Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran is always available, when it comes to defend to right to be a scumbag.

Damn tooting! Scumbags have rights too .

And where did he do that? He was defending the right of a private firm to make it's own decisions (assuming the guy was the sole proprietor of said company). It's his own throat he slits then if the guy makes dumb decisions.

Theben, to be fair, it is defending the right to someone being a scumbag, as long as it is his own private firm.

[DRoseDARs]

Ben, look at it from this angle: You are the product of rape. Your father spawned you in a violent and criminal act. Your mother despises what you represent. You might never be able to discuss "mommy and daddy" because it would bring certain ridicule and disgust from society at large.

Is this fair to the child? No, but that's exactly what society is going to do. It is selfish and harmful to bring a child conceived in such an act into this world based on nothing more than your personal belief. You would be duing nothing but condemning the child for the rest of his or her life. Being a social pariah is a whole lot worse than not having been conceived.

"Mommy might actually love the child, regardless," you say? That may be, but mommy might not be able to shield the child forever. He or she may learn the truth eventually, and the emotional pain and anguish will begin for the child... And thus it remains an unfair and selfish decision.

I don't hold the position that abortion always be the response to rape (or any other situation), but I do hold the position that the choice be made available without preachy interference from people whose business in this very personal matter it is not. I strongly don't approve of abortion, but sometimes it is the more humane response to some terrible things in this world.

[Ben Kenobi]

Damn tooting! Scumbags have rights too

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Zylka
I'd say that's close minded, religious hating bigotry there - spiff. Hope you have the proper "rethoric" to back such up

I don't need rhetoric here. I am not the one advocating for people to suffer in order to have my precious little bigoted principles satisfied. I am not the one defending scumbags.
If somebody here was advocating torture, I wouldn't need any rethoric to say what I'd think about him. I don't usually use ad-hominems with people I disagree.
But in this case, there is no argument to discuss. Just an assh0le to put on ignore.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mordoch:

could planned parenthood not require doctors it hires to perform abortions and you'd end up with doctors that refuse to perform abortions at all due to their concience working at abortion clinics?

First off, no doctor can be required to perform an abortion. Before they are hired, they would be specifically informed that they would be performing abortions. This may not be the case for this pharmacist. Was he hired specifically to dispense the morning after pill? No. His employment is as a pharmacist, which has many other duties than just dispensing one pill.

Clearly "your personal concience" is no always an acceptable reason to deny medical care.

Assumes that the morning after pill is indeed 'medical care.' What condition does the pill treat?

Should the pharmacist deny pain killers to someone with a prescription after making the personal decision that the customer did something stupid and deserves to suffer some pain?

No, and irrelevant to this example.

Should someone who believes that epilepsy is God's punishment for sinners refuse to dispense medication to treat someone suffering from it? (This actually was a fairly common belief some time ago in the US.)

I would challenge that assertion that this was a common belief. Would there have been pharmacists then?

But this, is of course, a dodge. The general case is the same as a Christian scientist example given earlier. The Christian scientist would leave his occupation on his own accord.

If all the pharmacists in a rural area got together and agreed to not provide a medications, this could effectively deny people in the area acess to this medication at all.

And why not? What would be the negative consequences of such an action?

A pharmacist is stepping well outside the bounds of his jobs by making moral judgements of his customers and therefore to whom he will dispense medication to.

Moral judgments of his customers? Hardly. The issue is not with the customer, but with the pill.

Secondly, since when are the people who go to the pharmacy, 'customers?' They are patients, unless these pharmacies no longer dispense medication.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spiffor:

Though you put me on ignore, I may as well respond to your post.

I am not the one advocating for people to suffer in order to have my precious little bigoted principles satisfied.

Odd definition of suffering you have, that we should be able to kill others to spare our own.

I don't usually use ad-hominems with people I disagree.

They do tend to downgrade the authority of your argument.

[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?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But this, is of course, a dodge. The general case is the same as a Christian scientist example given earlier. The Christian scientist would leave his occupation on his own accord.

Secondly, since when are the people who go to the pharmacy, 'customers?' They are patients, unless these pharmacies no longer dispense medication.

