Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

[Ben Kenobi]

MtG:

In other words, you're reserving the right to determine what is and what is not acceptable as a "matter of conscience"

I'm arguing from the perspective of each of your example's conscience to determine whether they would see such an irresolvable conflict. I don't think the libertarian or the conservative would stop doing either task based on their beliefs.

And an Islamic fundamentalist might consider that women who walk into the store uncovered and without a male relative escorting them should be flogged to protect public morality and prevent vice. Should we accomodate that? Or him simply shouting to the uncovered whores that Allah condemns them and they should leave the store at once until they come back properly covered or escorted?

According to your reasoning, if that were the law, then we should.

The law does not consider that any homicide has taken place, and regardless of the intent of the pill, the pharmacist does not know for a fact - he speculates.

That's not the issue here. The issue is that his religion strictly prohibits him from prescribing the morning after pill because they teach that human life begins at conception.

Now, you've admitted that the pill prevents implantation, therefore, by scientific evidence, dispensing the pill violates his beliefs.

I don't see anything vaguely resembling a compelling reason the employer should be required to accommodate the employee's speculative exercise

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.

The employee could certainly resign rather than do so, but IMO, that's the remedy.

So all Catholics, who up until now have practiced as pharmacists, should quit their job?

Why not similarly speculate about any medication which can be abused in a manner that leads to death?

Abused! It is the purpose of the morning after pill to prevent implantation. The problem is not with the medication being abused, but rather with the proper use of the medication.

quote:

Pregnancy is a medical condition.

I should hope not. If it were, we would have to justify partial birth abortions, on the grounds that they cure pregnancy. Pregnancy is a natural state for woman. Unless there is an underlying physical condition, or in the exception of ectopic pregnancy, it will greatly improve the health of the mother.

to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

Scientifically, pregnancy begins at conception, not implantation. Try again. The morning after pill is not a contraceptive, but an abortifacient.

[Ben Kenobi]

Lefty:

(I'll clean up your post.)

Ethics and mandated standards connected with many state licensed regulated professions override freedom of 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 prohibited from revealing 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 inform on him.

I thought about this post for a good while. Why are these regulations in place for lawyers? It stems from the concept of equal representation before the law. The only way for a person to get a fair trial, before the state, and the apparatus of the state, is to have a confidential advocate.

Now, can one properly say that the same conditions apply to this situation? Again, we come back to my point on what medical reason would one have to prescribe the morning after pill. Without the pill, there would be no negative consequences for the profession of pharmacy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mordoch:

I'm not saying that you personally believe this, I'm saying its quite possible for someone to believe this and therefore refuse to treat the disease since that would be defying God's judgement and acting against his concience.

No, I know you don't think I believe in this. The problem with your approach is like a Christian working in an abortion clinic. The Christian would resign, because his job is to prop up an industry designed to kill babies.

The person who believes that we should not intervene in the case of epilepsy finds himself in a hard position when intervening in some cases and not others. Therefore, the person would likely resign because the sole purpose of his work directly contradicts his beliefs.

This is different from the current example in that the pharmacist can fulfill his duties, without ever dispensing the morning after pill.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

Sure it could, but it doesn't have to if it doesn't want to.

So all Catholics, who up until now have practiced as pharmacists, should quit their job?

So all Amish, who up until now have practised as nuclear physicists, should quit their job?

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure it could, but it doesn't have to if it doesn't want to.

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

So all Amish, who up until now have practised as nuclear physicists, should quit their job?

No amish would be a nuclear physicist, for the same reason as we do not have Christian scientists as pharmacists.

[MRT144]

Ben, hopefully your GF will never be raped and impregnated by the rapist. If so, youll have the child out of wedlock (isnt that a sin?) and every day ill hope youll look down and love knowing the child has their daddies eyes and not yours. im sure your GF will consider it a blessing.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi The person who believes that we should not intervene in the case of epilepsy finds himself in a hard position when intervening in some cases and not others. Therefore, the person would likely resign because the sole purpose of his work directly contradicts his beliefs.

This is different from the current example in that the pharmacist can fulfill his duties, without ever dispensing the morning after pill.

I don't see how the situations differ at all. The pharmacist's duties are to fufill prescriptions, unless upon double checking they find that the drug will harmfully interact with another that the individual with the prescription is already taking. In both cases they are letting their moral beliefs dictate whether they allow an individual with a perfectly valid prescription to get a specific medication.

A person might have a moral problem trating epilepsy, but believe all other diseases are not direct divine punishments, so he don't have a problem treating any of them. Both pharmacists do apparently fufill their duties, with that one vital exception. The only real difference I see is whether you would approve or disaprove of their personal moral convictions and beliefs.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Haha, what did he say?

I always enjoy a good, offensive Zylka post.

Nothing exciting, just a bunch of image links side by side so they blew up the table layout on the page.

[Ben Kenobi]

If so, youll have the child out of wedlock (isnt that a sin?)

Sin requires consent. Being a victim of a rape, is not a sin, at least not to Christianity.

and every day ill hope youll look down and love knowing the child has their daddies eyes and not yours.

It would be the same in an adoption.

im sure your GF will consider it a blessing.

In time, she would. Don't know if she would want to take care of the child. It sure would change things though!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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

A lot of pharmacies have a single pharmacist on duty in a given shift. And/or they're busy. Again, you haven't given one compelling reason why a private, commercial business should be required to accomodate an employee's "moral objections" to something legal, and fundamental to the job.

No amish would be a nuclear physicist, for the same reason as we do not have Christian scientists as pharmacists.

So, in other words, because Christian Science believers have moral objections to dispensing medications, they choose professions other than being pharmacists?

Oh, and BTW, I know of several Catholic pharmacists, and there are tons of them in Mexico. They don't seem to have an issue with doing their jobs, which include dispensing oral contraceptives.

[MRT144]

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

[Ben Kenobi]

Mordoch:

A person might have a moral problem trating epilepsy, but believe all other diseases are not direct divine punishments,

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.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MRT144
so how about i stop by some time, give her the old in out in out, and you can take care of my baby?

2 strokes and done. You man you!


'Course, logically that should be in out in out in IIRC.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Are you female by any chance?

I was in another life. But since your religion doesn't allow for that, you don't have that experience to rely on.


Also, quit speaking for Catholics.

[Ben Kenobi]

A lot of pharmacies have a single pharmacist on duty in a given shift. And/or they're busy. Again, you haven't given one compelling reason why a private, commercial business should be required to accomodate an employee's "moral objections" to something legal, and fundamental to the job.

Nice quote marks around moral objections. Is dispensing the morning after pill 'fundamental' to the job of a pharmacist?

If the pharmacy is short staffed already, why should they let a qualified pharmacist go and be even more short staffed?

So, in other words, because Christian Science believers have moral objections to dispensing medications, they choose professions other than being pharmacists?

They would be unable to prescribe any medications.

Oh, and BTW, I know of several Catholic pharmacists, and there are tons of them in Mexico. They don't seem to have an issue with doing their jobs, which include dispensing oral contraceptives.

And I know some that do. Your point?