When the ambulance driver won't take you, because you write porn;

[Joe Wordsworth]

No. I'm sorry, but you guys are all barking up the wrong tree on this one. I won't reiterate Joe's points. I think he's made them well. Q_C

I tried, anyway.

 

[AchtungNight]

as one inclined to the quaker persuasion, i must say that there is some bit of truth or correctness in joe's or even the Christian right's position.

i applaud the soldier who (not in the midst of battle) wants to hang up his gun. i applaud the executioner who sees the evil of c.p. and refuses to pull the switch, or loose the trapdoor any more.

i applaud the dr. who, having looked into an operation that's fashionable, like 'stomach stapling', says, 'it's dangerous, in my opinion, and i won't do it.'

i might ever admire the conviction of a prolife mom who, with her life at risk, says, 'save the baby, and leave my life in God's hands' and dies.

somehow, these cases though seem different from the pharmacist and ambulance driver cases. i wonder if Joe or anyone can explain why or tell me why i'm totally misguided.

I'm with you on all of this, Pure.

 

[Pure]

to clarify

pure's case: a JW nurse who refuses to assist (as is necessary, we'll postulate) in a transfusion.

joe: Now, you're not making sense... do you mean a tranfusion ala "life-saving necessity" or transfusion ala "because I want to try it and people shouldn't impede my right to do WHATEVER I can afford" or some other kind of transfusion? You say "as is necessary", so I guess that means the procedure is necessary and not the assistance (sentence placement... it could be either).

===
I mean a situation like the following.

Jim Blow is on the operating table, and the operation was supposed to be simple and uneventful, but he starts losing blood--a one in a thousand event for that operation. There is a good chance he will die without a transfusion.

There is only a doctor and two nurses present, one (A) being an expert in respirations who cannot be taken from that job.

I stipulate that to set up and give the transfusion it will take the work together of the doctor and the other nurse (J). J happens to be a Jehovah's Witness who thinks transfusions are a sin, forbidden in the Bible.

Nurse J refuses to help with the the transfusion procedure, 'out of conscience.' I believe she has erred both morally and professionally
(if not Biblically).

What say you, Joe.

 

[TheEarl]

So, we wouldn't have a problem with Rite-Aid saying "we won't dispense the morning after pill"?

So, you have no problem with the business NOT giving it--using a moral and religious argument and justification for not providing medical service--just a problem with the lack of publicity or warning?

Can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I would consider a pharmacy chain taking that moral stand being perfectly reasonable. I wouldn't describe myself as 'happy' (as I don't believe it's the right course of action) and I wouldn't use that pharmacy chain any more, but I consider it a viable and reasonable option that they may choose to take.

Market forces would dictate whether that pharmacy would sink or swim. In England, I think it would sink. In the USA, it would probably float, as it would gain as many customers as it lost.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

i applaud the dr. who, having looked into an operation that's fashionable, like 'stomach stapling', says, 'it's dangerous, in my opinion, and i won't do it.'

Did anyone else just see "Dr. Who" there?

The Earl

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

pure's case: a JW nurse who refuses to assist (as is necessary, we'll postulate) in a transfusion.

joe: Now, you're not making sense... do you mean a tranfusion ala "life-saving necessity" or transfusion ala "because I want to try it and people shouldn't impede my right to do WHATEVER I can afford" or some other kind of transfusion? You say "as is necessary", so I guess that means the procedure is necessary and not the assistance (sentence placement... it could be either).

===
I mean a situation like the following.

Jim Blow is on the operating table, and the operation was supposed to be simple and uneventful, but he starts losing blood--a one in a thousand event for that operation. There is a good chance he will die without a transfusion.

There is only a doctor and two nurses present, one (A) being an expert in respirations who cannot be taken from that job.

I stipulate that to set up and give the transfusion it will take the work together of the doctor and the other nurse (J). J happens to be a Jehovah's Witness who thinks transfusions are a sin, forbidden in the Bible.

Nurse J refuses to help with the the transfusion procedure, 'out of conscience.' I believe she has erred both morally and professionally
(if not Biblically).

What say you, Joe.

Then there is a direct conflict of the basic function s of medicine (to save lives) with regard to a religious tenant about how we're going about it and I err on the side of the procedure being non-elective and imperative by basic medical mandate. I've been pretty clear on "elective" and "imperative", though.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I would consider a pharmacy chain taking that moral stand being perfectly reasonable. I wouldn't describe myself as 'happy' (as I don't believe it's the right course of action) and I wouldn't use that pharmacy chain any more, but I consider it a viable and reasonable option that they may choose to take.

Market forces would dictate whether that pharmacy would sink or swim. In England, I think it would sink. In the USA, it would probably float, as it would gain as many customers as it lost.

