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

[Selena_Kitt]

I believe I make many, many references in my many, many posts as to "professional judgement", yes. I also make references to moral judgements. Notably, a pharmacist who refuses to sell a morning after pill because, in his professional judgement, conception is the beginning of life, is not morally judging so much as preserving life based on the science he professionally judges.

Ah.

There it is.

We've effectively reached the bottom.

I'm out, too.

Cucumbers sound delish! In soooo many cool and yummy ways!

 

[Quiet_Cool]

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.

I strongly disagree here. What's being denied here is, as I said in response to Pure, they're choice in "treatment" for a condition and the pharmacists refusing to full a prescription due to a disagreeance with said treatment. In the case of the morning after pill, the condition is Pregnancy. Do you believe that all pregnant women are being discriminated against? I find it hard to believe that a woman bringing in a prescription in order to aid the healthy growth of whatever you wish to call that which resides within her body, alive or not, would be refused categorically. It's the treatment, not the gender, or even the condition in question.

Similarly, if there were two different pharmceutical treatments for Sickle Cell (sp.? Sorry, I'm too lazy to look it up; as am I too lazy to look up how many treatments for Sickle Cell and what they are for a more accurate example) and the pharmacist believed one to be disagreeable, would they be discriminating against blacks?

I think you would have a strong argument for this were all pregnant women being refused treatment, or if women were being refused treatment for other things. Medication to aid those going through menopause as well, or pharmaceuticals for complications of their monthly cycles (meaning solely, or at least primarily, for those complications, not the BC pills sometimes being used as a treatment, but primarily being used for other purposes that some hold objectionable).

You should also consider that there are most likely (and yes, I'm assuming, so I understand fully if you ignore this part of the post) many places that would offer the BC pill, but not the morning after pill. Or at least certain types of BC pills. To them, the two aren't similar, and therefore, one may be a disagreeable treatment for one condition, and the other not disagreeable for another condition. This brings us back to my analogy for Sickle Cell.

Consider this (and this may make things a little worse or better): If a pharmacist who believes that masteurbation is wrong be leglly obligated to sell me a tube of vaseline? Commence discussion.

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Sorry.
There is only one answer to that response.
CRAP. Utter and total crap.
That is totally and 100% a moral judgement, and nothing you can say will change that.

It's a moral judgment in the pharmacist's personal decision of where life begins, yes, but at the point where selling the product comes into play... It's not so simple again. Because basically, damn near every decision a individual will ever make is dependant on their personal moral judgment.

Dunno if I can say that better, and it's most likely a bad idea to try.

Q_C

 

[English Lady]

It's a moral judgment in the pharmacist's personal decision of where life begins, yes, but at the point where selling the product comes into play... It's not so simple again. Because basically, damn near every decision a individual will ever make is dependant on their personal moral judgment.

Dunno if I can say that better, and it's most likely a bad idea to try.

Q_C

yep, I totally QC.

well said, love. well said.

 

[Guest]

Consider this (and this may make things a little worse or better): If a pharmacist who believes that masteurbation is wrong be leglly obligated to sell me a tube of vaseline? Commence discussion.

Q_C

If his job description says "Thou shalt sell the Vaseline, but disregard ye the purchaser's plans" then yes, he should be legally obligated.

 

[rgraham666]

If his job description says "Thou shalt sell the Vaseline, but disregard ye the purchaser's plans" then yes, he should be legally obligated.

Hi sarahh. Wanna go off somewhere and do something morally reprehensible?

Will be more fun than hanging out here.

 

[Guest]

Hi sarahh. Wanna go off somewhere and do something morally reprehensible?

Will be more fun than hanging out here.

Oooh.

We don't need the Vaseline. (Too icky.) I have better things.

Reprehense away.

 

[rgraham666]

Oooh.

We don't need the Vaseline. (Too icky.) I have better things.

Reprehense away.

Flavoured I hope.

This way. ---> Wouldn't want to get this nice, clean thread messy.

 

[Guest]

Flavoured I hope.

This way. ---> Wouldn't want to get this nice, clean thread messy.

Lead on, Rob.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Joe, you are not reminding people that several states do require that a pharmacist fill valid prescriptions or at least make arrangements to transfer. On the issue of contraception, Mr. Noesen, a Catholic pharmacist, took the hard line, that even to help the patient transfer, to tell her of an alternative source, or even tell the prescriber of the problem would make him complicit in evil. He was disciplined and that was upheld in court.

Very true... also besides my points. Still true though, bravo.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Sorry.
There is only one answer to that response.
CRAP. Utter and total crap.
That is totally and 100% a moral judgement, and nothing you can say will change that.

I disagree. The idea of where life begins can be very much one of medial judgement. If you're going to just ignore that--then you're closing your mind entirely to the range of medical opinions on the matter.

