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

[Pure]

cant,

i think i get your drift, and i partly expressed the same thing a few postings ago [7-16, #50) when i said i admired certain 'conscientious' refusers, e.g., the hangman who gets sick of his job, and one day declines to pull the lever.

also i admire those who don't take part in corruption, as in that famous case of the woman on the Tennessee parole board, Marie Ragghianti, who wouldn't roll over (Hollywood made the movie "Marie" about her, the lead being played by Spacek). also i admire the Serpico-type cops who don't go on the take.

BUT i don't place Mr. Noesen in that category. He appears a meddlesome prig. He's trying to enforce his anti b.c. thing on a non Catholic woman with a valid prescription. (see details in my postings of yesterday). He also violated his own written promise to his employer to refer cases he didn't approve of.

Similarly, i disapprove of the woman ambulance driver, Stephanie Adamson, who won't be a part of transporting an abortion seeker or victim.

I refuse to make Mr. Noesen a "Rosa Parks," just as i refuse to make "Atomic Dog" (Charles Kopp) the doctor killer, on a par with John Brown, the abolitionist.

It is a hard line to draw, but I think the key issues are 1) personal sacrifice, and 2) public good and 3) not merely dogmatically enforcing one's agenda on others. Also NOT killing or causing deaths in others, to keep or demonstrate one's moral purity.

 

[English Lady]

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.

You done well, love.

It's fallen to the Christian bashing, which seems to happen so very often round here. If you're out -I'm out.

 

[Pure]

El,

ah come on. christ got bashed and he didn't slink off.

"blessed are they who are persecuted for My Name's sake."

(ever consider that some of us may be as Christian as you?)

 

[cantdog]

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.

I know some pharmacists, with whom I am on good enough terms to discuss this sort of thing. The license is simply too valuable to risk losing over frivolities. Both of these pharmacists find that the biggest threat to that license is the unlicensed counter people, who suddenly take it into their head to counsel the patient about their drugs or other facets of their medical treatment. They both find themselves constantly pouncing on them: "You do not counsel, ever! If someone needs instructions, advice, or whatever, you call the pharmacist!"

People who hear advice over that counter believe that the advice is coming from a pharmacist, and can make very bad decisions.

Hell, even pellucid instruction from the actual pharmacist can be wildly skewed in the patient's head. House apes have an unfortunate tendency to filter reality to suit their prejudices and beliefs-- to hear what they want to hear, and to disregard any input to the contrary. It's even worse when both sides of the interaction are uninformed.

 

[English Lady]

ah come on. christ got bashed and he didn't slink off.

"blessed are they who are persecuted for My Name's sake."

(ever consider that some of us may be as Christian as you?)

Pure, love. It happens all the time, hey, we signed up for it.

The thing is, we've all agreed on the original issue, that if a persons faith clashed with a job, they probably shouldn't take the job, but also a person should not be forced to do something they feel is against their beliefs.

It's been done, now we're going round and round the mulberry bush, trying to find things to upset people and get'em riled up and well, I'm not clever enough for this kind of thing.

I'd carry on, if I think I could effectively fight the good fight for my Lord, Saviour and best mate, but I'm afraid I won't be able to do him justice, and I know how much hurt and upset and negativity a well meaning Christian out of their depth can do.

I know theres plenty of Christians out here, sure. And if such Christains want to mentally beat the crap out of Other Christians -let'em at it. I don't think that is what I want to put my energy in to. I want to put my energy into bringing Christians of all denominations etc together. We're all Christ's children, the rest is just personal choice.


So pure, love. get on with it. Make your point (if you actually have one) and have fun.

I've said my piece (what little there is of it) and I don't think I have anything more to add.

God Bless.

 

[Pure]

EL Pure ...Make your point (if you actually have one)

just couldn't resist that little thrust, could ya?

bless you, too.

 

[English Lady]

EL Pure ...Make your point (if you actually have one)

just couldn't resist that little thrust, could ya?

bless you, too.

No, really -what's the point? I can't see one.

I may be being thick, but what's new there?

 

[cantdog]

No, really -what's the point? I can't see one.

I may be being thick, but what's new there?

Well, I have something new. In the US, EL, this Christian noncompliance is being celebrated, encouraged, and held up as a righteous thing to be doing. The 700 Club began it, and many in the media, overtly Christian or otherwise, are also doing it. We are seeing these news stories in the first place because of this new trendy martyrdom notion.