The Earl

Then we're in agreement. Free choice is represented well while still extending it to some supremacy of conscience situations.

 

[English Lady]

Did anyone else just see "Dr. Who" there?

The Earl

Me, I did! With his sonic screwdriver out and everything!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Then there is a direct conflict of the basic function s of medicine (to save lives) with regard to a religious tenant about how we're going about it and I err on the side of the procedure being non-elective and imperative by basic medical mandate. I've been pretty clear on "elective" and "imperative", though.

Likewise, I can not imagine anyone studying to be a nurse without confronting the issue of transfusions. You don't get to the ER on your first day after graduating, either.

 

[FallingToFly]

.....

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'm going to duck in for this and duck back out, so please, if you have a rebuttal, email it to me if you want a response. (long story short, I'm saving everyone some aggravation and avoiding Lit til I chill the fuck out a little- I'm bitchy as hell lately.)

Please understand, I have nothing against anyone because of race or religion (culture is a toos-up, I don't agree with certain cultural beliefs and avoid being exposed to them) however, I am more and more becoming disgusted with extremist religious advocates of any stripe.

It is, most assuredly, your right to practice your religion as you see fit in your own home. It is, most assuredly, your right to share your beliefs with those who ask about what you believe. It is not your right, EVER, to force your religion off on me. I walked into a Christian church of my own free will- and I walked out 10 years later with no backward glance and no regrets (although a great deal of amusement has finally replaced the bitterness I carried for a long time).

I am not a Christian.
I am not a Wiccan.
I am not a Satanist.

I am a witch, and what I believe is what I believe. I will not attempt to convert you, and I expect the same courtesy in return. And if your religion is going to inhibit you from performing your job, you need to get over it or get out of it- you have no idea why I was prescribed birth control, or why my husband is coming in for a vasectomy, or why my sister is coming in for the morning after pill. Maybe I have polycystic ovaries, and my doctor wants to avoid having me ovulate unless I am attempting to get pregnant. Maybe he's getting fixed because we can't afford to raise more than three children, and we don't want to have our family condemned to poverty because I'm fertile as hell and we both have latex allergies. Maybe she was gang-raped at a party and needs some piece of mind on at least one front as she tries to rebuild her life.

If you are incapable of supporting both the tenets of your religion and the tenets of your profession- one has to go. Since I would NEVER advocate someone giving up their beliefs because another told them to- I would recommend you find a new line of work. Peace Corps is always looking for qualified medical personnel, as are many Christian-based aid societies around the world. You can find a way to balance the two without attempting to frce your religion down the throats of the public.

You know the old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?" You can deny a woman birth control- if she wants to have sex, she'll still do it. Deny her an abortion- there are still back-alley practices, or, more safely and hopefully more available, a friendly neighborhood herbcrafter. Deny a man the use of his sexual freedoms- he'll find a way to indulge them, and hopefully with a willing partner and a loving manner- sexual frustration due to impotence has been known to lead to violence in rare cases.

Religion has a place in medical care- prayers and faith are a wonderful thing. Religious and moral intolerance do not have a place in medical care (or anywhere else as far as I'm concerned, but again, I'm a real bitch lately). If you're so worried about what God will say- try reading the Bible again. LAst I checked, it DIDN'T say a damn thing against abortion, or against controlling your own reproductive process. It sure as hell doesn't say- "Hey, you should have as many children back to back as possible, in order to wear out your body and tax your mind into mental breakdowns or a premature death, leaving your children motherless!"

.02 and a smidge over-

Firefly.

I greatly disagree with several points including (but not limited to) that

(1) abiding by or acting in accordance to religious prohibition of certain acts (whether its driving one's car on Saturday or not supplying a means to a moral evil) in an environment of free will, choice, and optional experience is as far from "pushing beliefs on someone" as choosing not to vote is to "being a communist";

(2) that constant lay finger wagging of "try reading the Bible, you Christian!" followed by half the story is purely ignorant, Catholic prohibitions come from more corners than Biblical ones and are religious tenants (and, yes, Catholics are Christian), similarly there are religiously grounded interpretations like taking the notion of not killing or harming people to an end of not killing or harming a fetus (a very popular opinion and argument) that don't conflict with the Bible and coincide nicely with interpretation;

(3) it is not the moral duty or legal imperative for any citizen of this country, acting freely and without immediate or associated threats of harm or death, to give any other citizen what they merely want, this is to say that police and civil servants aside, we don't live in a society that allows the mere wants of one person to determine the musts of another, its just not that simple--as such, even a gang-raped thirteen year old girl who is hurt and terrified and whose parents want to get her a morning-after pill do so as an elective medical situation;

and (4) that to divide religious beliefs from personal judgement and claim them to be seperate, necessarily and wholly, is thoroughly weak an understanding of them.

