Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
So you would be happy to do any immoral things that your employers demand without objection?

Interesting work ethic....

False dilemma. He said that he shouldn't be expected to be allowed to retain salary from a company when he's refusing to do the work required of him, for whatever reasons.

If your employer is doing things you believe are immoral and that you don't want a part in, there is only one solution: quit.

[Ben Kenobi]

I bet if it happened to their daughters, it would be a different story.

I call that bet.

[Ben Kenobi]

now I wonder what he would do if his GF was raped by her brother. Is incest horrific enough to warrant abortion, BK?

I've visited her family. Thank you very much for that mental picture.

Anyone know a good way to scrub your mind?

BTW, I would still say no.

[Ben Kenobi]

Read the thread title.

I started the thread. The real issue is freedom of conscience and religion. Rape is just a sensationalistic sideshow, which BTW, is precisely the same headline the newspapers used.

The women was forced to be impregnated against her will. That is the true evil.

Two wrongs do not make a right. The morning after pill will not cure rape, it will not magically 'un-rape' the woman.

Abortion is crucial in some cases.

I find it totally outrageous that you would wish a woman to bear a rapist's product.

So a child is just a product, to be bought when you want one, or thrown away and discarded when you don't?

Something a medieval theologist would not comphrehend,

To Rogan Josh? Flame on. He's going to find your house and burn it down.

[Verres]

Anyone know a good way to scrub your mind?

Im sure many people here would be willing to carve open your head and scrub your brain with a scouring pad.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I started the thread. The real issue is freedom of conscience and religion.

Vs the rights of the customer not to be refused goods because of the personal beliefs of the person behind the till, as opposed to the company, the doctor prescribing it, the government, or the patient themselves.

You have freedom of religion, in that you can practice whatever religion you wish. You have freedom of concience, in that you cannot be forced into doing things. However you cannot choose to do something and then not do it. You say it would be absurd to not allow catholics to be pharmacists because of the pill, but would it be absurd to now allow catholics to be porn stars because they're have to have sex out of wedlock? Dispensing medication is the fundemantal part of being a pharmacist. if you can't do that part, isn't it absurd to still be a pharmacist? You are free to practise your religion, but religion should not be a way to get out of secular laws. You say it;s the freedom of the pharmacist to be catholic, but what about the freedom of the customer to be an atheist? She didn't want to go against her beliefs that the morning after pill wasn't wrong, but she had her freedom quashed.

Bottom line, if you can't do your job, do a different job. You have no right to employment at all, let alone employment in a specific field. Regardless of whether or not you think he was right, are you saying it should be illegal to fire this guy, for not doing his job, or should the company be allowed to choose whether they keep him on?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Rape is just a sensationalistic sideshow, which BTW, is precisely the same headline the newspapers used.

No, rape is a crucial issue when it comes to abortion. The fact that someone has been impregnated against their will has many repurcussions for the treatment of the child, the psychological effect on the mother (especially compounding the trauma of rape with the trauma of birth) and the state of the women wanting treatment. A strong pro-lifer will disagree with rape abortions too, but there are many people who see it as an exception. Surely, even disagreeing with it, you can see that it is different to a normal conception, in that the woman had no say in it.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Two wrongs do not make a right. The morning after pill will not cure rape, it will not magically 'un-rape' the woman.

No, but the trauma of birth, the possible feeling of resentment towards the child of a man who committed such a heinous act and the physical reminder of it for at least 9 months, can all be stopped by the morning after pill. It's not going to make them better, but it will stop them getting worse, and stop some of the effects of the rape.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So a child is just a product, to be bought when you want one, or thrown away and discarded when you don't?

But they never wanted one. If they had wanted one, or had got one out of their own negligence, then you may have a point there.

Suppose you have a person who has decided not to have kids? My aunt is a severe diabetic, and because she believes that she doesn't want her offspring to go through that, she has decided never to have kids. Now, suppose she was raped and impregnated. I can understand you being against it still, but surely you can see the difference between that and someone who just forgot to use the protection.

