|
Assume a particular mom & pop pharmacy has no problem with birth control, in fact likes the idea of women not being stuck with unwanted pregnancies. But they're getting a little busy and have to hire another pharmacist, maybe to work a late shift. And he starts refusing to fill those prescriptions. Should they have any recourse?
They do. They have a billion options, though most of them are less than honorable. They can fire him for any other reason, "from we simply can't afford you"", to "you are just not working out", to absolutely no reason given, to whatever. They can try to understand the reasoning for the individual, whatever. Not an issue in any way. However, it would be an issue if they attempted to fire them BECAUSE of their Religion, just like it would be for their Race, Sex, Sexuality, etc. . .
Should they be able to require him to do so or fire him if he refuses? Because that's what most of the legal cases have been about.
No, and no. They should be able to know this before hiring them, effectively being able to use this and similar information prior to, but otherwise, no. It is each individuals personal job to do only what they are confident, knowledgeable, and able to do, legally and morally. Period. And that includes for religious reason, just as it does for political, financial, or philisophical ones.
I think I should convert to Judaism and then get a job as a bacon cheeseburger taster. I'd never even have to report to work. Free money!
And I'd do just about infinitely less harm than a pharmacist who refuses to do his job.
|
|
This seems reasonable. They wouldn't be firing him for his religious beliefs, but because his religious beliefs mean he can't do the job he was hired to do.
Partially. Again, it is not that the individual with religious beliefs is not doing their job. They actually are by not doing something that they don't feel confident in doing. The pharmacist is not required to fill any prescription that is laid in front of them. That is not their job. To be more realistic, in a case like this, the reasonable outcome, (and I see this all the time), is for the individual with said issue to either pass it on to someone without said issue, or something along those lines. Even refering them to another pharmacy really isn't a big deal at all.
Should they be able to require him to do so or fire him if he refuses? Because that's what most of the legal cases have been about.
No, and no. They should be able to know this before hiring them, effectively being able to use this and similar information prior to, but otherwise, no. It is each individuals personal job to do only what they are confident, knowledgeable, and able to do, legally and morally. Period. And that includes for religious reason, just as it does for political, financial, or philisophical ones.
Doesn't this contradict what you said above?
If they don't find out before hiring him, there's nothing they can do? Assume he converted or became more fanatical after being hired.And this applies to any reason, not just specifically protected ones like religion?
Not really. What I am saying is that it was both the individual's and the Doc's responsibility to make sure that said pharmacy offers that med before hand. It is also whoever hired this person's responsibilty to know exactly what they can and can't do, will not do, and need to be trained on.
If I decide I'm philosophically opposed to coming into work, I can just stop and my employer should have to keep paying me? Seriously?
No. it is not "not doing your job", to refuse a specific service, especially when your job is to only do what you are comfortable and confident in. It is "not doing your job" to not do your job.
There's another issue here with "birth control," which is that the steroid sex hormones have many therapeutic uses I don't believe anyone has a moral problem with. For example, some women who have hellacious problems with endometriosis are prescribed "birth control" pills. I don't think a prescription ever says,"Take one Seasonale once a day to prevent pregnancy," so you can't even assume that you know why the medication is being prescribed (as far as I know the dosage doesn't give it away). I don't imagine there are any pharmacists who are so crazy they would refuse to fill a script when they don't even know what the drug is for, or that they would ask the patient or doctor why the drug is being ordered ("Doctor, am I filling this because the patient is a slut, or is there some legitimate reason she is taking this?").
Maybe he doesn't belief in medication for mental health issues. Not due to concerns with the safety of specific drugs, but as a general rule. Maybe he thinks pain medication is just for wimps and digestive problems should all be treated by diet...
Yeah, maybe he's a Scientologist pharmacist!
Of course, it not being for birth control doesn't necessarily answer the religious questions. The Catholic Church is opposed to condom use even to prevent disease transmission. Of course, that's still about sex...
Unless there's something I don't know, I don't see how a condom can effectively prevent disease transmission without also preventing conception.
I'm all in favor of birth control, I'm just sayin'...
Me and my heterosexist assumptions!
Bad Doodlebug, bad!
Presumably he'd be counting on another store opening up if that one closed down. After all if one store was making money there, another should be able to.
