Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Excellent point. I would object to a job requirement that requires a Catholic pharmacist to prescribe birth control, as well as the morning after pill. Surely, they could pass these onto another pharmacist who would be willing to do so, thus respecting the freedom of conscience of the pharmacist.

No. It's part of the job description of being a pharmacist. Providing the drugs prescribed by the doctor. If he can't do that, he shouldn't be a pharmacist.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sad though, that no one has addressed one of my points. How does the morning after pill treat rape? Does it make the woman feel better about herself? Why do we prescribe powerful drugs if they do not help the woman?

Because it gives her peace of mind, that she won't get pregnant. That would prolong the hurt, as it would remind her of the rape. Having his child would also be a constant reminder of it, as well as the resentment she may feel towards the child of someone who has abused her in such a way.

It doesn't make her feel better, it stops her feeling worse. It gives her some closure and helps her to move on.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Excellent point. I would object to a job requirement that requires a Catholic pharmacist to prescribe birth control, as well as the morning after pill. Surely, they could pass these onto another pharmacist who would be willing to do so, thus respecting the freedom of conscience of the pharmacist.

The question is how far should a private employer be forced to go to accommodate the indirect ideological or "moral" preferences of employees. Political expression is also protected under the First Amendment, as is freedom of religion. So should employers have to accomodate the "moral" views of Libertarian cashiers and bookkeepers who consider taxation to be a form of theft? What about a run of the mill political conservative who believes that welfare is immoral, and thus wants to refuse to accept payment or otherwise deal with people paying by EBT or food stamps or similar?

The employer is not forcing the employee to do anything which is not a reasonably foreseeable part of the job description in either case, so if the employee objects, why should the employer be forced to make concessions to an individual's preferences?

Sad though, that no one has addressed one of my points. How does the morning after pill treat rape? Does it make the woman feel better about herself? Why do we prescribe powerful drugs if they do not help the woman?

Come on, Ben - you're smarter than to play semantic games. Pregnancy and STD transmission are both possible consequences of rape. The morning after pill treats a foreseeable consequence, just as prophylactic antibiotic treatment would likely be used if the rapist was known to carry a specific STD - would you wait until it was confirmed that the woman had positive indications of the STD before you'd give treatment? Would you rather see if pregnancy occurred, then consider abortion? The whole goal of the treatment is to prevent a direct consequence of the rape, which consequence could not occur otherwise at that time.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Say it was a private pharamacy... then I think the guy has every right to refuse to give certain perscriptions. However, working for Eckards, when their company policy goes against this, he cannot.

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

[Verto]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


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

And you are always available, when it comes to defend the right to be an idiot.

[MrFun]

oooh . . . . .

let me get my bag of popcorn to munch on, while I watch this

[Theben]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

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

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.

[Whaleboy]

If he can't do his job, he should leave it. He is being paid to give people their prescriptions, not impose his morality upon them. If he's not doing his job, he should not be paid.

Furthermore, his behaviour is horrifying, I should hope that attempts are made to rectify such "morality" via education.

[Ben Kenobi]

providing the drugs prescribed by the doctor. If he can't do that, he shouldn't be a pharmacist.

So why do we train them if they are just pill pushers?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Furthermore, his behaviour is horrifying, I should hope that attempts are made to rectify such "morality" via education.

[Akka]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Scumbag. And that goes for you too, Ben.

Let me second that.

[Ben Kenobi]

MtG:

The question is how far should a private employer be forced to go to accommodate the indirect ideological or "moral" preferences of employees. Political expression is also protected under the First Amendment, as is freedom of religion. So should employers have to accomodate the "moral" views of Libertarian cashiers and bookkeepers who consider taxation to be a form of theft? What about a run of the mill political conservative who believes that welfare is immoral, and thus wants to refuse to accept payment or otherwise deal with people paying by EBT or food stamps or similar?

Considering both of your examples. How can the libertarian be held personally responsible, by his own beliefs, by charging a tax on an item? He is not personally benefiting from the tax. As for the conservative opposed to welfare, would it be better to let that person starve, or to accept their payment with food stamps? I would think that their philosophy would give them a stark option of either charity, or accepting their food stamps. Since he cannot offer charity to compensate for all of these people, he has no option but to give the food stamps.

Now, compare this to our example. A Catholic, who dispenses the morning after pill, would consider themselves to be an accessory to murder. True, the pill may not cause an abortion, but the purpose of the pill is to prevent the implantation of the unborn child. There is no other purpose for the drug. That to me should seem considerably different grounds than even my own contraceptive example to allow for freedom of conscience.

Pregnancy and STD transmission are both possible consequences of rape.

That's a seriously questionable analogy, MtG. Are you claiming that pregnancy is a medical condition like an STD?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So why do we train them if they are just pill pushers?

To recognize when doses might be to large for someone, when the medicines prescribed might cause problems taken together, so forth.

What you fail to recognize is that pharmacist have to fill legal and safe prescriptions form doctors if they have those drug on hand. This guy knew that long before. If he had problems with the possibilities, he should have quit. He failed to do his job. He is lucky he was only preprimanded and not summarely fired.

[Ben Kenobi]

Drogue:

Because it gives her peace of mind, that she won't get pregnant.

It will not repair the psychological injury of rape. She needs counselling, not a 'magic pill.'

Having his child would also be a constant reminder of it, as well as the resentment she may feel towards the child of someone who has abused her in such a way.

Presumes that the mother must raise the child. This is not necessarily the case as I am sure there will be plenty of others who would be willing to adopt the child.

It doesn't make her feel better, it stops her feeling worse.

And would pregnancy after rape necessarily make her feel worse or better? Some women say that their child is the only good thing to come out of the whole sordid ordeal.

It gives her some closure and helps her to move on.

Closure? What if the rapist goes unpunished?

[Ben Kenobi]

This guy knew that long before.

How long has this been company policy? The article does not say.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


How long has this been company policy? The article does not say.

Hello! Its the LAW for license pharmacists-he is licensed, he had to know the law, hence he KNEW when he became a phamacist.

God, you can be dense!