Many druggists across the country refuse to give out morning-after pills.

[Lenny]

We have so much wealth and so much leisure time in this country that we sit around thinking up things to complain about. It's a sign of success.

Which is why we have the national government getting involved in a state's right to determine whether to pull a feeding tube or a state government paying for local schools.

 

[Ken King]

Ken,

How would you compare this to signing a flight clearance? In my line of work, we get flight clearance requests all the time, and occasionally there is one that comes through that we don't feel entirely comfortable with and we don't want to sign - our reputation is at stake, as is our own conscience. We pass it up to the next level, and leave it to the higher-ups to decide if they want to take a risk and overrule us despite our refusal to sign.

So, in a pharmacy, if the guy behind the counter at the pharmacy for some reason believes that he shouldn't fill it, and he has conscientious objections, do you think he is like or unlike the guy who has an objection to a flight clearance?

I'm not saying right or wrong either way - it's a difficult issue. But I would say that if I were in a job that required me to go against my beliefs, I wouldn't do the job. Now, obviously, if it were happening on a routine basis (I'm sure this pharmacist has many customers seeking these pills), then I think I'd find another place/profession to work in.

Agreeing to the state requirement to fill prescriptions cannot be related to the flight clearance issue unless you agreed to sign off on all clearances prior to taking the job. I take it you didn't sleep at a Days Inn last night.

 

[FromTexas]

Agreeing to the state requirement to fill prescriptions cannot be related to the flight clearance issue unless you agreed to sign off on all clearances prior to taking the job. I take it you didn't sleep at a Days Inn last night.

The state requirement is that they can have a reasonable expectation to fill it, as I stated above. Reasonable is a word that could leave lawyers in courts for years on end debating the meaning. Is it reasonable to expect a pharmacist to fill a prescription for a medication they do not have in stock? No, obviously. Now, is it reasonable to expect a devout Catholic to issue a morning after pill which they fundamentally believe is equivalent to murder? The debate goes on.

 

[vraiblonde]

Which is why we have the national government getting involved in a state's right to determine whether to pull a feeding tube or a state government paying for local schools.

Exactly - everything is really going so well that they have to find some way to justify themselves. If you ever watch Congress on CSPAN, these guys really only need to show up for work one day a month. But for the amount of money we're paying them, those bastages better put out. So they sit around thinking up pies to stick their fingers in.

 

[Ken King]

The state requirement is that they can have a reasonable expectation to fill it, as I stated above. Reasonable is a word that could leave lawyers in courts for years on end debating the meaning. Is it reasonable to expect a pharmacist to fill a prescription for a medication they do not have in stock? No, obviously. Now, is it reasonable to expect a devout Catholic to issue a morning after pill which they fundamentally believe is equivalent to murder? The debate goes on.

Let's see, birth-control medications are approved and available via prescription in the USA, thus it would seem reasonable that the pharmacist would fill them if he had the medication on hand. It is unreasonable for his personal beliefs to interfere with the performance of the job and the requirements of his state issued permit.

 

[Toxick]

It seems that the druggists that refuse to fill a rightfully created prescription are violating the essense of their profession, providing the medications that a doctor has approved for a patient.

They are not voilating the essense of their profession, as the essense of their profession - from what I can tell - is to help ailing people. Not to assist in what they see as murder.


I'm morally opposed to writing programs that use DirectX. I find Microsoft to be inherently evil, not to mention philosophically reprehensible, and I believe that if I were to write an application which utilizes their graphics libraries I will land a spot in the seventh circle of hell, right next to Hitler, Stalin & Chairman Mao.

Should I be obliged to write software using the DirectX API, just because some customer wants me to? I don't use that brand, I WON'T use that brand, and as far as I'm concerned, it's unavailable to my customers.

My cash register and I will risk the lost business.



Having said that, I believe that refusing to return a prescription which they have refused to fill, should be considered theft and/or fraud, and they should be held accountable to the authorities.

 

[Ken King]

They are not voilating the essense of their profession, as the essense of their profession - from what I can tell - is to help ailing people. Not to assist in what they see as murder.

Is providing birth-control medication murder? Not in the USA. The morning after pill is legal too as long as the restrictions have been met by the prescribing physcian.

Having said that, I believe that refusing to return a prescription which they have refused to fill, should be considered theft and/or fraud, and they should be held accountable to the authorities.

So their ethical beliefs are significant enough for you to agree that they do not need to do their job, but aren't sufficient to stop the "murderer" from getting the drug by holding on to the prescription.

 

[FromTexas]

Let's see, birth-control medications are approved and available via prescription in the USA, thus it would seem reasonable that the pharmacist would fill them if he had the medication on hand. It is unreasonable for his personal beliefs to interfere with the performance of the job and the requirements of his state issued permit.