That's what no one has yet mentioned. This is a new cause celebre among the Christian right. There is ample tradition and there are many examples throughout Christian history of martyrs for the faith who took various conscientious stands on one thing or another. In Islam, martyrs for the faith have made the ultimate sacrifice of their lives before now, but it is still a perversion of Islam to go out and recruit people to kill folks at weddings with bombs strapped on their waists.

I am no Christian, because one can't be a Christian with no belief in God. I do, however, read a damn sight more Bible than most of the yahoo Christians I come in contact with. I work in a church. I am immersed in this stuff all the time. People don't look at their own book, so much, but listen to leaders.

Matthew recommended praying in a closet. Do you remember the passage? I do. To me, it made a lot of good sense. Calling together a cluster of people to loudly pray on the steps of the legislature is trumpery. Attack prayer, I call it. It may be a valid attack. Political expression is important, for a Christian or for anyone who aspires to be a citizen. But it is not valid prayer. If they meant it to be prayer, they would be in Matthew's closet, not on the steps of some capitol building. It's just grandstanding, then, and the intended audience of a grandstanding is not God, but man. God doesn't require the grandstand; he hears you in any case.

So far as it's public and confrontational, it's meant primarily as a human-to-human communication. It is, in fact, mostly political, not mostly religious or mostly conscientious.

Rob took a stand. It was not a Christian stand, but it was principled and ethical. It was also entirely in-house; it only took place in the workplace. He didn't take it into the courts or into any public forum, but rather made his case in context and resolutely refused to create an implement with which to keep crooked books.

The celebrated cases discussed (yet again) in this thread didn't do that. They deliberately sought the wider political arena, they sued, they appeared in opinion columns and in the press. God doesn't need the grandstand. He doesn't need a Christian state, because He holds all the ultimate cards. These acts are primarily political acts.

Part of the message, here, is that the poor servants of the Lord are being waylaid in their piety by a godless society. Whether that's true or not, that's the message the original article which began the thread was peddling. Read that one again and see if I'm not right about that. And for the 700 Club and other promoters of this sort of pseudo-Christian activism, that was exactly the point.

I don't think I am bashing Christians by saying this. Someone may smile and smile, and be a villain. Someone may be Christian and yet act primarily for political reasons. That doesn't reflect poorly on Christians, but only on rightist activists. Just as suicide bombers do not actually prove Islam to be sick, merely fundamentalist activists. Islam is otherwise. Christianity, too, is otherwise. Even common, everyday moral behavior, like Rob's is otherwise than this sort of politically motivated grandstanding.

 

[English Lady]

Cant -thank you, love. Yes i remember that, Jesus gave several examples of it being better do things behind closed doors, in private and not do it just to get a reaction. To prayer ernestly, from the depths of your heart -and that is more likely to happen in private.

"...God doesn't require the grandstand; he hears you in any case."


Love, this. It is so true.

Man (and woman)'s ego pulls atthe hear strings of every Christian -it takes alot to not indulge it. I tell ya, the devil loves the ego. Get us into all kind of trouble.

We should get back to Jesus' example. He did not encourage celebrity, just did what he did out of love. Amazing ministry.

Thanks for reminding me of all this, cant.

You might not believe in God, but he sure believes in you. Take care and God Bless

 

[Guest]

Cant -thank you, love. Yes i remember that, Jesus gave several examples of it being better do things behind closed doors, in private and not do it just to get a reaction. To prayer ernestly, from the depths of your heart -and that is more likely to happen in private.

"...God doesn't require the grandstand; he hears you in any case."

Love, this. It is so true. . . .

(minor threadjack - I think) This is why so many of us are having difficulty with our current administration.

We are being told if we do not share their political views, we are NOT Christians. Talk about grandstanding.

 

[Pure]

response to cant

very good points, overall. the emphasis on the individual comports with my quaker inclinations.

if i may comment on one:

cant said, Matthew recommended praying in a closet. Do you remember the passage? I do. To me, it made a lot of good sense.

Calling together a cluster of people to loudly pray on the steps of the legislature is trumpery. Attack prayer, I call it. It may be a valid attack. Political expression is important, for a Christian or for anyone who aspires to be a citizen. But it is not valid prayer.

If they meant it to be prayer, they would be in Matthew's closet, not on the steps of some capitol building. It's just grandstanding, then, and the intended audience of a grandstanding is not God, but man. God doesn't require the grandstand; he hears you in any case.

So far as it's public and confrontational, it's meant primarily as a human-to-human communication. It is, in fact, mostly political, not mostly religious or mostly conscientious.

