like assholes…..
30 January 2006, on 9:40 pm
I’m beginning to think we should get rid of pharmacies altogether, judging by the standards we expect now. Why not just make this over the counter instead of by prescription?
Bingo. Give that dude an abortion pill.
And yes Bob, I did consider the scope of my statement, and I am limiting it to birth control only. I will let lawyers and legislators handle the proper legal terminology.
I think you might have misunderstood me. I didn’t mean that you should (or could), simply by choice, arbitrarily limit the scope of your comments. I meant that, given what you said, you had to explain those other situations as to why they would (or should) be viewed any differently. The logic of your claims committed you to that burden, since the reasoning you gave easily applied to those situations.
The question wasn’t about “legal terminology,” so “leaving it to the lawyers” wasn’t going to help. The question was about the scope of the logic of the claims you made — something that had little to do with legalities, and more to do with reasoning.
It would be as if someone said to you, “I don’t think anyone should kill anyone else for any reason,” and you said, “But what about self-defense?” — and then you heard the reply, “Hey, I’ll leave that to the lawyers. Let them figure it out.” I’m sure you would think the appeal-to-law-reply wouldn’t be all that relevant, and would miss the point you tried to make.
31 January 2006, on 7:21 am
“Will that lead the state to force doctors to prescribe it against their morality?”
Their morality is completely irrelevent. They took a job that specifically exists to dispense medications. This is ia medication perscribed by a real doctor. If you are unwilling to fill a percription due to your backwards, dumbass “morality” get a new job.
Should doctors be allowed to refuse to treat gays if they don’t like gay marriage? Should police be allowed to refuse services to muslims is they are still mad about 9/11?
Do you job or find a new one.
31 January 2006, on 10:04 am
Bob — as I look at the examples listed in the previous post I understand your point. But there is a critical difference between a pharmacist who refuses to dispense a morning after pill and the following:
– pharmacists refusing service to Jews
– pharmacists refusing service to AIDS patients
– pharmacists refusing service to rape victims
– pharmacists refusing service to everyone because they are against medicine of all kind (do you have a problem with these where you live?)
The difference is this: in all of those cases a pharmacist would be making a judgement about the character or moral behavior of another. This is not a legitimate reason for refusing service. In the case of the morning after pill you are demanding that a pharmacist be a participant in behavior he or she considers morally wrong. They are not saying you can’t kill your baby (legally you can). What they are saying is that they will not help you commit what they consider to be murder.
Such a pharmacist is NOT trying to force his or her beliefs on anyone. Customers wanting a morning after pill can go elsewhere to fill their prescription and, according to the stories I’ve read, there’s not been a single case where a pharmacist has bound, kidnapped, or otherwise tried to prevent a customer from seeking the drug elsewhere. They are applying their beliefs to themselves alone.
It’s very much like doctors who perform abortions. There are more doctors qualified to perform abortions than actually engage in the practice. Many that do not have made the choice to not perform abortions because of moral objections. Forcing a pharmacist to sell the morning after pill (when that pharmacist has a deep moral objections to it) is just like requiring all doctors to perform abortions.
And the whole “Well, if you don’t want to sell abortion drugs then don’t be a pharmacist” argument is a load of crap. This one issue is such a small portion of the pharmacy trade. It is entirely possible for a person to have a real desire to be a pharmacist and still have an objection to abortion (just as people who become doctors may have that objection). Making the sell of this pill a requirement for admittance into the profession is irrational. Just as it would be to require all med students to agree to perform abortions upon graduation.
The example of a woman refusing employment with a company engaged in the meat business because of her vegetarianism is different as well. It appears the company in question worked exclusively in that industry. It’s all they do. It makes sense for the woman to refuse the employment. Pharmacists, on the other hand, do far more than sit around and wait for some woman to come up and ask for an abortion pill. They help a lot of people with a lot of ailments. The two situations are not comparible.