On point one, so are you aknowledging that this pharmacist should have left his occupation on his own accord? Otherwise I don't see the distinction between the hypothetical case involving someone with epilepsy and the actual one talked about in this thread other than the fact you pesonally agree with the stance of the first one, and apparently would disagree with a pharmacist's decision in this hypothetical case. Its perfectly possible for a pharmacist to be happy to distributed prescriptions in general, but refuse to do so in the case of people with epilepsy since god's judgement should not be interfered with by man.

On the second case, I would argue that at least in the case of simply filling a doctor's prescription the relationships is closer to that of a customer than a patient. The diagnoses and treatment have already been agreed on, the pharmacist is just making sure the customer gets the right dosage of medication as well as the right type.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

First off, no doctor can be required to perform an abortion. Before they are hired, they would be specifically informed that they would be performing abortions. This may not be the case for this pharmacist. Was he hired specifically to dispense the morning after pill? No. His employment is as a pharmacist, which has many other duties than just dispensing one pill.

But as he is a pharmacist I wouldn´t doubt, that he knew that they had the Morning-After-Pill in Stock.
And therefore he would know that he would some day have to sell them.

It´s the same if you are a Biologist and also an animal Right Activist and the Laboratory you work for someday begins to perform Animal Experiments.
Either you accept that you too could someday be forced to perform animal Experiments for yourself or you quit because of your conscience.
You would also have to accept the consequences if your Employer tells you to perform Animal Experiments and you refuse to do it (and you therefore for example get fired)

[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?

Har, har. Yer sure are funniee.



I have to go to class for a couple of hours, but I'm going to respond.

[Ben Kenobi]

Proteus:

But as he is a pharmacist I wouldn´t doubt, that he knew that they had the Morning-After-Pill in Stock.
And therefore he would know that he would some day have to sell them.

Yeah. That makes sense to me. Avoiding the confrontation for as long as possible.

Either you accept that you too could someday be forced to perform animal Experiments for yourself or you quit because of your conscience.

Or when the confrontation comes, you make your stand and hope for the best.

*sigh*

This is a big issue for me, because I have a good friend who has really been hassled over this issue. Fortunately, her employer likes her enough to keep her on, and accomodates her beliefs.

[Whaleboy]

Put simply Ben, if your beliefs are an impediment to you dong your job, then you should not be in that job.

Separate to that is the ridiculous nature of that mans beliefs. Now as a relativist I accept them but I'll be damned if I agree, or will listen to him. IMO, the bloke needs a seriously large amount of maternal love.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Re: Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I fail to see why convenience to women should override freedom of conscience. Pharmacists should not have to prescribe a drug to which they are morally opposed.

Ethics and manadated standards connected with many state licensed regulated proffessions override freedom pf conscience, with doctors and lawyers and others as well as pharmacists. If a client tells me about 150 girls he has raped and mutilated. I am prohibittted ffom revealling that without his permission, and should I break the rule, the state would be barred from using the information. If tells about the least little crime he is GOING to commit, I can infrom on him.

[Zylka]

yeah.. like how when I was assistant manager at the grocery store - we wouldn't sell tampons past 6pm under my watch

*ing evil, evil bleeding women

[Ben Kenobi]

Gotta go to class, won't be back until late tonight.

On point one, so are you aknowledging that this pharmacist should have left his occupation on his own accord? Otherwise I don't see the distinction between the hypothetical case involving someone with epilepsy and the actual one talked about in this thread other than the fact you pesonally agree with the stance of the first one, and apparently would disagree with a pharmacist's decision in this hypothetical case.

It's not clear that even if one believes epilepsy is a curse by God, that one should not intervene to treat the epileptic.

On the second case, I would argue that at least in the case of simply filling a doctor's prescription the relationships is closer to that of a customer than a patient. The diagnoses and treatment have already been agreed on, the pharmacist is just making sure the customer gets the right dosage of medication as well as the right type.

Talk to a pharmacist, and ask if they have patients or customers. I would be willing to be they would unequivocally call them patients. Most of them worked long and hard to get a specialised degree and therefore ought to be considered professionals.