 

[Pure]

joe,

while you make some valid points against Falling, i'm afraid i cannot agree with a central premise, as i understand it.

we don't live in a society that allows the mere wants of one person to determine the musts of another,

[[ADDED: now i see you have an exception for 'police and civil servants'. i wonder why. my cases will, theh, not involve those, ftsoa. may i take then, that police and civil servants' duties ARE triggered by wants??]]

[[ADDED further: i also see you have made an exception for immeditate harm, which does affect my example 5) below. so may i take it, then, that in such cases, duties (in citizens and professionals) are triggered by my wants?]]


i think this is quite common, joe.

1.) If i want psychotherapy and turn to a psychologist, for that, and s/he accepts me, then s/he is under various obligations spelled out in the code of ethics of the APA.

2a) If i want a new, custommade house, and hire and architect, then his or her professional duties to design a good house fall into place.

b)same if i want to remove a wall, and hire an engineer to advise me on how to support what is currently above it.

now, it might be said, that the pro., here is not subject merely to a want, but to his or her agreements. but that would not very well distinguish 2a) from

3)the case of a surgeon. the agreement, let's say, is to remove my gall bladder. there are not specific agreements about all the things needing to be done. in my recent case, it was elective; i had the condition, but was given various choices, including doing nothing.

but if you don't like these cases, because of a chance of refusal, consider.

4) the city bus lines are privately owned, but have a contract with the city. i get on a bus; i don't walk very far. i *want to get off at a certain stop, close to my house. it is very difficult or impossible to walk six blocks if I miss my stop. if i ring for a stop, it is the duty of the driver to let me off at that stop, and not, say, skip it on his way to a coffee at the subsequent stop.

5) similarly, if i'm about to be mugged inside a building, and I run away up the hall, and find a private security person employed in that building, and ask him to protect me, it is his duty--unless otherwise engaged-- to somehow assist and protect me (if he's leaving, to call for another).

so our wants trigger duties in many cases, with or without explicit agreements. notice that they hold because of profession. 5) is not the same as 5a) if i run up to a person, asking for protection from physical attack, and he is Amish and opposed to using any violence to protect me or thwart my attacker.

the case 4) above arguably resembles

6) the case of a pharmacist i got to with a valid presciption for estrogen pills (birth control--but sometimes used for other purposes) which is a decision i've taken as to treatment modalities, for a uterine disorder; i argue that the duty of the pharmacist kicks in, to supply this want, in a basic drug.

indeed, around here, if a pharmacist is 'out', s/he will almost always say, "i can have that in for you, tomorrow."

conclusion: my wants, in a number of situations, trigger 'duties' in the professional person presented with them, where i have become--sometimes through simple presentation of my situation-- a 'client' to him/her in his/her professional capacity.

--
joe said in part,

(3) it is not the moral duty or legal imperative for any citizen of this country, acting freely and without immediate or associated threats of harm or death, to give any other citizen what they merely want, this is to say that police and civil servants aside, we don't live in a society that allows the mere wants of one person to determine the musts of another, its just not that simple--as such, even a gang-raped thirteen year old girl who is hurt and terrified and whose parents want to get her a morning-after pill do so as an elective medical situation;

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

while you make some valid points against Falling, i'm afraid i cannot agree with a central premise, as i understand it.

we don't live in a society that allows the mere wants of one person to determine the musts of another,

[[ADDED: now i see you have an exception for 'police and civil servants'. i wonder why. my cases will, theh, not involve those, ftsoa. may i take then, that police and civil servants' duties ARE triggered by wants??]]

Your quote above is a summary, not a central premise. The central premise would be more accurately expressed by the beginning of that section.

You can take that as employed by "The State" (in the ideal of that saying), religious prohibition and prescription have greater contradiction--and, as such, its a relationship I wasn't involving my discussion in. Sort of a "seperate matter", categorically.

i think this is quite common, joe.

1.) If i want psychotherapy and turn to a psychologist, for that, and s/he accepts me, then s/he is under various obligations spelled out in the code of ethics of the APA.

It is the psychologist right to deny your want of therapy; upon accepting the your want of therapy, there is a relationship that is legally binding--an agreement to the State's terms of service.

2a) If i want a new, custommade house, and hire and architect, then his or her professional duties to design a good house fall into place.

Architecture works differently, there aren't as many binding legal relationship precedences--it is the architect's right to deny service to your want, though; and after taking it, it really is as much his right as was contractual to stop.

b)same if i want to remove a wall, and hire an engineer to advise me on how to support what is currently above it.

