Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Remember, caring about patients and all that nonsense.

Excellent.

Lets start by not pushing one's own ethical code on the customers.

[Dis]

serves her right for getting raped. She probably dressed the wrong way or walked the wrong way.

[Urban Ranger]

Oh yeah, probably you comitted the dastardly deed, too.

[Mr. Harley]

As an ex-Catholic, this was one of the contributory issues over my leaving the Church (as an aside, Humanae Vitae is BAD theology, boiled down it essentially is the same argument that if God had meant man to fly, He would have given him wings. It only is defended because a Pope wrote it, and is held in contempt by many theologians, even in the Catholic Church).

As of 20 years ago, roughly 80% of parrish priests recommended birth control for at least some of their parishoners (happened with my late mother, in fact) and 90% of Catholics practiced some form of birth control banned by Humanae Vitae. Hardline Catholics would be out of luck, as observed by a previous poster. They are under 10% of the U.S. Church, which by the standards of previous centuries could be considered schismatic, at least on the local level.

Nobody took the individual off the street and held a gun to his head stating "Dispense this pill." It was a condition of his employment, and probably licensure. If he had a problem with it, and the new regulation took affect after his employment, if CVS could reasonably accomodate him, and he requested to only work when another pharmacist was on duty, that would be fine. However, he may find himself transferred to a large, metropolitan store or only on certain shifts he didn't want to work. REASONABLE accomodation.

Unfortunately, he should just move to Kentucky. I know they tried to pass a law permitting exactly what this man did, and I thought it passed but I'm not sure. I couldn't tell with a quick google seach. In small rural Kentucky communities this has become a real issue for women, because you cannot get the prescription for birth control pills once they are prescribed. I believe there have already been specific cases of this.

I don't quite agree with Imran's solution. If the man opens a "Pharmacy" then he should be required to fulfill the prescription. Unless he can make it patently clear to any woman contacting the pharmacy that they don't fill certain kinds of prescriptions. In the yellow pages, and on the front sign, in letters the same size as the largest there, stating something to the affect that only some prescriptions are filled. I could deal with that compromise, the problem is that they want to keep using the name "Pharmacy" instead of "Conservative Christian Pharmacy".

Even then there is the problem with small communities, and in this case I have to support the states that require a pharmacist to dispense lawfully prescribed drugs. His morals do not trump the local community, and if the community can only support one pharmacy economically (usually the case in small towns) then it's his problem. As with most real world applications, it's these messy grey areas the **** around with principles.

I have to give Ben credit, instead of posting a case with an unmarried woman who was denied emergency contraception after being drunk, he posted a good real world example of how messy "moral principles" can be. Even a few posters here indicated if it had just been emergency contraception as a kind of birth control they might have a different opinion. Of course Ben and I inevitably draw the opposite conclusions from these examples, mine for the wall between Church and state (because of people like Ben who mean well...) while he tries to show how we have to stay true to these moral imperatives (I hope I'm not unfairly parsing you Ben).

For those of you who posted here who think it would be different in the case of the drunken slut (language to make a deliberate point) being refused the pill, you are halfway to Ben's side of the divide already. Be careful, because unfortunately, as Justice Oconner has discovered, a middle ground without a principle behind often has sand as a foundation - look at her vote for the hideous 1986 desicion upholding state laws targeting gays, and her recent vote against them. Evolving standards my *** (to make a bad pun). She was egregiously wrong in one case or the other, and either did harm to hundreds if not more individuals (gays scared to come out of the closet in that type community, knowing the local constabulary can target the dirty fags) or had done harm to the nation (if the anti-gay people are right). Think about that.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.

Ben is on to a good thing here.

It is my religious belief that I only work four days a week. My employer should accommodate my belief and give me a paid holiday every Friday. Anything else would be religious persecution.

[Dinner]

That man's holier then thou additude disgusts me. It is to bad he can't be raped and then forced to carry his attackers baby.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That man's holier then thou additude disgusts me. It is to bad he can't be raped and then forced to carry his attackers baby.

*cough*

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I've had a long day, so I'm going to bed early.



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.

Yes, "concern for patients first" would be nice in the world of Barney's "I love you, you love me," but in this real world, the pharmacies care about their bottom line first.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dissident


serves her right for getting raped. She probably dressed the wrong way or walked the wrong way.

I'm going to take this as a tasteless joke, rather than it being your true sentiments.

[Boris Godunov]

So, if a Christian Scientist decided to become a nurse, but refused to do his job when called upon because it violated his personal ethics, thereby letting a patient in his care die because all he was willing to do is pray...does a hospital have an obligation to accomodate that person?

This is one of the most patently ludicrous debates I've seen here. The ******* refused to do his job, end of story. He deserved to get canned.

I suppose though that BK would, to be consistent, force a Christian store to employ an atheist who refused to sell customers Bibles.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I suppose though that BK would, to be consistent, force a Christian store to employ an atheist who refused to sell customers Bibles.

Or a private hospital that refused to allow a priest to read the last rights to a dying patient.

[Verto]

And seriously, Verto, you don't shine amongst the Philosophical Intelligence of Poly OT.

And thank goodness for that. I try to stick to things of import.

[MrFun]

Marajuana doesn't count, Verto.

[GePap]

Why are people still arguing with BK on this? Does anyone think he will bow to reason and logic in the face of his "faith"?

[Drogue]

Well, he may bow to the idea that there is no right to employment, and so if your concience get's in the way of doing the job you wish, one of them has to give. Either you act how you perceive to be immorally, or supporting immorality, or you quit the job.

The fact that he believes the morning after pill is an abomination, and the fact that I don't, we'll have to agree to disagree on. However the question of whether the employer should bend to the religious morals of the employee, or whether the employee should quit, is a point worth discussing, IMHO.