Quite often, multiple core values will conflict on some issues. It doesn't mean they're not fervently held.
Yeah, I'll stick to my guns there. In the situation where they are the sole supplier for the area, I think the local government would be justified in requiring them to provide emergency birth control. If they were not willing to comply, then they would have to close the pharmacy.
That's letting them off pretty easy in my book. I think denying emergency contraception makes one an attempted rapist and one should go to prison for it.
If pharmacists don't like that, they should have opened some other kind of business that didn't come with such responsibilities.
And if one didn't?
*shrug*
Mutliple values are going to conflict. People should have access to medical care they need, and someone should have the right to make moral judgements free of government influences. Neither value has to be held absolutely in order to be held. You can pick one, or find a way around it.
For example, despite the name, the morning after pill is good for up to 50 days. I don't see why pharmacists can't have the right to refuse to sell it, but allow it to be shipped by mail.
|
|
I honestly just don't think you understand the full story. PT's denied access to birth control is not the same thing as PT's being denied health care. Not any more than a PT being denied access to morphine or whatever (just off the street).
I understand what your thinking. But there is a lot more that you are not concidering. I've tried telling you multiple times that it is not the medical persons jobs to do whatever the PT wants. It is their job to try to help as much as they are able and capable of doing so, and not to cause further harm, (even potentually). And that is all 100% based on the individual medical person's opinion of the situation and the facts that they do know.
This has nothing really to do with woman's rights, religion, or any form of descrimination. Even in the possible corner cases you present, yes the rules should stay the same, with exceptions for (possibly) state laws. Because in the end, it is all going to come back to that pharmacist if something goes wrong, and because there are so many possible counterindications and really bad side affects for medicines, especially if not taken properly. That will always, always outway someone not getting something like birth control.
You can take out "birth control", "female", and "religion", and the situation remains the same. But I think I'm done too. I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it anymore.
|
|
I agree I'm not following what you're saying. I'm not sure whether that is because I'm missing the point or because it makes no sense.
I'm going to try to paraphrase what I think your position is, so I can see if I'm understanding you.
Because there are cases when pharmacists and other medical professionals have to use their medical discretion, they must be allowed to use their discretion without restriction, even when they explicitly state that their reasoning is not medical but religious.Is that roughly correct?
It's more correct to say that all cases are like this, and a persons morality (religious or not) is should always be a factor in making that decision. In fact, the entire concept of modern medicine is heavily based on religion, from Greek, to jewish to christian to islamic.
As an aside, I take strong exception to this part:
Birth control is health care. Being denied birth control is being denied health care. Period.
Comparing getting prescription birth control with a prescription to getting morphine without one (which is what I assume you mean by "just off the street") is insulting. I hope you can clarify what you meant there. If you do believe that women seeking birth control are like drug addicts seeking morphine, then there really is no point in continuing this discussion.
That's the point. You (and I, and others) assume. I picked morphine for a reason as the example. Both can be extremly hazardous to the patient if used in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with the wrong other medications, etc. . . But morphine is intended for purly ethical uses, (to not feel extreme pain). <I should also point out that I am religious, and I do often give out and administer birth control, so what I am telling you is the truth, not what I think it should be or what my religion tells me>. In all honesty, the entire point of me even jumping in was to give an inside look and experience, not to further argue.
I wasn't saying that women are drug addicts or even similar. So I am sorry that you got offended by that. I am saying that if you take out gender, methods that religion might have an issue with, and remove the religion part from the equation, it is still the same, and rightly so. Those rules are there to prevent medical peoples from just giving out whatever without looking at the different sides, circumstances, and other issues, which is infinitly worse for everyone.
The ability to correctly fill a prescription for birth control is a bona fide occupational qualification for a pharmacist...period. Anyone unable/unwilling to do so should look for other employment. What is the issue here?
As imperfect as analogies are, several spring to mind:
* Can an ER doc refuse to treat a Muslim on religious grounds? How about refusing to treat a white guy on racial grounds?
* Can a delivery driver refuse to deliver to an Asian-owned business because doing so violates his beliefs?
* Can a waiter refuse to serve blacks (which a business is explicitly not allowed to do, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs notwithstanding) if doing so violates his "personal beliefs?"