Similar to the architect.

now, it might be said, that the pro., here is not subject merely to a want, but to his or her agreements. but that would not very well distinguish 2a) from

3)the case of a surgeon. the agreement, let's say, is to remove my gall bladder. there are not specific agreements about all the things needing to be done. in my recent case, it was elective; i had the condition, but was given various choices, including doing nothing.

Just like the shrink, if it was agreed to be done... where is that relavent to your "want" mandating a service? You asked for it, he agreed to it--that's hardly compelling a person to do your mere want, so much as arranging it willingly with them.

but if you don't like these cases, because of a chance of refusal, consider.

4) the city bus lines are privately owned, but have a contract with the city. i get on a bus; i don't walk very far. i *want to get off at a certain stop, close to my house. it is very difficult or impossible to walk six blocks if I miss my stop. if i ring for a stop, it is the duty of the driver to let me off at that stop, and not, say, skip it on his way to a coffee at the subsequent stop.

So... I got as far as "but have a contract with the city" and have to point out that I was talking about (and mentioned as much) private citizens and their rights. Your talking about compelling contractual clauses into causation. Your mere want isn't forcing a private citizen to do a free, openly choiced, optional experienced--its requesting a service contractually agreed to by the entity "bus" and the "city" and the "citizen".

5) similarly, if i'm about to be mugged inside a building, and I run away up the hall, and find a private security person employed in that building, and ask him to protect me, it is his duty--unless otherwise engaged-- to somehow assist and protect me (if he's leaving, to call for another).

So... you're talking about someone also contractually or occupationally bound to service a life threatening situation? That is also very not what I was talking about and I already addressed "life-threatening" situations and occupational duties of people--notably, that still doesn't have anything to do with private citizens and free, openly choiced, optional experiences being mandated onto someone else to perform.

so our wants trigger duties in many cases, with or without explicit agreements. notice that they hold because of profession. 5) is not the same as 5a) if i run up to a person, asking for protection from physical attack, and he is Amish and opposed to using any violence to protect me or thwart my attacker.

Our wants DO trigger duties... but, no, only in explicit agreements. Everyone of the situations you mentioned was an explicit agreement involved. Which wasn't what I had said.

the case 4) above arguably resembles

6) the case of a pharmacist i got to with a valid presciption for estrogen pills (birth control--but sometimes used for other purposes) which is a decision i've taken as to treatment modalities, for a uterine disorder; i argue that the duty of the pharmacist kicks in, to supply this want, in a basic drug.

Very arguably as the pharmacist I'd been talking about doesn't have any kind of contract or legally binding duty to give purely optional and non-imperative prescriptions out--reserving the right to professional judgement and personal conscience. Quite, I'd say there's a world of difference there.

indeed, around here, if a pharmacist is 'out', s/he will almost always say, "i can have that in for you, tomorrow."

conclusion: my wants, in a number of situations, trigger 'duties' in the professional person presented with them, where i have become--sometimes through simple presentation of my situation-- a 'client' to him/her in his/her professional capacity.

Your wants seem to trigger a number of situations that were pre-agreed upon, contractually binding, legally binding, or with regard to life-threatening situations--to those subject to them.

How that is the same as "it is not the moral duty or legal imperative for any citizen of this country, acting freely and without immediate or associated threats of harm or death, to give any other citizen what they merely want, this is to say that police and civil servants aside, we don't live in a society that allows the mere wants of one person to determine the musts of another, its just not that simple" is really, really, really beyond me.

(I took the liberty of bolding the words most relavent at the moment... "citizen" does not include anything beyond that most basic and essential characteristic, "acting freely" would be without contract or pre-arrangement or promise or whatnot, "without immediate...harm" would be threats of mugging and whatnot, "merely want" would only include things merely wanted and not things mandated through contract or law or promise or agreement regardless of whether or not the mandate exists because of a want it is the mandate that makes action imperative nor the desire that put it in place--just in case you needed clarification.)

 

[tolyk]

But, how does that relate to pure elective, non-life-threatening, non-disease related medical products or procedures? It does, obviously, in part. But the comparison between a doctor saving the life or treating the injury of an enemy of the state is not the same as a doctor refusing to prescribe birth control.

The cases of medical personnel not participating in some of these things (abortion, birth control, morning-after pills, etc.) has more in common with a cosmetic surgeon who refuses to work on breasts or a pediatrician who only prescribes grape-flavored medications than a police officer shooting a citizen and letting them die.

A doctor did not refuse to prescribe birth control, a pharmacist refused to fill said prescription.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

A doctor did not refuse to prescribe birth control, a pharmacist refused to fill said prescription.

