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

[Weird Harold]

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?

But the patient can always get their prescriptions filled online.
[/sarcasm]

Actually, online pharmacies are an option, but that expands the "concientious refusal" question to other professions; Does your postal delivery person and/or Fedex driver have the right to refuse to deliver packages he "morally objects to?" Not just prescriptions, but magazine subscription, "marital aids," "outsourced" (not made in the USA) products, and anything else that can be identified (or just infered) from the return address could all be subject to the delivery person's idea of what is "moral."

If a product is stocked, it should be dispensed as directed by the prescription. Period. The only exception should be adverse drug interaction problems -- which should be referred back to the prescribng physician.

 

[Pure]

hi matadore,

at first i thought your question was 'far out,' then i began thinking further.

at first i thought, 'well, race, is not analogous, it's just a color, not a practice--like fornication.' however suppose someone believed Blacks inferior, based on the Bible. that's happened before. further he believes the inferior races should not become too numerous, so, for instance, an ambulance driver declines to take a 'gangbanger' on ground that 'this is what the N****** do to each other.'

then i thought of homosexuals whom many think are frowned on, in the Bible-- both Christians and Orthodox Jews. suppose said gay fellow goes to a clinic for some nursely advice, and *she declines to tell him about hepatitis vaccines because that disease is God's punishment for the lifestyle.* (btw, hep B is not always fatal, btw, but it's pretty damn serious.)

suppose a known prostitute of either sex turn up at a pharmacy. the pharmacist disapproves and won't sell her bc. pills, ---or even him, condoms-- holding that the pregnancies/diseases she or he may get are God's punishment of the profession.

my position is that most of the exercize of the 'freedom for Christian conscience' in these professional cases is immoral and ought to be illegal, or at least professionally censurable. i think that's what you're saying, matadore.

obviously the red staters, the theocrats, feel differently.
i believe the program is called "Christian reconstruction" of the US.






matadore said,
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.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

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?

Thank god someone said it.

How can this practice of not dispensing birth control and not taking someone to get an abortion NOT be seen as discrimination against WOMEN!?!?

3113 touched on it in her sarcastic "If we were talking about Viagra, we wouldn't be talking" remark (that's not an exact quote, just from memory)...

these are things categorically being denied to WOMEN in our culture. That brings it out of the realm objecting to a "practice" (fornication/abortion)... it targets a specific subset/class of people.

In that sense, then, it's no different than redlining in real estate. That men don't "need" or "use" these things is irrelevant. I don't see articles being written about denying men condoms or Viagra. Just because men don't need or use the morning after pill or abortions doesn't mean that they are not being categorically denied to women simply on the basis of their gender.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

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?

One the surface... race is a protected category under the law against discrimination, notably "got pregnant" is not a category protected in the law in the same manner. That's the basics. More complicatedly, race is protected because of the basic assumption that all people are created equal and and race is not a factor one controls--it is something they're born with--that has no bearing on the quality of their character or ability... "being pregnant" is not an inborn trait. It is not afforded the same consideration. Refusing service on race is, then, discrimination; refusing service because someone is pregnant is not, necessarily, discrimination; refusing service because of a moral quandry about protecting life is NOT discrimination.

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.

Those that have the right to conscientiousness and professional judgements /are/ doing their duty and participating both fully in their profession and within the limits of their rights as people. Its not dereliction to inconvenience someone with not selling something to them on moral grounds of life-threatening consequences if you're legally and personally allowed to do so.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

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?

Legislation about disclosure? Sounds good. Refusing to return the prescription? Doesn't sound good. Forcing pharmacies to dispense legally prescribed medication without undue burden? I don't necessarily have a problem with that. Forcing pharmacies to dispense legally prescribed medication /that is elective and optional/ without undue burden? Nope, don't like that.

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?