No, no, and no. At least not without serious career repercussions, and possibly criminal charges in some cases.
And are we really getting fairness arguments from the "there is no such thing as fair" side of the political spectrum? Come on. You don't get through pharmacy school without knowing you might need to fill a birth control prescription.
Maybe it's a matter of appropriate notification?
Example 1: A woman is raped. The hospital gives the family a prescription for a morning-after pill. The family goes to the local pharmacy to get it filled for the woman, but the pharmacist "knows better" -- his "morals" tell him it's all her fault, and she should have the baby. Not only that, he refuses to refer the prescription to another pharmacy, and stonewalls the family. By the time they find another pharmacy and actually get there, it's closed for the night, and the deadline is coming up too soon to be effective.
Example 2: A woman is raped. The hospital gives the family a prescription for a morning-after pill, and their computer brings up a red flag by the name of the pharmacy. "The pharmacy here in town is on our no-contraceptive list," the nurse explains, "but you can go to the Walgreen's at X address and get it."
In Example A, the pharmacist's "freedom" is at the expense of everyone else's. In Example B, it isn't. Maybe more clear communication would make things easier for all positions?
The ability to correctly fill a prescription for birth control is a bona fide occupational qualification for a pharmacist...period. Anyone unable/unwilling to do so should look for other employment. What is the issue here?
The issue is that, to some people, pregnancy is an unwanted medical condition leading to months of discomfort if not outright incapacitation and requiring a VERY expensive medical procedure at the end.
To others (even leaving the religious issue aside) pregnancy is the creation of new life. Giving a pregnant person a drug that will terminate that life is against the Hippocratic oath as it does harm to what they see as a person. It doesn't matter if that drug is cough medicine or RU 486- if it hurts someone, they don't want to give it out.
The difference between this and the civil rights legislation is mostly hat people hating other people on religious/racial lines are being jerks. We have fewer problems with laws that say "don't be an ass" than "don't live up to your deeply held convictions about the sanctity of life"
I'm sure it's just a typo, but that's 5 days, not 50. And I believe it's more likely to work the sooner it's taken.
Mifepristone (ru 486) is sold outside the U.S. by Exelgyn Laboratories as Mifegyne, made in France, and is approved for:
1) Medical termination of intrauterine pregnancies of up to 49 days gestation (up to 63 days gestation in Britain and Sweden) - wiki
The issue is that, to some people, pregnancy is an unwanted medical condition leading to months of discomfort if not outright incapacitation and requiring a VERY expensive medical procedure at the end.
To others (even leaving the religious issue aside) pregnancy is the creation of new life. Giving a pregnant person a drug that will terminate that life is against the Hippocratic oath as it does harm to what they see as a person. It doesn't matter if that drug is cough medicine or RU 486- if it hurts someone, they don't want to give it out.
Then I suggest the latter type not take contraceptives. ;-)
Seriously, though: That's part of the job. Period. If you don't want to do it, get another job. It's not like a reasonable person couldn't have seen it coming.
It seems pretty clear cut to me, and I'm a "shades of grey" guy.
I notice that typing out the sentence "Period." in no way forces anyone else to accept what one is saying, nor does it end the discussion in any way. I'd therefore consider it as something of a waste of electrons.
It's not like in Burroughs' Mars books, where if the Jeddak ends his sentence in "I have spoken," it means he'll kill you on the spot if you keep arguing with him.
I notice that typing out the sentence "Period." in no way forces anyone else to accept what one is saying, nor does it end the discussion in any way. I'd therefore consider it as something of a waste of electrons.
Really? Because I haven't seen anyone disputing that distributing contraceptives is a part of the job. If it weren't, would we even be having this discussion?
And strictly speaking, "waste of electrons" doesn't make sense. But you know that.
I haven't seen anyone disputing that distributing contraceptives is a part of the job.
Might as well say, "The Earth is round. Period. Therefore you have to give me $1,000,000." If the first sentence is not under dispute, why underline it so emphatically before moving on to the second?
I haven't seen anyone disputing that distributing contraceptives is a part of the job.Might as well say, "The Earth is round. Period. Therefore you have to give me $1,000,000." If the first sentence is not under dispute, why underline it so emphatically before moving on to the second?