The conversation has gotten both more specific and general since the first post. We're beyond the article's actuality, and now talking about the different categories of its practice... just sayin'. You're late to the show, hoss.

 

[Pure]

my bad

joe, i did see the word 'citizen', but i guess i assumed the point might related to the discussion. we are discussing pharmacists, nurses, etc.
so i understood 'citizen qua professional.'

i will agree a stranger has few claims on a private citizen, but that has no bearing on the discussion.

it appears you agree with most of my examples (architects, bus drivers, security guards) as correctly involving duties; but you don't extend the principles to the pharmacist, for some reason, so there isn't much to discuss on the thread topic of professionals' duties.

J: Very arguably as the pharmacist I'd been talking about doesn't have any kind of contract or legally binding duty to give purely optional and non-imperative prescriptions out

P: i see no evidence that this is an accurate account of a pharmacists' duties; that those duties, according to you only involve 'imperative' prescriptions (as judged by the pharmacist!); but otherwise the pharmacist is pretty much like the corner grocer. we would have to examine pharmacists' codes of ethics to settle this, and cases where professional associations have dealt with so called 'conscientious' refusal of service.

and i don't think the duties of ambulance personal come into play only when "imperative" (in their view) situations exist; the rest of the time their being pretty much like chauffeurs--even fewer duties than taxi drivers. the original article's example of the firing of the ambulance woman supports my interpretation.
-------

to change the subject slightly, perhaps you would comment on the examples i gave of 'conscientious refusal' that strike me as justified.

 

[SeaCat]

Well, there are several arguments going on here that I can see. Lets keep to the original though.

In many communities in America there are two types of Ambulance services. There is E.M.S. (Emergency Medical Services,) and there are Private.

The E.M.S. Ambulances are the ones doing rescue. The private deal mainly with transport. Two entirely different aspects of the service, although the crews need the same basic training.

For Private Services the crews, in my mind do have a bit of leeway. They can refuse a patient due to their beliefs. Their transport is not immediatly life threatening. Getting another crew in would not endanger the patient. If you work for one of these services and your beliefs are offended for some reason by the patient then you may have a reason to refuse care. (Your refusal of care does not endanger the patient. It may endanger your job but not the patient. This is your choice.)

For E.M.S. you have, in my most humble opinion, no choice. You treat the patient, you transport the patient and you care for the patient regardless of what you may feel. It is part of your job and you have no choice. (If you don't like this then move into the private sector where you have a choice.)

When I was doing rescue in a large city I often went on calls for overdoses. Yes I have a problem with this. I found it distasteful to show up at a house or apartment to pick up an O.D. and when I was doing my assesment found they had more Trackmarks on their arms than Daytona Beach.

I had no choice though. It was a matter of honor not to mention my job to try and keep them alive. I would do anything possible to keep them alive. I didn't have the choice of picking and choosing who I helped. Rescue helps everyone!

If I was in a private ambulance service I would have had the choice. Oh I find drug users distasteful and I don't want to help them. Fine, my not wanting to help them didn't directly injure them, my working with them wasn't time sensitive and I could be replaced.

In the setting I now work in, I do have a bit of choice over what kind of patients I treat. I could conceivably refuse to care for a patient because I found them distasteful. (I deal with many that I find distasteful because of their attitudes or beliefs.) I do not do so for several reasons. The first is because I am in medicine to help others. The second is because I took a vow to do no harm and to help others. The third, and most important to me is because I would find it dishonorable to push my views on another, especially in a setting where they are relying on my skills and help to maintain their lifestyle, regardless of if I believe in that lifestyle.

Cat

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

joe, i did see the word 'citizen', but i guess i assumed the point might related to the discussion. we are discussing pharmacists, nurses, etc.
so i understood 'citizen qua professional.'

An easy mistake.

i will agree a stranger has few claims on a private citizen, but that has no bearing on the discussion.

As many have said (and I have responded to those several) that free choice is at risk due to religious basis for the denial of something as elective as a morning after pill's sale, and a dereliction of duty is clear--I think the categorizing of the pharmacists, for one, as people with the freedom to make those choices as free citizens (not bound like other persons like police or some civil servants) in a free economy is entirely and particular relavent to the discussion.

it appears you agree with most of my examples (architects, bus drivers, security guards) as correctly involving duties; but you don't extend the principles to the pharmacist, for some reason, so there isn't much to discuss on the thread topic of professionals' duties.[/quote[
I agree that they /have/ duties... I disagree that the examples show how one person's mere want elicits an imperative (I believe I used the word "make" as in "to make someone do what you want") action in citizens of this country (aside from examples like police and civil servants). You brought up a series of examples of how a pre-arranged agreement can elicit an imperative, or a contract, or a legally precedented relationship... but no, not what I'd been referring to in my post.
Sort of a straw man situation there.