You don't seem to disagree with any of my points, explicitly--but get an awful hair up your ass about the conclusion. I don't get that. I see that as "crap" reasoning.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I was about to post the same objection. I agree with you, Mat- the beginning of life is a speculative, and hence moral stance, not a professional one.

Nothing is a pharmacists' training includes the skills -or the right- to make that judgement.

The beginning of life, much like the beginning of the universe or the beginning of photosynthesis can and may and in some cases are strictly scientific speculations. A professional scientist would, then, have a professional judgement to make about the matter.

If we're saying that a pharmacist has ANY kind of responsibility to the science of the products of his practice--we have to allow a professional judgement to come into play about life beginning at conception. If we're saying that a pharmancist has NO responsibility to the science of his product (and should just sell it or not sell it, period)--we have to allow a personal judgement to come into play about the morality of what he considers some products to be.

Can't have it both ways, hoss.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The beginning of life, much like the beginning of the universe or the beginning of photosynthesis can and may and in some cases are strictly scientific speculations. A professional scientist would, then, have a professional judgement to make about the matter.

If we're saying that a pharmacist has ANY kind of responsibility to the science of the products of his practice--we have to allow a professional judgement to come into play about life beginning at conception. If we're saying that a pharmancist has NO responsibility to the science of his product (and should just sell it or not sell it, period)--we have to allow a personal judgement to come into play about the morality of what he considers some products to be.

Can't have it both ways, hoss.

Your two choices don't correlate, Joe.

Pharmacologic sales isn't a science. There are research scientists who do study the effects of different substances and explore to expand the pharmacopia- great word, that!- but the technicians who are trained to stand behind the counter at Sav-On and dispense pills according to a physician's directions, are more likely to be trade school graduates. They have no responsibility to the science of their product, they have a responsibility to provide it to the public- as directed.

 

[Pure]

matriarch,

i think you're right, that 'professional judgment' wouldn't be a good basis for refusal in the cases under consideration, e.g. around b.c.

the Christian pharmacists know this; the legislators know it, and even Joe might, though he won't stop arguing.

the proof is the number of bills passed or proposed which specify 'religious, moral, or philosophical grounds' for a pharmacist's conscientious refusal.

perhaps there are a couple cases where a professional judgment about the dangers of a drug like RU 486 might be involved, but refusal over birth control is not going to pass muster. esp. because its based on the misguided idea the bc pills cannot be distinguished from abortifiacients.

 

[Pure]

how about this, folks,

a gay teen (male) ho is getting the crap beaten out of him. joe blow the Xtian policeman refuses to intervene on grounds that sin has its natural consequences, decreed by God. when pressed about a duty to protect the public, he says, 'i have a duty to protect the public, not the criminals.'

XXX Porn Shop, well isolated from other buildings and homes catches fire in a small town and three firemen respond. On seeing it's the porn shop, one fireman says, "God has torched the den of iniquity" and refuses to fight the blaze.
---
********
tenth annual st. philomena award--bound biography-- for the person who can state the prime grounds on which the early church opposed abortion.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

a gay teen (male) ho is getting the crap beaten out of him. joe blow the Xtian policeman refuses to intervene on grounds that sin has its natural consequences, decreed by God. when pressed about a duty to protect the public, he says, 'i have a duty to protect the public, not the criminals.'

XXX Porn Shop, well isolated from other buildings and homes catches fire in a small town and three firemen respond. On seeing it's the porn shop, one fireman says, "God has torched the den of iniquity" and refuses to fight the blaze.

I'm lost.

Are you saying these things happened? Or are they more speculation?

Q_C

 

[cantdog]

What if Bob's Pharmacy has no official prohibitions on selling the morning after pill and Bob himself is very happy about the idea. Yet, between 10am and 3pm on a Saturday, Bob's Pharmacy won't sell the morning after pill to rape victims because Sally who works the counter, doesn't believe in it.

Patients would go down the street to Larry's. I know I would. Bob finds out and is, understandably, a little bit miffed at the fact that Sally is losing him so much business with principles that he doesn't adhere to.

Should Bob have the right to sack Sally for losing him business and refusing to do her job? Does Sally have the right to complain that she "knows her rights" when Bob fires her?

It's not businesses making the decision. Businesses I have no problem with, cause oyu can just go elsewhere and let the market decide. It's people who are doing it and that's what's pissing me (and Bob) off.

The Earl

I'd like to point out that the MAP has a brief window in which to be effective. Part of the discussion about the woman at the drug counter hinged on the time factor.

You have only a few dozen hours after the rape to use the MAP. It simply has to be somewhere in the vicinity. You can't wait for your vacation and go to Poughkeepsie for it then.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I'd like to point out that the MAP has a brief window in which to be effective. Part of the discussion about the woman at the drug counter hinged on the time factor.