As stated, that could be in debate forever with lawyers in court... and why I just finished it as "the debate continues..."

It fits up there with "viable" and other fun words.

I am not saying one way or the other is right. I am saying there is no clear statement in the law that stipulates they must fill the prescription. Your opinion on the matter is clear, and it is just that, an opinion. I have only additionally pointed to Principle 2 of the pharmacists code of ethics (used worldwide) and given an explanation of it from one of their textbooks.

I am just giving you the Principles and tools of what is out there since you like to have it from source. If you want my opinion, I feel their personal beliefs are valid if they own the pharmacy. It is their business. I also feel their beliefs are valid if their entity supports those beliefs in hiring them. However, as in the case of the Denton, Texas store, if the corporate entity does not support those beliefs, then they should be acting in the interest of their employer or look elsewhere for work.

Does the military not have people against being involved in violent conflict join to be medical personnel and priests and not carry weapons? Do some pet store owners not sell pets to certain people because they fear the treatment of the animal based on the persons actions in the store? Do you expect to go into a Muslim restaraunt and get served pork? Do you believe your Catholic doctor is required to prescribe you birth control if you ask for it? That has long been held as acceptable for the doctor to say no and to say you will have to go elsewhere.

To pretend peoples choices in this circumstance are little more than moral decisions is to trivialize it. Do you not accept that a devout Catholic considers the morning after pill the murder of a child? If you devoutly believe by handing out a pill you are circumscribing the murder of a child, is that just an everyday moral choice to you are is it a fundamental choice between right and wrong?

Peoples morals, values, and ethics are fundamentally part of who they are. You can not anyone from these. And, if you really got down to it, you wouldn't want to start trivializing these things any further than some of our "famous" people have. A pharamcist doesn't want to do it, great! You should applaud someone who has clear convictions and know they would do right by you in any other circumstance more than likely. Go down the road, and get your prescription filled elsewhere knowing at least someone has made choices for what they believe and sticks to them.

But, we could debate this all day based on peoples feelings, so I will just ask one thing...

Is a few more minutes out of your life to go down the road so important that you would rather have someone who works in a field they love choose to go against their fundamental beliefs? Whether you agree with their belief or not, they have a right to them.

 

[Toxick]

Is providing birth-control medication murder? Not in the USA. The morning after pill is legal too as long as the restrictions have been met by the prescribing physcian.

Referring back to my analogy: DirectX is legal too. It is, in fact, an accepted standard.

That doesn't mean I should be forced to provide that service if I don't want to. ASSUMING that I am the business owner, or I'm following company policy. Employees are not entitled to make that decision.

So their ethical beliefs are significant enough for you to agree that they do not need to do their job, but aren't sufficient to stop the "murderer" from getting the drug by holding on to the prescription.

I said exactly what I meant. This interpretation quoted here is your spin on what I said.



However, to answer the question, since it wasn't clear before. Yes.

 

[Triggerfish]

Ken,

How would you compare this to signing a flight clearance? In my line of work, we get flight clearance requests all the time, and occasionally there is one that comes through that we don't feel entirely comfortable with and we don't want to sign - our reputation is at stake, as is our own conscience. We pass it up to the next level, and leave it to the higher-ups to decide if they want to take a risk and overrule us despite our refusal to sign.

So, in a pharmacy, if the guy behind the counter at the pharmacy for some reason believes that he shouldn't fill it, and he has conscientious objections, do you think he is like or unlike the guy who has an objection to a flight clearance?

I'm not saying right or wrong either way - it's a difficult issue. But I would say that if I were in a job that required me to go against my beliefs, I wouldn't do the job. Now, obviously, if it were happening on a routine basis (I'm sure this pharmacist has many customers seeking these pills), then I think I'd find another place/profession to work in.

I think that they would be entirely different. With the morning after pill you know what it is for. With the airplane often your not 100% sure what's wrong. If you decide not to cancel the flight and something happens and they know you knew or should have known you're screwed. I know exactly what you are talking about since I have many of the same responsibilities in the military by being an aircraft technician.

I hope what I stated wasn't too vague since I'm having difficulty putting into words what I am thinking and feeling.

 

[Triggerfish]

Anyone else get a unsigned grey karma with a negative comment? I did.

 

[vraiblonde]

They are not voilating the essense of their profession, as the essense of their profession - from what I can tell - is to help ailing people.

:cuepatrioticmusic:
What about our ailing country, filled with criminals and reprobates? What about our ailing social system that rewards promiscuous women with welfare drawn on our tax dollars? What about the ailment of apathetic parents who give birth to unwanted children, then foist them on an unsuspecting world?

Help us, Mr. Pharmacist! Help us with what ails us! In the name of all that is righteous....Mr. Pharmacist, dispense that pill!