J: Very arguably as the pharmacist I'd been talking about doesn't have any kind of contract or legally binding duty to give purely optional and non-imperative prescriptions out

P: i see no evidence that this is an accurate account of a pharmacists' duties; that those duties, according to you only involve 'imperative' prescriptions (as judged by the pharmacist!); but otherwise the pharmacist is pretty much like the corner grocer. we would have to examine pharmacists' codes of ethics to settle this, and cases where professional associations have dealt with so called 'conscientious' refusal of service.

I do. But then, I know one. He is not required by law to sell a drug--he owns a business, has stock, and a license to distribute that stock in accordance with a royal buttload of state and federal statutes... but if he doesn't feel like selling viagra on Thursday, he doesn't have to. Beyond that, he's protected by the laws in states like Mississippi, California, and others with regard to his professional judgement about whether he should distribute something and his own conscience (and yeah, conscience is mentioned in the law).

It's on the books, I mean.. you can go look it up, if you like.

and i don't think the duties of ambulance personal come into play only when "imperative" (in their view) situations exist; the rest of the time their being pretty much like chauffeurs--even fewer duties than taxi drivers. the original article's example of the firing of the ambulance woman supports my interpretation.
-------

I have had nothing and still haven't a thing to say to the defense of the ambulance woman. You're welcome to go argue that about, if you like--but I wasn't in contention about that point at all.

to change the subject slightly, perhaps you would comment on the examples i gave of 'conscientious refusal' that strike me as justified.

Conscientious refusals that are justified?

A shrink has someone come in her office in the middle of a session and the guy says "I want therapy". She's greatly disturbed by his barging in her office, his tone, his manner, and the shifty and nervous demeanor he brings about with him, she takes note that he's too aggressive and imposing. She says "I'm not going to take you as a client" because she fears for hers, her family's, and her employee's privacy, security, and peace-of-mind with such a person coming and going from the office who has no concern for other people. She has that legal, moral, and social right. She's justified, people are not bound (in these situations) to endanger and unsettle themselves and others for someone's mere "want". There's an example--if you want to add or ignore parts of it, then you're making your own example, this that I have given is possible and contains no hidden other situations (important before someone goes off on a tangent about how the guy could be a sweetheart or how he needs help or how he just doesn't know how to express himself... in this example those guys aren't this guy).

Or, a shrink has a guy come in and he says "I want therapy". She talks with him and he has no psychological problems, he just wants to write down on his report to his trust fund executors that he's going to therapy. She says "No" because he doesn't need it, she has other clients, and she has moral reservations about faking treatment. (this one also has no other components)

An architect is approached by a well known mob boss to work on a project for him... for the sake of his reputation, his potential safety, and fears for the legality of the enterprise and the legality of enterprises that might go on in it he says "No, thank you, I won't design your building". He doesn't take the contract. He chooses to deny the mere want.

An architect is approached by a person with a bad credit to design and build some buildings. The agreement is made and he signs the contract with a clause that says that any delay of payment results in an escape for the architect from the duty of building it. A month later, there's a late payment--the architect, no longer bound by contracts or legality beyond a citizen with free choice over an elective situation, bows out. Totally justified

Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[Pure]

i was referring to the examples in my post 50, July 16th 4:28 pm. we've already been over the therapist, architect, etc. and there nothing more to say about them, as least from my end.

joe i don't doubt that Christian pharmacists in some states have managed to to get their colleges [added: or state legislatures] to give them exemptions from professional sanctions for 'conscientious refusals'. it would not surprise me for Mississippi, where i gather you live. some other states (e.g. Wisconsin, see below), and countries, have kept possible sanctions in place. in any event, the morality of the situation is a separate issue.

here is some documentation, from 2005, of the above impressions:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...tsreports/fact-050418-pharmacist-refusals.xml

The Planned Parenthood site lists the following states, first set, below, permitting refusals, and the next set that do not.
-----

As well, they list pending [in 2005] legislation in several states:
[Correction: states where pending bills deny a right of refusal: CA, Missouri, NJ, WV.

states where pending bills permit a right of refusal: AZ, ARK, GA, IN, MD, MI, RI,SD,TN,TX VT.]
-----

Clearly there is a state by state campaign of evangelical Christian pharmacists--I believe they have a national organization.

[start]
II. STATE LAWS THAT PERMIT PHARMACIST REFUSAL

Arkansas Code § 20-16-304:
"[N]othing in this subchapter shall prohibit a physician, pharmacist, or any other authorized paramedical personnel from refusing to furnish any contraceptive procedures, supplies, or information."