You have only a few dozen hours after the rape to use the MAP. It simply has to be somewhere in the vicinity. You can't wait for your vacation and go to Poughkeepsie for it then.

or wait for it to be delivered after you order it online...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Your two choices don't correlate, Joe.

Pharmacologic sales isn't a science. There are research scientists who do study the effects of different substances and explore to expand the pharmacopia- great word, that!- but the technicians who are trained to stand behind the counter at Sav-On and dispense pills according to a physician's directions, are more likely to be trade school graduates. They have no responsibility to the science of their product, they have a responsibility to provide it to the public- as directed.

They have a responsibility to sell a product in accordance with the law. Any responsibility beyond that is our placing speculation and preference on them.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, I guess I'm just tired of talking about this... arguing about this.

I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind someone of things several people here believe about the matters brought up (and there are several very seperate issues going on in this thread). I wish I did, but I really just don't--not for a lack of intelligence, a blindness of preference, or a failure of reading... but because very many aggressive propositions are declared, and very few reasons and sound arguments are given for any of them.

And, Lord knows I've been repeating myself just over and over. Some seem to understand (Quiet does), some just don't get it. I guess that's going to be one of the biggest problems (on a larger, meta-scale) with society. We're not likely to get much out of dialogue if we're unable to appreciate the others' position.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, I guess I'm just tired of talking about this... arguing about this.

I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind someone of things several people here believe about the matters brought up (and there are several very seperate issues going on in this thread). I wish I did, but I really just don't--not for a lack of intelligence, a blindness of preference, or a failure of reading... but because very many aggressive propositions are declared, and very few reasons and sound arguments are given for any of them.

And, Lord knows I've been repeating myself just over and over. Some seem to understand (Quiet does), some just don't get it. I guess that's going to be one of the biggest problems (on a larger, meta-scale) with society. We're not likely to get much out of dialogue if we're unable to appreciate the others' position.

Yeah and one of the reasons I stay off of threads like this one for the most part.

But it would be damn hard for a woman to "appreciate the position" of someone who is denying her the medical treatment she is expecting.
She might not feel very tolerant.

 

[Pure]

QC and Sex and Death

P: QC, the police and fire examples are hypothetical. but if you visit the religious rights websites, you see many similar examples of what i'd call 'inroad' of Christian practice or example:

here are a couple for real: Judge Roy Moore places a giant stone depiction of the 10 C in the lobby of a courthouse.

a teacher sues because he's disciplined for having a picture of Jesus always on his desk--- this is, iirc, elementary school, where teachers' desks are not secluded.

the noesen case i posted is real, where the pharmacist won't even allow the lady to tranfer her bc pill prescription, because he's 'pro life' (Catholic).

HI Hillmaniac,

SD: Pure,

How is the US republic not based on the Puritan cult, let the cult of Freemasonry, or white supremism, among others?

Our country was founded on the basis of religious freedom, including the right to practice a religion, not just the right to abdicate spiritial responsibility and reality, as is the contemporary fashion.

Pluralism is not the same as secularism.

Which of us religious wackos are you for and which against? Which one are you? Our religion ha snothing to do with whether we believe in somehting or not, it has to do with what we worship. Everyone worships something, whether it's a deity, no deity, the economy or their own ego.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Hillmaniac,

P: I don't understand the first question. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay are a founding group for the US. They at one point hanged quakers, and at another burned witches. The Calvinist thread is still alive in the Christian Reconstruction movement. Massachusetts 'blue laws' survived into this century, e.g., a state law banning b.c. devices. Thats "our" american heritage as much as freethought Jeffersonianism.

Yes, it's true Jefferson was a deist and didn't want the fed. gov to be pushing a religion --i.e. have a (national) state church. OTOH, at the passing of the Constitution, at least a couple states had 'established' churches. Several had slavery. Many states had 'anti Jew' laws, e.g., against holding public office; Many had 'anti atheist' laws to the same effect. The Constitution papers over these intolerances and injustices, for example, it never says the words 'slave' or 'slavery,' while at the same time guaranteeing the alleged rights of slave owners and the position of slave holding states. The Constitution as passed with its Bill of Rights amendments, has no application to a state or its laws which says, in effect, "No atheist shall hold public [state] office."

The 'free' setup you admire is largely this century, from say, 1900 to 1970, and as you see, this 'judicial activism' is now under attack in the rolling back of abortion rights and so on.

As to my religion, i'd say it's half quakerish and a quarter Chinese Buddhist, and a quarter Taoist. And I support agnosticism or atheism on my 'bad hair' days. Who am I against. Most of the 'religious right,' the folks Rove has been mobilizing; the ones who want to legislate morality and curb the First Amendment rights of expression (ordinary porn). also those who would violate due process by throwing American citizens in jail in Navy Brig, or E. Europe with no charges, trials or lawyers.