I suppose it also depends on whether you consider the torture of having to carry that baby as worse than the loss of potential life. You say the baby shouldn't be punished for the sins of the father, but should the women be punished further than necessary to do so? I know you still believe murder to be worse than the torture of pregnancy after rape, but I'm trying to highlight why it's a different issue, partly, because it is a forced impregnation rather than consensual.

[Verres]

I suppose it also depends on whether you consider the torture of having to carry that baby as worse than the loss of potential life.

Very true. I remember in a thread a while back about the worst crime or something like that the general consensus was that torture was worse than 'murder', which i would imagine is what many pro-lifers may believe the morning after pill to be.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I started the thread. The real issue is freedom of conscience and religion. Rape is just a sensationalistic sideshow, which BTW, is precisely the same headline the newspapers used.

The issue to me is medieval attitudes to modern reality that need to be upadated to our century.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Two wrongs do not make a right. The morning after pill will not cure rape, it will not magically 'un-rape' the woman.

Would you wish to bring up her unwanted baby then?

Is it her fault she ended up with a child from a beast?

Or do you see the woman as a mere vessel for some monster to violate?

Careful how you answer this one.
Your credibility depends on it.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So a child is just a product, to be bought when you want one, or thrown away and discarded when you don't?

Are you from mars?

The woman was made to suffer the beastly attentions of a RAPIST!

Can you get your head out from your dogma for a split second?

The woman is a HUMAN BEING with RIGHTS that were VIOLATED.

Can you get your biblical head around that, sir?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
To Rogan Josh? Flame on. He's going to find your house and burn it down.

I which case, I hope he's rifle-proof.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Gibsie: Would you be surpirsed to know that I have lost friends and had relatives no longer speak to me for publicly being prolife? I've been on the receiving end, and I find my real friends now are much more forgiving.

That's sad. While I don't like your opinions here, I can't fault you for being consistent (Indeed I'd give a pro-lifer who'd overlook abortions in the case of rape a much harder time than one who values the unborn no matter how they came to be), and if they really really offended me I'd just not discuss the topic with you... certainly I wouldn't stop being friends with someone for being pro-life.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Sik,

Interesting,

To what extent is the employer liable, if any, for failure to dispense meds that are prescribed?

Og

Retail pharmacists have very broad powers to not fill prescriptions, especially of course drugs that are "scheduled" like narcotics etc., even with a valid prescription. They are providing a service, and have a lot of legal and ethical limitations involving safety etc. It tends to be their call. There is no reason for them to carry any particular medication in fact for whatever reason they choose. In a clinical situation they can still refuse to fill a prescription, and they can cover themselves in most cases by claiming that in their judgement something was wrong with the prescription (ie the doctor who wrote it was mistaken or not in possession of all the relevant facts). In this case obviously it was a moral objection that caused this man to refuse the prescription, and not some perceived deviation from the standard of care or potential fraud.

In a clinical situation where obvious harm to the patient might occur were a drug withheld (a fairly rare situation actually) I do think that the hospital could get into trouble if they had reason to believe that one of their pharmacists was likely to refuse to fill such a prescription. If the pharmacist gave no previous indication that he was likely to behave in such a manner they would probably be able to pass most if not all of the liability off were they to immediately suspend the offending pharmacist and bring in another to fill the prescription expiditiously. In cases where no immediate harm was done (ie most cases), they would likely be off the hook entirely, as they provide those drugs as a service to their patients and the patient could always purchase them somewhere else. It then becomes simply poor service, which is bad for business but not malpractice. In these cases they are covered with the same broad standard as the retail pharmacist.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
So you would be happy to do any immoral things that your employers demand without objection?

Interesting work ethic....

Uh, no. That's why I don't work at a Wall Street law firm. My point is, if an employer must accomodate any ethical/religious concerns that an employee might have you are expecting too much of the employer.

I wouldn't work on Wall Street because the work they do there is at best morally neutral and at worst immoral as hell. I suppose someone has to defend Monsanto, but that someone isn't me. But I don't go work at the big firm and ***** and moan about the clients and expect to get paid. Mr. Pharmacist should likewise go find a new line of work.