Nope. That would involve a conclusion that does not follow from the premise(s) -- an invalid argument. On the other hand, my conclusion follows from my premises just fine:
P1: Distributing contraceptives is part of doing the job "pharmacist"
P2: People who don't fulfill their job descriptions shouldn't expect to keep their jobs.
C: People who don't distribute contraceptives shouldn't expect to remain employed as pharmacists.
So while one could make the claim that my conclusion is false by attacking the premises, no one seems to be doing that. I was under the impression that P2 was a given (and therefore did not need to be made explicit). Hence my emphasis of P1. Which, as I mentioned, also seems undisputed.
Edit: Kirth, will you give me $1,000,000.00? Because that would be super awesome.
The issue is that, to some people, pregnancy is an unwanted medical condition leading to months of discomfort if not outright incapacitation and requiring a VERY expensive medical procedure at the end.To others (even leaving the religious issue aside) pregnancy is the creation of new life. Giving a pregnant person a drug that will terminate that life is against the Hippocratic oath as it does harm to what they see as a person. It doesn't matter if that drug is cough medicine or RU 486- if it hurts someone, they don't want to give it out.
For more than a decade I've been unable to take the second position seriously. A fetus, let alone a fertilized egg, is comprehensively incapable of demonstrating every and any logical trait of personhood. It doesn't have the brainpower.
Samnell-For more than a decade I've been unable to take the second position seriously. A fetus, let alone a fertilized egg, is comprehensively incapable of demonstrating every and any logical trait of personhood. It doesn't have the brainpower.
-I would agree with you in using thought (which requires a brain) as the basis of person-hood (which is why i'm always nice to raccoons), but i don't feel that i have sufficient objective grounds to use government coercion to enforce the decision when its not a life or death situation
Buglyman- Then I suggest the latter type not take contraceptives. ;-)
It doesn't work like that. Not everyone subscribes to the hand on the knife theory of morality (where only the person actually doing the deed is morally responsible for it). If someone is morally opposed to alchohol then they don't facilitate its use by others. If someone is morally opposed to birth control they don't facilitate or use. If it was an immediate life or death situation i can see mandating government regulation. As big an inconvenient and emotional trauma as pregnancy is though, its neither immediate nor likely to be life threatening.
It doesn't work like that. Not everyone subscribes to the hand on the knife theory of morality (where only the person actually doing the deed is morally responsible for it). If someone is morally opposed to alchohol then they don't facilitate its use by others. If someone is morally opposed to birth control they don't facilitate or use. If it was an immediate life or death situation i can see mandating government regulation. As big an inconvenient and emotional trauma as pregnancy is though, its neither immediate nor likely to be life threatening.
Can a truck driver refuse to make certain deliveries if they are against his beliefs? If I'm an atheist who works in a book store, can I refuse to show customers to the religion section but still expect to keep my job? Can a glass manufacturer mandate that their glass never be used in a windshield that is used in a truck that might be used to deliver contraceptives? Where the hell do you draw the line?
Sorry, but it is quite reasonable that the government mandate that pharmacists fill prescriptions. Once again: If you don't want to fill prescriptions, don't be pharmacist. No one is suggesting those who ignore this rather simple advice be jailed; merely that they should probably expect to be fired (for cause). Once again: Have a moral problem with fulfilling the duties of your job? Change jobs. Don't demand that the job description be changed to better suit your liking.
Not seeing the case for special treatment.
-I would agree with you in using thought (which requires a brain) as the basis of person-hood (which is why i'm always nice to raccoons), but i don't feel that i have sufficient objective grounds to use government coercion to enforce the decision when its not a life or death situation
We have enough to criminalize rape. Why not what is functionally the same act? One need not even enter into the personhood discussion to decide that expropriating someone else's genitals for use against their will is a very serious crime indeed. (Well I've seen a few rape deniers but they seem fringe even within the social conservative milieu they inhabit, so I'll set them aside as generally agreed to be deranged.)
How is having the ability to help end an unwanted pregnancy and denying that service to others anything different from getting a girl drunk and sticking it in when she passes out? Or secretly punching a hole in your condom? All have the same result, except insofar as the pharmacist does not merely have the risk that his victim will become pregnant. Rather the pharmacist knows it.