Oh, and i gues also, I 'worship' my libido and that of all the libertine folks one sees at lit, esp. the women.

Does that clarify??

your friendly fellow Hillmaniac,

jan.

 

[Weird Harold]

I have nothing to say about the nature of employees not doing things their companies want--and have been speaking about those with the power to make business decisions and their rights.

Then you have't been addresing the issue presented in the original post or the other specific examples, because ALL of the examples given have been of employees refusing services that other employees of the same companies provide without comment.

A self-employed pharmicist can stock and dispense whatever he feels is appropriate as long as he meets the legal requirements for stocking and dispensing. But, employees -- like those in every example presented -- should be bound by their employer's policies or find a different employer.

 

[cantdog]

Woops.

I meant to reply with a quote, but hey, the thread is very chaotic and unorganized.

You know who you are, and whether this is a reply to you or not.

First, in response to rob. I was a firefighter for twenty years, and on the department's ambulance for almost twelve of those years. As the 'attendant,' as opposed to the 'chauffeur,' on our two-man ambulance crew, I had to make life and death and less-obvious greater-or-lesser-harm judgements daily. I still received private's pay. I was a peon in the official hierarchy. Fire captains, fire lieutenants, in the main line service, never had such choices to make, not but once in two or three years, by unfortunate circumstance.

Fire officers who were routinely in charge of entire scenes had a better chance for such decisions, but it still rarely occurred.

I became concerned with the corruption and the sordid nepotism, backbiting, and cronyism in the fire service, and in the wider arena of city government as a whole. The stuff I saw done was sickening. Corruption excuses more corruption. Self-serving climbers dominated at all levels, and the, um, "higher" on the pay scale, the worse.

The sole forces which consistently opposed this were competing factions, who were eager to expose one another's corrupt behavior, and the union. I went into the union more and more seriously. As I did, my opportunity for promotion melted away like candyfloss. I tested, needless to say, very high on the lieutenancy exams, but it was not conceivable for a union man to rise in the ranks. You had to show you were going to wink at their abuses, or it was certainly not in their interest to put you in a position of any authority.

The city government was pretty raw, as such things go. Most organizations do not have the opportunity to tap into tax monies for gain, the way city government does.

I soon gave up the idea of advancement, and I took my leave of the place every bit as soon as I could. Still a private. I was well known in union circles, respected in my ambulance judgement in the hospitals, in the classroom, in the state EMS system, and in the fire service, where I was the de facto head of the ambulance squad for six of those twelve years. But in the books in the front office, I was no different from any other private. They do not reward competence per se. Few organizations do.

Moral behavior, in short, is universally expensive. I don't value advancement enough to give it up, but thousands do.

Having a 'right' to do or think something is all very well, but there is no exemption from consequence. The Dixie Chicks had a right to say what they liked, but there is nothing in the bill of rights which protects them from the consequences of saying it. If someone burns a flag in protest, that is still not a crime. On the other hand, they can certainly not expect to do so without any consequence, unless they are naïve. The world has a great big party to knock the snotnose out of a man.

So with ethical behavior. Being upright, doing the right thing, is not yet criminal, but it is never forgiven. Rob did the right thing. The woman who refused to fill the prescription, on her own hook, did the wrong thing. But each has its consequence.

 

[Matadore]

morality, ethics, legality, and judgment, beliefs, facts, and science.

We have had a lot of talk about morality, ethics, legality, and judgment, beliefs, facts, and science.

In VA and maybe other states, for prescriptions to be filled, a druggist (pharmacist) must be present at the place of dispensing.

The courts have not decided conclusively when life begins. It used to be at birth because much earlier than that was moot.

I well may be incorrect, but in no instants does life legally begin at conception. Some have suggested that life is not viable until implantation other legal judgments have suggested that fetal viability begins at the end of the second tri-mester.

Invitro fertilization proves that conception can occur and be viable to full term, but not thus far without implantation.

Beliefs are products of faith (by definition). Facts legally and scientifically are products of proof. The separation of church and state suggests that law is based on fact while religion is founded on faith.

“Professional judgment” when applied to legal questions suggests that facts or laws are involved, not faith or beliefs. This is reinforced by the simple fact that to operate his business, the druggist needs legal governmental sanctions (license) that has specific requirements that s/he must prove and agree to uphold. “Professional judgment” is not arbitrary decisions based on beliefs or faith or feelings, but is based upon certain facts, laws, and scientific evidence.

Moral judgment while even providing the same results has its basis in faith or beliefs.

In this country, a citizen can do about anything and not be held accountable until proven guilty of breaking one or more laws. It seems that not fullfilling the letter of one's licensure is close to disobeying the law as implied in the wording of the granting agency.