31 January 2006, on 12:14 pm
“The difference is this: in all of those cases a pharmacist would be making a judgement about the character or moral behavior of another. This is not a legitimate reason for refusing service. In the case of the morning after pill you are demanding that a pharmacist be a participant in behavior he or she considers morally wrong. ”
I’m surprised you don’t see the contradiction here. The pharmies DO refuse to help rape victims. That’s the fucking problem. Denying someone their medication is morally wrong, where’s your objection to that?
“Such a pharmacist is NOT trying to force his or her beliefs on anyone. Customers wanting a morning after pill can go elsewhere to fill their prescription and, according to the stories I’ve read, there’s not been a single case where a pharmacist has bound, kidnapped, or otherwise tried to prevent a customer from seeking the drug elsewhere. They are applying their beliefs to themselves alone.”
Hyperbole makes your argument look desperate. There have been stories about the ONLY pharmacy in town refusing to fill birth control pills. What do you suggest then? Perhaps she could get on a plane and fly to a sane state?
Bullshit. You’re defending mysogyny.
31 January 2006, on 12:24 pm
Frank,
What if “a pharmacist who refuses to dispense a morning after pill” is also “pharmacists refusing service to rape victims”?? Also, the morning after pill (for the *last* time!) is NOT an abortion pill… it merely keeps a fertilized egg from embedding in the uterine lining… it is a concentrated form of the birth control pill and if you have a problem with the morning after pill then you must have a problem with birth control pills as well.
31 January 2006, on 12:28 pm
“What if “a pharmacist who refuses to dispense a morning after pill” is also “pharmacists refusing service to rape victims”?? ”
It’s already happened.
“it is a concentrated form of the birth control pill and if you have a problem with the morning after pill then you must have a problem with birth control pills as well. ”
They do. They call it an “abortion pill” to stigmatize it - and in that group falls birth control.
31 January 2006, on 1:23 pm
I see it this way: what if a recovering alcoholic got a job at 7-11 and refused to sell beer to people becuase he thinks drinking is wrong? What if he also thought that selling cigarettes was wrong because they’re dangerous health-risks? Now, you could argue that these are only a small percentage of the products sold at 7-11. He would be more than happy to sell Big Gulps, nachos, bubble gum, candy bars, magazines, Doritos, etc. Guess what, he would deserve to be fired for not doing his job.
31 January 2006, on 2:01 pm
“…explain those other situations as to why they would (or should) be viewed any differently.”
Those other views can easily be covered. If the pharmicist has to
have that kind of information on the patient, then the pharmacist is passing a judgement on that patient. Those examples infer that the pharmacist WOULD dispense that drug under certain conditions such as proof of rape, or a non Jewish client. In this case, it is the drug itself that they object to, without having to pass a judgement on the patient. It is easy to claim they are sexist. In a round about way, it is sexist, but not because they are prejudicing the client, they are prejudicing the drug itself. They (it is inferred) would refuse any client this medication. Do I agree with that? No. But if doctors and hospitals do not have to prescribe it, thanks to many state conscience clause laws, why should pharmacists be treated differently? I see this running only one of two ways in the long run.
1) Pharmacists will be included in these established laws or
2) Other healthcare practitioners will lose theirs.
http://www.consciencelaws.org/
31 January 2006, on 2:08 pm
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/conscienceclauses.htm
1 February 2006, on 9:52 pm
Sorry for the lag. Life gets in the way, and…
The difference is this: in all of those cases a pharmacist would be making a judgement about the character or moral behavior of another. This is not a legitimate reason for refusing service. In the case of the morning after pill you are demanding that a pharmacist be a participant in behavior he or she considers morally wrong.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but isn’t there an obvious and explicit “character or moral behavior” judgment here concerning the specific act of getting these drugs and getting rid of the pregnancy after whatever happened prior to this request?
Dan seems to have a similar idea, although it’s a little different from yours — and I’m going to have to answer that a little later…
Gonna go play with my son…
2 February 2006, on 2:52 pm
KR said: “Access to adequate healthcare should be a civil right”
I guess the question is….Is it a civil right? I agree it should be, but is it?
10 November 2007, on 12:53 pm
[...] I’ve talked about this so many times — as have others — that it gets frustrating. [...]