Elective /is/ elective. There is no "right to have stuff you don't need in a place where you live and right to then make them sell it to you" in the Constitution--I know that's flippant, but it is still accurate and bears meaning.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

But the patient can always get their prescriptions filled online.
[/sarcasm]

Actually, online pharmacies are an option, but that expands the "concientious refusal" question to other professions; Does your postal delivery person and/or Fedex driver have the right to refuse to deliver packages he "morally objects to?" Not just prescriptions, but magazine subscription, "marital aids," "outsourced" (not made in the USA) products, and anything else that can be identified (or just infered) from the return address could all be subject to the delivery person's idea of what is "moral."

Postal employees are contracted by the State, no? Different set of rules apply.

If a product is stocked, it should be dispensed as directed by the prescription. Period. The only exception should be adverse drug interaction problems -- which should be referred back to the prescribng physician.

A prescription is the note from the doctor that says "this person has a medical condition/right to purchase this restricted drug". It is not a "I'm the doctor and can make you sell things and take on customers and control that aspect of your business for you with a piece of paper"--the doctor, effectively, doesn't run the grocery store or pharmacy.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Thank god someone said it.

How can this practice of not dispensing birth control and not taking someone to get an abortion NOT be seen as discrimination against WOMEN!?!?

Not selling optional things to /anyone/ is hardly discrimination to a specific demographic.

3113 touched on it in her sarcastic "If we were talking about Viagra, we wouldn't be talking" remark (that's not an exact quote, just from memory)...

As my points are genderless, I would still be talking.

these are things categorically being denied to WOMEN in our culture. That brings it out of the realm objecting to a "practice" (fornication/abortion)... it targets a specific subset/class of people.

They're being denied to the person wanting them, if its a woman at the counter--so be it. If its a man at the counter--so be it. Its targeting a result (not killing babies), not a class.

In that sense, then, it's no different than redlining in real estate. That men don't "need" or "use" these things is irrelevant. I don't see articles being written about denying men condoms or Viagra. Just because men don't need or use the morning after pill or abortions doesn't mean that they are not being categorically denied to women simply on the basis of their gender.

We'd have to show how denying something that only one gender buys (and is optional) corresponds to discrimination and /not/ simply denying the sale of a product blanketedly. That it happens to be the case that women buy it isn't enough to show relation. If they're being denied because they're women, fine; but if they're being denied because of what the drug does? That's different.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

We'd have to show how denying something that only one gender buys (and is optional) corresponds to discrimination and /not/ simply denying the sale of a product blanketedly. That it happens to be the case that women buy it isn't enough to show relation. If they're being denied because they're women, fine; but if they're being denied because of what the drug does? That's different.

You can't separate them, Joe. It's a tricky business.

It happens to be the case that women are the ONLY ones that consume said product in the case of abortion and the ambulance driver. They're being denied a product or service because they're women who, biologically, can bear children. No other subset or class of people can do such a thing, and it is because of this particular biological function of which they are capable that they are being denied.

That the product "does something" to women is secondary to the fact that those being denied ARE women and they CAN bear children, which is what sparked the moral dilemma for the pharmacist/ambulance driver in the first place.

 

[rgraham666]

One of the breakpoints in my career as a computer programmer was when I refused to write a particular program.

Specifically it was a program to update the General Ledger without updating the audit trail. So people could make changes to the G/L but leaving no trace of what was done and by who.

Actually I didn't refuse. I insisted the client make the request in writing, signed and notarised, and my employers pass that request to me in writing, signed and notarised.

For some obscure reason they didn't do so.

But my next performance review made it quite clear that my 'inability to follow orders' was regarded as a major flaw that kept them from giving me a raise. And the scuttlebutt was the only reason they didn't fire me was because they knew I'd raise an official stink, and they didn't want any official scrutiny.

So I have some experience at the cost of personal ethics in the working world.

 

[FallingToFly]

.....

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You can't separate them, Joe. It's a tricky business.

It happens to be the case that women are the ONLY ones that consume said product in the case of abortion and the ambulance driver. They're being denied a product or service because they're women who, biologically, can bear children. No other subset or class of people can do such a thing, and it is because of this particular biological function of which they are capable that they are being denied.

