Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What about my suggestion to simply allow another pharmacist to dispense the pill?

He did not ask somebody else to do it, he told the woman to go away. The guy was disciplined for breaking company policy.

[Ben Kenobi]

so how about i stop by some time, give her the old in out in out, and you can take care of my baby?

She'd kick your ***.

[Ben Kenobi]

He did not ask somebody else to do it, he told the woman to go away.

Was there another pharmacist on duty?

The guy was disciplined for breaking company policy.

Such policy would bar all Catholics from working there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Such policy would bar all Catholics from working there.

Big deal... it also bars Christian scientists from the job. It is a buisness necessity that customers get the pills they are perscribed, if the pharmacy has those pills. Hardline Catholics lose.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Nice try. How would that work? Of course, if you make that tiny change, it allows you to make the two morally equivalent. Even your example seems to treat all misfortune as coming from God, thus the pharmacist would not be able to intervene in any case.

Admitedly I've selected a hypothetical example to make my point. The individual could come from some weird pseudo christian cult that believes this as one possibility. Another is that his parents believed quite strongly that epilepsy was a divine punishment, (epilepsy was extremely poorly understood well into the 20th century) so that belief rubbed off on him permenantly even though he eventually accepted that other diseases were not divine punishments. This could have been bolstered by the one epilepsy that he knew personally being a nasty heavily sinning individual. Since epilepsy is still less understood than many diseases, even today it remains more mysterious as less well understood for the general populace.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What about my suggestion to simply allow another pharmacist to dispense the pill?

The guy is licensed by the state to fill prescriptions. If he doesn't want to fill prescriptions for whatever reason, then he should get another job. That would solve his moral dilemma real quick.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's not just the employee's speculation. It's his faith and his beliefs. Would you consider all of his faith to be nothing more than speculation?

I fail to see why the store cannot accomodate his beliefs, considering that he is a pharmacist, and his job is not unduly affected by the refusal to dispense the morning after pill.

But his Job was unduly affected.
After all the Shop has Morning After Pills because the Company wants them to be sold.
And also they want (of course) that their costumers leave their Pharmacies satisfied and without complaint, so that they might continue to buy their Medications from Pharmacies of the same Company in the Future (and even tell friends about the good service) and not want to shift to any competing Company to fulfill their medical needs.

By his refusal to sell the pill the company probably has lost at least one Customer (i.e. the woman who got raped). Even more if you consider that she might tell her friends and Family about it.
And, as everything became public, the company could loose a lot more customers if they don´t punish the pharmacists for his behavior.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Such policy would bar all Catholics from working there.

There is nothing wrong, IMO, with religious people wearing apparel, or any accessory that expresses their religious belief in non-demeaning ways at workplaces.



But when someone decides to play God and take such arrogant, inane, grossly insensitive, ignorant, hateful, sexist, extremely unfair action such as this dope did, he is LOOKING to get fired.

[Sava]

But when someone decides to play God and take such arrogant, inane, grossly insensitive, ignorant, hateful, sexist, extremely unfair action such as this dope did, he is LOOKING to get fired.

tell us how u really feel1!

[MrFun]

Nah -- I don't want to be blunt or anything.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MrFun
Nah -- I don't want to be blunt or anything.

spark another owl

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
DRose:

Your opinion is one held in Muslim countries, as a reason to stone women who have been raped, because they are defiled, and thus become outcasts to the community.

Should we adopt their same approach?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
DRose:

Your opinion is one held in Muslim countries, as a reason to stone women who have been raped, because they are defiled, and thus become outcasts to the community.

Should we adopt their same approach?

Did you actually read my post? No one is suggesting the born-child be killed, nor the mother. I stated it would be better to prevent there being a child to ridicule in the first place FOR HIS/HER OWN SAKE. The woman has her own problems to deal with: the misguided opinions of others of her complicity in the act of rape, emotional distress, medical problems if the act was violent enough. Why does the child have to be forced to face additional problems to satisfy the victim's selfish need to feel good about herself? Threat-of-stoning generally isn't a problem in Western societies when it comes to victims of rape, but is the social pariahism of the child that much better?

My point is that any society today is likely going to treat the victim and her child with unfair judgement. There may be some compassion shown for both, but the child is the one who will unduly suffer the most regardless, mostly in the form of emotional distress. To me, this is a matter of fairness. Is it right to put someone in the position of having social and emotional distress likely for the rest of their natural life, stemming from the circumstances of their conception? So called test-tube babies might fall into a similar catagory, but unlike rape-conceived children, these children were conceived in love, not violence. The child was planned and wanted ever so much that the parents were willing to take extrodinary means to have that child. Rape babies have no such devotion. If the mother is gracious of heart, then the child will know love, but even a mother's love can be tainted by the past. And that is the most unfair part of this whole mess.



Perhaps a clarification is in order: A clump of cells, in my view, doesn't make a baby. I know little about fetal developement, but I'm fairly certain nothing identifiable as a Human fetus developes within a few days of conception. That takes a few weeks. I believe in the existance of souls and I do believe they wouldn't be *lacking proper terminology* "implanted" into the fetus until at least a certain level of developement has been achieved (A sentient clump of 8 cells? Methinks not...). Abortion is an option only for a short window early in the pregnancy and thus morning-after pills are a viable option. I'd rather the option not be taken in most cases if the child is viable (lacking life-threatening/shortening deformities and not a threat to the mother's health), but it isn't my place to decide nor is it your's Ben: it is the mother's and father's choice and no one else's.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Was there another pharmacist on duty?

If not, so much more reason for this pharmacist to fill out the prescription.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Such policy would bar all Catholics from working there.

No, only those who want to impose their own set of ethical code on others.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've had a long day, so I'm going to bed early.

By his refusal to sell the pill the company probably has lost at least one Customer (i.e. the woman who got raped). Even more if you consider that she might tell her friends and Family about it.

Just one point I want to make. A pharmacy is not supposed to be about selling pills. They are a part of the health care system. Remember, caring about patients and all that nonsense.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Just one point I want to make. A pharmacy is not supposed to be about selling pills. They are a part of the health care system. Remember, caring about patients and all that nonsense.

Pharmacies are supposed to be places that people can reliably get medications after consulting and getting approval form their doctors. I feel quite strongly that when they depart from this principle they are going away from how they should be conducting business, and the pharmacist in this case did the woman in question a gross disservice.