:endmusic:

 

[FromTexas]

:cuepatrioticmusic:
What about our ailing country, filled with criminals and reprobates? What about our ailing social system that rewards promiscuous women with welfare drawn on our tax dollars? What about the ailment of apathetic parents who give birth to unwanted children, then foist them on an unsuspecting world?

Help us, Mr. Pharmacist! Help us with what ails us! In the name of all that is righteous....Mr. Pharmacist, dispense that pill!

:endmusic:

Now, to answer this fully because I see Vrai is in rare form today...

I have a personal moral issue with abortion, but I believe in freedom of choice because my value should not be imposed on others who may not make "good" choices in my personal opinion. However, the same reasons I can leap to supporting pro-choice even though I personally disapprove is similar in reasons I can support a pharmcists choice.

1) I feel too many people feel entitled to too much. We often complain about it here. You are not entitled to get what you want from who you want to save time. You are entitled to choose who you want to do business with and spend your money the way you see fit.

2) We are a capitalist system where our dollars essentially vote for what we want in the economy. A capitalist entreprenuer has the right to run their business practice as they see fit, but you also have the right to not shop from them. Your dollars decide if that business practice succeds or fails. I believe very much in minimal and only necessary intervention in business practices and the fundamental idea of market choice.

As a Republican, I very much support peoples decision to spend their money where and how they want and a business owners ability to run his business based on his own plan with minimal intervention usually related to necessary safety and welfare. If you can get a prescription somewhere else in town, your safety and welfare, as you see it, is still being met.

Or, as Republicans we can choose to legislate more unneccessary requirements on businesses and limit the markets ability to decide... while also giving people an increased sense of entitlement without choice.

 

[vraiblonde]

As a Republican, I very much support peoples decision to spend their money where and how they want and a business owners ability to run his business based on his own plan with minimal intervention usually related to necessary safety and welfare.

The pharmacists in the story didn't own the businesses - they were employees.

But I agree with you on that point. Privately owned businesses should be able to turn anyone away they want. But if you're behind the counter at the Duane Read, you better do your job or go somewhere else.

 

[FromTexas]

The pharmacists in the story didn't own the businesses - they were employees.

But I agree with you on that point. Privately owned businesses should be able to turn anyone away they want. But if you're behind the counter at the Duane Read, you better do your job or go somewhere else.

Unless, of course, like some pharmacy chains, they protect the pharmacists choice.

 

[vraiblonde]

Unless, of course, like some pharmacy chains, they protect the pharmacists choice.

Then that's also a company decision. But at least one of the guys in the story was fired for not dispensing.

 

[FromTexas]

Then that's also a company decision. But at least one of the guys in the story was fired for not dispensing.

Right, and I agree with that. My point was never that they shouldn't have been fired, but that pharmacists, as a profession for the most part, believe in the a pharmacists right to not go against their fundamental belief system. Which is the case in most professions. My additional point is that this is accepted in many places.

I also think making it legally mandatory is a poor choice and should not be a road traveled easily. That is one more step in making all entities the same and removing another component of free market choice. It also puts a greater regulatory burden on both law enforcers and those effected. In addition, it provides another outlet for useless lawsuits...

 

[dems4me]

:cuepatrioticmusic:
What about our ailing country, filled with criminals and reprobates? What about our ailing social system that rewards promiscuous women with welfare drawn on our tax dollars? What about the ailment of apathetic parents who give birth to unwanted children, then foist them on an unsuspecting world?

Help us, Mr. Pharmacist! Help us with what ails us! In the name of all that is righteous....Mr. Pharmacist, dispense that pill!

:endmusic:

 

[Nickel]

Not to assist in what they see as murder.

How is the morning-after pill murder? When taken, the mass of cells (which at this point isn't even a fetus) is literally hours old. I think the latest you can take the pill is 72 hours after conception. Also, if I understand correctly, the pill is essentially a high dose of birth control. That being said, the pharmacist isn't going to know the circumstances of the need for this drug. What if your daughter were raped? She goes to the hospital ASAP. It's standard practice at most facilities to prescribe the morning after pill, just in case. Would you want your daughter to be forced to carry the child of a monster?

 

[FromTexas]

How is the morning-after pill murder? When taken, the mass of cells (which at this point isn't even a fetus) is literally hours old. I think the latest you can take the pill is 72 hours after conception. Also, if I understand correctly, the pill is essentially a high dose of birth control. That being said, the pharmacist isn't going to know the circumstances of the need for this drug. What if your daughter were raped? She goes to the hospital ASAP. It's standard practice at most facilities to prescribe the morning after pill, just in case. Would you want your daughter to be forced to carry the child of a monster?

We aren't arguing that point one way or the other, but you can not say it is not a devout Catholics fundamental belief that it is murder. We can argue peoples beliefs till the cows come home, but we aren't arguing which one is right in their morale choice. Just whether they have a choice based on their fundamental belief.