That the product "does something" to women is secondary to the fact that those being denied ARE women and they CAN bear children, which is what sparked the moral dilemma for the pharmacist/ambulance driver in the first place.

I think they are seperate, that's going to be the problem.

Its the reason for denial that bears importance for me, not who is being denied. Inasmuch as men can also be denied the filling of a morning-after-pill prescription on the grounds given, it isn't a lack of equality or a means of discrimination.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I think they are seperate, that's going to be the problem.

Its the reason for denial that bears importance for me, not who is being denied. Inasmuch as men can also be denied the filling of a morning-after-pill prescription on the grounds given, it isn't a lack of equality or a means of discrimination.

How can you separate a woman's biology from her??? That's like asking someone to change the color of their skin. You have to assess the whole, not just the parts.

The morning after pill isn't being denied to men, it's being denied to women. Abortions aren't being denied to men, they're being denied to women. If women didn't have the ability to bear children (like men) they wouldn't be denied such things.

and back in 1960, a colored person was denied a seat in the back of the bus because of the biological fact of their skin pigmentation.

How do you see a difference, Joe?

 

[Pure]

Falling,

i must defend Joe W, here. he's hardly 'garbled.'

 

[FallingToFly]

.....

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Coming from the person who starts nearly as many political debates (which cause more trouble among authors than anything else on this board) as Zeb- I am not surprised.

Talking about political topics isn't a fault, is it?

I know Colly would say (I think) that Joe has held up a pretty consistent and clear argument... although I have to admit, he's stooped to namecalling a few times here... as have you, FTF... Wish we could keep that out of these debates...

 

[Pure]

have y'all heard of

Ave Maria, Florida, a planned Catholic community of 10,000 or so.

http://www.avemaria.com/

Lots will soon be available.

In the drugstores, Catholics needn't worry about being offended by condom displays 'cuz there won't be any.

Now if we could just set up Calvintown, Mississippi, and get Joe a house there, everyone would be happy. Donations, anyone?

As Falling noted, the heritage of Massachusetts colony is being revived in the US. Perhaps y'all know these colonists simply incorporated the 10C into the colony's penal code.

 

[FallingToFly]

Thanks to a smack from someone who does have the privilege of being older (not wiser, Lynn, so shove that one) I am going to say that I probably owe people an apology.

I'm not quite ready to give it, because I did specifically warn that I was insanely bitchy this week and you really WOULD be smart to respond in either PM or email if you took issue with me, however, I'll delete my statements, minus this one in this thread. Take it or leave it, as the car dealers say.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It's a close call, and a tough one, but a pharmacist, for example, must know in advance that he is going to be required to provide such goods for a patient. I know people with manic-depression. What happens if a Scientologist, who is opposed to treating psychiatric disorders with drugs, is working at a particular pharmacy? The manic-depressive doesn't get her Lithium, and then goes out and kills herself or does something just as destructive to herself or others?

I can understand the contract idea, but for such an example. Suppose that the Scientologist is the ONLY druggist at the pharmacy that night? His contract permits him to refuse anti-depressants, so he does what he is permitted to do. Your contract is already there in such a case. You signed up to supply drugs. You can perhaps strike up a conversation about Hubbard and Dianetics while you fill out the Lithium, but you damn well better give her the Lithium, thank you very much! Your religious conscience is eased and your professional duties are carried out at the same time.

Like it or not, certain jobs require doing things that you find personally distasteful. What happens if a cop refuses to arrest a woman for beating her husband, because he thinks that women are the weaker sex and automatically have the right to strike men without retaliation or punishment? It could happen. If I were the husband, I WOULD sue the cop in such a case, and probably the city too.