Can a truck driver refuse to make certain deliveries if they are against his beliefs?
We at UPS can refuse to cross picket lines. So, yes, sometimes.
Can a truck driver refuse to make certain deliveries if they are against his beliefs?We at UPS can refuse to cross picket lines. So, yes, sometimes.
** spoiler omitted **
And barring some sort of union protection, you can expect to lose your job for it, can you not?
But of course selectively refusing to make deliveries is entirely different than refusing to work altogether. Do you have any drivers who have refused to deliver, say, food to overweight people ("hey, it's against my beliefs -- sorry, fattie!"), yet retained their jobs? I suspect not.
How is having the ability to help end an unwanted pregnancy and denying that service to others anything different from getting a girl drunk and sticking it in when she passes out?
Wow...
So if Mr. Miyagi had refused to train Daniel-san after he was seriously assaulted, for whatever reason, he should go to jail as an accessory in your mind?
How is having the ability to help end an unwanted pregnancy and denying that service to others anything different from getting a girl drunk and sticking it in when she passes out? Or secretly punching a hole in your condom? All have the same result, except insofar as the pharmacist does not merely have the risk that his victim will become pregnant. Rather the pharmacist knows it.
Yeah, you've lost me here. Sorry.
And barring some sort of union protection, you can expect to lost your job for it, can you not?But of course selectively refusing to make deliveries is entirely different than refusing to work altogether. Do you have any drivers who have refused to deliver to, say, food to fat people ("hey, it's against my beliefs"), yet retained their jobs? I think not.
Spoilered for threadjacking
Actually, many unorganized trucking companies will allow their drivers to not cross picket lines. A) For reasons of safety. B) For good PR. Say you're a FedEx driver and you arrive at an office building where the employees are on strike. You cross the line and piss off the employees. After the strike is over, you're going to have to go back there every day.
At least that's how it was in Boston.
Anyway, I was mostly being a wiseass.
Wow...
So if Mr. Miyagi had refused to train Daniel-san after he was seriously assaulted, for whatever reason, he should go to jail as an accessory in your mind?
No, but if he had the ability to provide Danielle-san with emergency contraception when Danielle-san asked for it then he certainly deserves jail time. He would be expropriating control of Danielle-san's sex organs without Danielle-san's consent.
What about that is not rape? It's literally word-for-word how I would define rape. Do you dispute the accuracy of the description when it's some dude in a dark alley? Some polgynist scum in a church compound? A fratboy with roofies? What's the difference?
Can a truck driver refuse to make certain deliveries if they are against his beliefs?
Yes. (provided he's not rummaging through the packages)
If I'm an atheist who works in a book store, can I refuse to show customers to the religion section but still expect to keep my job?
Yes... if its your bookstore.
Now we have THREE competing Rights or interests.
The right of a person to conduct the economic transaction they want (mild in this case, since if they don't have it you can go elsewhere. But more pressing in the morning after example)
The right of a clerk to uphold their religious (or lack thereof) beliefs
and now the right of the bookstore owner to hire and fire the people they want to be able to do the job.
Can a glass manufacturer mandate that their glass never be used in a windshield that is used in a truck that might be used to deliver contraceptives? Where the hell do you draw the line?
If they can find the lawyers that wrote apples EULA probably...
Not seeing the case for special treatment.
Its not special treatment. The general law is freedom of belief and action to conduct business as you see fit. A government fiat mandating action is the exception- yes i'm aware of said exceptions. I don't LIKE them, but as a matter of practicality we had to have them in order to... if not heal the racial divide, at least duct tape it for a while. I would LIKE to think that we've gotten to the point that such laws are not neccesary...but i'm a bit too pessimistic.
Can a truck driver refuse to make certain deliveries if they are against his beliefs?Yes. (provided he's not rummaging through the packages)
If I'm an atheist who works in a book store, can I refuse to show customers to the religion section but still expect to keep my job?Yes... if its your bookstore.
Now we have THREE competing Rights or interests.