Georgia Code §480-5-.03:
The Georgia Code of Professional Conduct states that "t shall not be considered unprofessional conduct for any pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription based on his or her ? ethical or moral beliefs."

Mississippi Code § 41-107-5:
Health care providers (including pharmacists and pharmacy employees) have the right not to participate in a health care service that violates their conscience. However, this subsection does not allow a health care provider to refuse to participate in a health care service regarding a patient because of the patient's race, color, national origin, ethnicity, sex, religion, creed or sexual orientation."

South Dakota Code § 36-11-70:
"No pharmacist may be required to dispense medication" if "there is reason to believe that it will either "cause an abortion" or "destroy an unborn child."

While contraception, by definition, prevents pregnancy rather than terminates it, South Dakota Code § 22-1-2(50A) defines "unborn child" as an organism beginning at "fertilization." This definition, which is outside the mainstream medical view, could be understood as re-defining some commonly used contraceptive drugs, including emergency contraception, as abortifacients because they may in rare instances prevent pregnancy after fertilization by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus. On this basis, it is possible that pharmacists in South Dakota may invoke this abortifacient refusal provision to justify refusing to provide contraception, including emergency contraception.

III. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TO PROTECT PATIENTS' RIGHTS TO PRESCRIBED CONTRACEPTIVES

Illinois:
On April 1, 2005, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich promulgated an emergency rule that that requires pharmacies that sell contraceptives to fill prescriptions for birth control without delay. If the contraceptive, or a suitable alternative, is not in stock, the pharmacy must order or obtain the contraceptive or, if the patient prefers, transfer the prescription to another local pharmacy of the patient's choice or return it to the patient for filling elsewhere.
The emergency rule was challenged in two lawsuits filed in April. The litigants are represented by the American Center for Law & Justice, a right-wing legal advocacy organization affiliated with Pat Robertson. In one case, the court has already denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), in the other, the State has moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing.

Massachusetts:
In late February, 2003, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts asked the James DeVita, the president of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Pharmacy to clarify the obligation of pharmacists to fill prescriptions for EC. DeVita's reply stated "a Massachusetts licensed pharmacist providing services in the Commonwealth is required to fill a prescription that has been determined by the pharmacist?to be a valid prescription." DeVita added "No statutory or regulatory exception exists for any particular drug or class of drugs."

North Carolina:
On 12/6/04, the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy issued the following statement:
A pharmacist has the right to avoid being complicit in behavior that is inconsistent with his or her morals or ethics. It is unacceptable, however, for pharmacists to impose their moral or ethical beliefs on the patients they serve. Pharmacists who object to providing a medication for a patient on this basis alone, therefore, should take proactive measures so as not to obstruct a patient's right to obtain such medication.
The Board notes that although pharmacists have a right to avoid moral or ethical conflict, they do not have a right to obstruct otherwise legitimate prescription dispensing or delivery solely on the basis of conscientious objection.

Wisconsin:
On July 6, 2002, a customer presented at a K-Mart in Menomonie, WI for a re-fill of her birth control prescription. The pharmacist on duty, Neil Noesen, asked the patient if she was using the prescription as a contraceptive. When she replied in the affirmative, Noesen advised that he would not fill her prescription due to his religious convictions. Noesen also refused to transfer her prescription, even after the patient involved law enforcement. The prescription was finally filled two days later by the managing pharmacist. In March, 2004, the state Department of Regulation and Licensing filed a complaint against the pharmacist with the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board.

PPWI filed an amicus brief in support of the patient's position. In March 2005, an administrative law judge issued an opinion drawing heavily from PPWI's amicus brief, ruling that Noesen had violated the Wisconsin code of ethics. The judge's recommendation called for an official reprimand and will require Noesen to provide notice of the reprimand to any future employers, attend continuing education courses in Ethics and pay the full costs of the proceedings against him. The Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board made a final ruling on Wednesday, April 13, 2005, voting to uphold the judge's ruling and ordering a reprimand of Noesen for denying the patient access to birth control.

[stop. site excerpt]

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

i was referring to the examples in my post 50, July 16th 4:28 pm. we've already been over the therapist, architect, etc. and there nothing more to say about them, as least from my end.

I figured the therapist and architect and whatnot had been pretty thoroughly explained away, too.

as one inclined to the quaker persuasion, i must say that there is some bit of truth or correctness in joe's or even the Christian right's position.

i applaud the soldier who (not in the midst of battle) wants to hang up his gun. i applaud the executioner who sees the evil of c.p. and refuses to pull the switch, or loose the trapdoor any more.