 

[Pure]

i see your point, max, though the example seems a little strained.

giving the number and proportion of psychoactive meds, a scientologist pharmacist is a bit like a vegetarian PETA member working in a slaughterhouse!

how about this: a pharmacist views a number of people and occupations as rightfully subject to god's punishment in the form of diseases, e.g. prostitutes, but also bikini models, and lifestyle gays.
hence he refuses to sell any antibiotics to such people! according to Joe this is just a businessman's choice, like a restauranter who doesn't like your clothing and refuses to sell you a hamburger.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

i see your point, max, though the example seems a little strained.

giving the number and proportion of psychoactive meds, a scientologist pharmacist is a bit like a vegetarian PETA member working in a slaughterhouse!

how about this: a pharmacist views a number of people and occupations as rightfully subject to god's punishment in the form of diseases, e.g. prostitutes, but also bikini models, and lifestyle gays.
hence he refuses to sell any antibiotics to such people! according to Joe this is just a businessman's choice, like a restauranter who doesn't like your clothing and refuses to sell you a hamburger.

which helps prove my point that it IS a discrimination against women... are these same people denying gonorrhea sufferers antibiotics? or AIDS victims their medication? I don't know, but we're not seeing articles written about it... which leads me to believe that the target here is women.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

How can you separate a woman's biology from her??? That's like asking someone to change the color of their skin. You have to assess the whole, not just the parts.

The morning after pill isn't being denied to men, it's being denied to women. Abortions aren't being denied to men, they're being denied to women. If women didn't have the ability to bear children (like men) they wouldn't be denied such things.

and back in 1960, a colored person was denied a seat in the back of the bus because of the biological fact of their skin pigmentation.

How do you see a difference, Joe?

I see the difference between someone, protected under freedoms of choice and judgement due to the wholly optional and elective nature of the thing, not selling a product they believe kills people... and someone, denied the right of choice in the matter of racial discrimination in business, not allowing someone to sit somewhere on a bus.

...he's stooped to namecalling a few times here.

I actually /rarely/ do that. But, yeah, it happens.

Now if we could just set up Calvintown, Mississippi, and get Joe a house there, everyone would be happy.

I don't know about all that, I think the morning after pill and condoms are a great idea. My Girl is on that shot that does the "birth control" thing for three months at a go. Sure beats the pill.

It's a close call, and a tough one, but a pharmacist, for example, must know in advance that he is going to be required to provide such goods for a patient. I know people with manic-depression. What happens if a Scientologist, who is opposed to treating psychiatric disorders with drugs, is working at a particular pharmacy? The manic-depressive doesn't get her Lithium, and then goes out and kills herself or does something just as destructive to herself or others?

But... and here's the kicker... he's not "required". He's neither a servant of the state nor a contractually mandated provider of anything with a prescription any time it comes in.

I can understand the contract idea, but for such an example. Suppose that the Scientologist is the ONLY druggist at the pharmacy that night? His contract permits him to refuse anti-depressants, so he does what he is permitted to do. Your contract is already there in such a case. You signed up to supply drugs. You can perhaps strike up a conversation about Hubbard and Dianetics while you fill out the Lithium, but you damn well better give her the Lithium, thank you very much! Your religious conscience is eased and your professional duties are carried out at the same time.

It is his right to conduct business as he sees fit. In the case of purely elective medications and products, he is no more liable for someone not getting to buy a Coke as someone not being able to buy Condoms as someone not able to by a morning after pill. If he's the only store in a hundred miles, there is no Constitutionally demanded requirement that a business sell what people want when they want it--with regard to mere wants.

Like it or not, certain jobs require doing things that you find personally distasteful. What happens if a cop refuses to arrest a woman for beating her husband, because he thinks that women are the weaker sex and automatically have the right to strike men without retaliation or punishment? It could happen. If I were the husband, I WOULD sue the cop in such a case, and probably the city too.

A cop is bound to different standards of operation than a private enterprise. Private enterprise is not necessarily bound and required to conduct Public demand.

 

[Guest]

Let's take this back to your discussion about employees, Joe, if we may.

I see this in the same light, actually.

If the pharmacist, EMT, physician, whatever, signed their "contract" for the job, their licensure, etc., without exception, then if they do not wish to lose their jobs they must not refuse treatment to someone, even if they somehow feel morally compelled to do so.

They are welcome to seek employment elsewhere, but before beginning their new job they should lay the basic ground rules within which they feel they can morally comply.