The right of a person to conduct the economic transaction they want (mild in this case, since if they don't have it you can go elsewhere. But more pressing in the morning after example)
The right of a clerk to uphold their religious (or lack thereof) beliefs
and now the right of the bookstore owner to hire and fire the people they want to be able to do the job.
Can a glass manufacturer mandate that their glass never be used in a windshield that is used in a truck that might be used to deliver contraceptives? Where the hell do you draw the line?If they can find the lawyers that wrote apples EULA probably...
Not seeing the case for special treatment.Its not special treatment. The general law is freedom of belief and action to conduct business as you see fit. A government fiat mandating action is the exception- yes i'm aware of said exceptions. I don't LIKE them, but as a matter of practicality we had to have them in order to... if not heal the racial divide, at least duct tape it for a while. I would LIKE to think that we've gotten to the point that such laws are not neccesary...but i'm a bit too pessimistic.
Ah, forgive me. I was thinking of a pharmacist, employed by a third party, who sues when disciplined for refusing to fill certain prescriptions.
In the case of a the business owner refusing, things seem much less clear-cut. I would think the pharmacist might expect his license to be in jeopardy. I would also think that whether or not the government should be in the business of licensing pharmacies (which I happen to think they should) is a different question. But yeah, way less clear-cut.
Edit: And EULAs...ack, don't get me started. I'd be shocked if 25% of them are actually legal, but once again, all the justice money can buy.
We have enough to criminalize rape. Why not what is functionally the same act?
Now please remember, this is IF you accept the idea that a fetus is a person. Its not a premise i hold, but IF one holds it the rest follows fairly logically.
Rape is a willful violation of another's rights for ones own gratification. In the case of a fetus being conceived it had as little choice in the matter as the rape victim, nor does it choose to become implanted on the uterine wall: it just happens. Once there it NEEDS the mothers continued support for survival. The two differences here are that 1) the zygote is innocent and 2)The zygote will die unless it stays where it is.
The only good analogy to this i can think of is Siamese twins. There are cases where one twin would be completely fine with the separation... but the other NEEDS his liver or pancreas or whatever. In these cases the dependent twins right to life outweighs even the massive inconvenience and health risks of the other twin.
One need not even enter into the personhood discussion to decide that expropriating someone else's genitals for use against their will is a very serious crime indeed.
If someone expropriates my arm because they're drowning or trying to pull themselves out of a burning car, they kind of have the right to it so long as they're not going to get me killed or maimed in the process. IF (please remember the if) you accept the premise of a fertilized egg as a person the same thing applies. They've appropriated the womb on the basis of strict need to maintain their life.
How is having the ability to help end an unwanted pregnancy and denying that service to others anything different from getting a girl drunk and sticking it in when she passes out?
Inaction has never been considered the same as action, nor should it be. How many people pulled over on the side of the road have you driven past? Is that the same as punching a hole in their tires?
Or secretly punching a hole in your condom?
That has an element of deception that a pharmacist saying "I can't fill that script" is not engaging in. Now if he hands her tic tacts in the prescription bottle I'm all for sending him to jail and or making him pay for the resulting kid.
All have the same result, except insofar as the pharmacist does not merely have the risk that his victim will become pregnant. Rather the pharmacist knows it.
But he didn't cause it. You can't require him to take immoral steps to stop it from happening.
In the case of a the business owner refusing, things seem much less clear-cut. I would think the pharmacist might expect his license to be in jeopardy. I would think whether or not the government should be in the business of licensing pharmacies (which I happen to think they should) is a different question. But yeah, way less clear-cut.
The government definitely should be licensing them as they have a vested interest in making sure
-That people aren't getting prescribed things that will turn them into a puddle of goo
-People aren't being given snake oil.
-What they said they were selling is whats in the bottle.
-That people hooked on prescription pills are at least keeping their consumption to a reasonable level.
I don't like the government using reasonable and rational controls and licensing as a back door to regulation of every aspect of a business. I agree that women should have access to post event birth control. I don't think the government should be mandating that very controversial and deep opinion for everyone. (hoists chaotic good flag)
I believe it varies by state as to whether you can fire an employee for non compliance. I can see either answer (its a reasonable accommodation to the employees religious beleifs to have someone else fill it out, or an employer needs to sell stuff and he's not selling stuff) as having merit.