Two examples of people employed by the state to do a job independant of a great deal of personal conscientiousness. Their refusal and subsequent exclusion of themselves from their job is fine.

i applaud the dr. who, having looked into an operation that's fashionable, like 'stomach stapling', says, 'it's dangerous, in my opinion, and i won't do it.'

If "having looked into" means "before the fact and before committing to the procedure", its cool; if it means "already took the job and is now faced with it", then its a gross dereliction of duty.

i might ever admire the conviction of a prolife mom who, with her life at risk, says, 'save the baby, and leave my life in God's hands' and dies.

somehow, these cases though seem different from the pharmacist and ambulance driver cases. i wonder if Joe or anyone can explain why or tell me why i'm totally misguided.

Pharmacists are given the right to professional judgement and (in many states) specific protection with regard to "conscience". That makes their decision to not sell something (entrepreneurial rights) that is medically optional (morning after pill) merit and permission.

{quote]joe i don't doubt that Christian pharmacists in some states have managed to to get their colleges to give them exemptions from professional sanctions for 'conscientious refusals'. it would not surprise me for Mississippi, where i gather you live. i'm pretty sure some other states, and countries, have kept possible sanctions in place. in any event, the morality of the situation is a separate issue.[/QUOTE]
Christan pharmacists... secular pharmacists... pharmacists with moral convictions independant of religious persuasion... etc. If you want to focus in on Mississippi, I guess that's your perogative--but other states as well offer that protection (and not just Red states, keep in mind).
Yup.

 

[Pure]

joe, i've already posted a state survey above. no doubt the Christian right is on the march. where no federal action, or a federal 'gap', they proceed state by state.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

joe, i've already posted a state survey above. no doubt the Christian right is on the march. where no federal action, or a federal 'gap', they proceed state by state.

Woo! And who says paranoia's going out of style?

 

[Pure]

i have slightly clarified the legislative situation. PP distinguishes states with pending laws banning, vs. permitting refusals, and i've reproduced the names from their list.

"paranoid..." it's an odd coincidence that all these protection-of- conscience laws got introduced in a couple dozen states in the last four years.

the national campaigns of the religious right on a number of issues are quite open and widely known.

 

[Matadore]

I probably missed the example in this thread, but has anything been said about an instance wherein an individual is refused service because they are Jewish or Native American or black or white?

If not, how does catagorizing an individual as belonging to a group and rejecting them on those grounds differ from catagorically refusing service to pregnant women, excons (who have served their punishment and are now lawabiding citizens), members of the military, motorcycle riders, gay, etc?

It seems reasonable that when one enters into a profession that serves the public, they should be expected, reasonably to perform that duty. If they choose to not do so, then they should not have the license to continue in that occupation.

If one's beliefs prevent one from fully practicing one's career, then that person needs to step away from that career. Should a soldier realize that s/he can't in all good consencious perform their duties because innocent children will likely be killed by his or her actions, then should their convictions be strong enough that they are willing to face the consequences, they need to step away, even if their choice results in capital punishment.

 

[Huckleman2000]

i have slightly clarified the legislative situation. PP distinguishes states with pending laws banning, vs. permitting refusals, and i've reproduced the names from their list.

"paranoid..." it's an odd coincidence that all these protection-of- conscience laws got introduced in a couple dozen states in the last four years.

the national campaigns of the religious right on a number of issues are quite open and widely known.

Heh. It's not paranoid if they're really out to get you.

After reading this thread, I'm not clear on a couple of things.
First, 3113's post about a pharmacy that refuses to fill prescriptions for birth control - Would Joe support legislation that required a pharmacy to post its position on this issue? Or, more to the point, what about a pharmacist who refused to return the scrip to the patient after refusing to fill it? Is that, in any circumstance that you've considered, a morally justified position? Is there any incumbancy on the state to ensure access to pharmacies that will dispense legally prescribed medication without undue burden? For example, having to travel no further than patients do to recieve medical care?

Second, and this relates directly to the Dem. Senate primary in CT. The incumbent, Joe Lieberman, has stated that he supports the right of Catholic hospitals to refuse to dispense medication of the type discussed in this thread to rape victims who arrive at their emergency rooms. He said that it's not a burden, in CT, for victims to go to another hospital after being transported to the Catholic hospital. Bear in mind, the hospitals receive public funds for their emergency-room services, and emergency personnel transport patients to the nearest hospital. This has earned him the moniker, in some circles, of "rape-gurney Joe."

These are instances where the hypothetical meets the practical. It's fine to assert that professional responsibility is secondary to personal beliefs when the patient has other options. When that isn't the case - when there's one pharmacist in a 50-mile radius - does that raise the situation to a hypothetical elective/necessary imperative?