And this information should be up front knowledge, posted in large font at the pharmacy desk and even in the phone book ads of the companies that share those views. Before I choose to put the healthcare for myself and for my family in their hands or to spend my dollars at their pharmacy, I want to know. That is my right as a consumer.

 

[matriarch]

I've been searching with no luck.

Joe, you have continually mentioned the pharmacist's rights of refusal as a privately owned and run company.

Perhaps you'd like to show us, somewhere, the agreement under which the pharmacist acts, as an agent of the government. Said agreement which specifically states that he/she can refuse to stock or dispense certain legal drugs and medications because of his/her moral/religious beliefs.

I'm not being pedantic or obstructive, I really would like to see this written down in black and white.

If said 'right of refusal' is in the contract with the government, then the public do not have any case to bring. If, however, this 'right to refuse', is an 'implicit understanding, then the public, specifically those directly affected by this 'implicit understanding', have every right to complain.

The same would, of course, apply to ambulance drivers, para-medica, nurses, doctors. Is it explcitly included in their contract of employment that they can refuse to deal with/treat/assist/aid any person or group of persons that their own moral/religious beliefs tells them that said person or persons are not worthy of their attention and skills, even to the point that said person or persons could die because of their non attention.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Perhaps you'd like to show us, somewhere, the agreement under which the pharmacist acts, as an agent of the government. Said agreement which specifically states that he/she can refuse to stock or dispense certain legal drugs and medications because of his/her moral/religious beliefs.

Pharmacists aren't "agents of the government", they're "governmentally regulated agencies" (which also, by definition, includes hundreds of industries that don't give you a government retirement plan because you don't actually work for the government).

This article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5490-2005Mar27?language=printer) for example is just one of the many popular ones out there. Pure has posted about some states that have those protections. And several pharmacy companies (in their FAQ's is a good place to find it) have policies based on "professional judgement" that go back for years and years and years. It's not a new thing that pharmacists refuse to fill certain prescriptions, its just becoming a new issue that they do them for religious conscientiousness as opposed to just conscientiousness or professional judgement.

I'm not being pedantic or obstructive, I really would like to see this written down in black and white.

If said 'right of refusal' is in the contract with the government, then the public do not have any case to bring. If, however, this 'right to refuse', is an 'implicit understanding, then the public, specifically those directly affected by this 'implicit understanding', have every right to complain.

Again, there is no "contract with the government" in that regard. They're independant players, private businesses with governmental regulation over some of the products they sell... such an entity has the right to just not sell something so long as that's not a discriminatory practice (or other legally protected situation). You, for instance, can't sue Rite Aid because they didn't have cigarettes on Thursday

The same would, of course, apply to ambulance drivers, para-medica, nurses, doctors. Is it explcitly included in their contract of employment that they can refuse to deal with/treat/assist/aid any person or group of persons that their own moral/religious beliefs tells them that said person or persons are not worthy of their attention and skills, even to the point that said person or persons could die because of their non attention.

Nope... I don't imagine it would. But doctors are relied on for their professional judgement in matters of medicine (and heavily liable for screwing up that judgement with regard to the results of procedures and treatments), as such they've always been afforded "professional judgement" in what they feel they can and can't do with regard to non-life-threatening situations (and up until malpractice insurance became a huge deal, they had much more of that judgement for ones with regard to just such situations).

If their contract demands they dispense optional and elective drugs and procedures to anyone who ever wants one... then, hey, so be it. But I don't believe they have that.

 

[English Lady]

Am I really reading this right? Selena, are you saying the ambulance driver in the first post was being prejudiced?


Because, that ain't it. I'm almost 100% certain if it were possible for a man to get pregnant, and for that man then to go for an abortion, Ms Ambulance woman would have done the same. It is so not an issue of sexism, and is a completely different kettle of fish to your racist, different seats on the bus example.

You know, i swear i was reading this thread not long ago and everyone seemed to be agreeing or pretty much agreeing -what happened?*L*