[...]
The celebrated cases discussed (yet again) in this thread didn't do that. They deliberately sought the wider political arena, they sued, they appeared in opinion columns and in the press. God doesn't need the grandstand. He doesn't need a Christian state, because He holds all the ultimate cards. These acts are primarily political acts.

P: i agree about religious persons' (in the above cases, Xtians) grandstanding. it certainly applies to Mr. Noesen the pharmacist, who had in fact promised to make referrals, then decided to make a case by stonewalling the holder of the b.c. prescription.

i'm not sure it would apply to Ms. Adamson, the ambulance driver. it's well to keep in mind that an act Person A does, can be noted by the televangelists and made into a _cause celebre_. It's the rightwing evangelical leaders, in some cases, more than the individual, who is 'grandstanding.'

that said, i think there are some basic errors in your examples. for instance you talk about

Cant: Calling together a cluster of people to loudly pray on the steps of the legislature is trumpery. Attack prayer, I call it. It may be a valid attack. Political expression is important, for a Christian or for anyone who aspires to be a citizen. But it is not valid prayer.

P: You biased the example and discussion by inserting "loudly". I'm all for 'silent vigils' in public. The peace mvt has had them. I see nothing 'un Christian' about them. they are 'witnessing,' as the term goes, they are not, exclusively or primarily 'prayers.' And *so long as these witnessings are non violent,* they are possibly making a point in accord with Christ's teachings, e.g., don't napalm the kids.

Both the feminist movement of the early 20th century and the anti slavery mvt of the 19th century used such methods. Are they political in intent? Yes, as well as moral. Is that inconsistent with Christianity? No. Might it be part of Christian living? Yes, imo.

It's unwise generally to take one passage of the Bible, here, about praying in the closet' and make it a general maxim, applicable anywhere.

Looking to your last statement:
[God] He doesn't need a Christian state, because He holds all the ultimate cards.

I'm not sure you know God's needs. But again the wording is prejudicial. Perhaps God *wants* a Christian society. Perhaps God wants a Christian state. (Or, a Jewish state, if you consult the some Hasidic Jews).

There are both Catholic and Protestant traditions as to "Christian States." There was a 'Christian State" in the Massachusetts colony.
This is based on Calvin's ideas and interpretation of Christianity, which is likely at least as valid as yours.

In fact, many of the present activists and some of the movement are Calvinists or Calvinistic, and they go by the title "Christian Reconstructionists".

Here are some sites for information. I am not endorsing these, since as I said, I'm more a quaker than a Calvinist.

Christian Reconstructionism, explained in Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism

explained by a neutral source
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html


Explains itself:
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0505_Parsons_-_What_is_Re.html

http://www.chalcedon.edu/
===

Further, the Pennsylvania colony set up by Penn was a "Christian State" with a fair degree of tolerance and humaneness. He explained that in his writings. This is a different 'take' than Calvin, equally biblical, but nonetheless in favor of a "Christian State."

I don't see that as a perversion of Xtianity or of Quakerism.

So while we agree about some of the self-made public Christians and the movement's grandstanding, and the right wing movement's real dangers to freedom, there are some facets of Christianity and Xtian thought--which HAS developed after 35 AD, or even 100 AD, after all--which you are ignoring or possibly not aware of, so far as I can tell.

All in all, however, you made a fine, informed and sincere posting that is very persuasive on a number of points.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

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.

Nicely said. In the last five pages or so, Joe may not have addressed that. In the first two pages, we all did, and mostly agreed (almost exactly with the part of your post I bolded), and the thread topic has changed quite a bit from the original intent. Seven pages'll do that.

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

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.

This is information well-associated with the abortion debate. This is not the abortion debate. Where life begins, whether it should be legal or is right is not the issue in this case.

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.

This represents an ideal. Ideally, we could separate this from that, fully. But no. In reality, the parts blur together. The word judgment implies a decision made on the part of an individual, a human being, whose judgment will always be affected by personal beliefs, both religious (if said person is affected by such) and moral. It simply implies that that judgment is one that affects the person's profession.

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.

As cant pointed out, right or wrong, there are always consequences, just not always legal ones. More directly to your post, I'm not familiar with said licensure, and if it was posted here (or a link to it was) I didn't see it. If that license was granted on the grounds that all medications had to be made available if a prescription was shown, then sobeit, the pharmacist should sell it there. If not, if the license was granted on grounds that the medications that the phamacist makes available there had certain guidlines in dispensement (is that a word?) then the last part of your post isn't relevant.

Q_C

 

[Weird Harold]

Well, I have something new. In the US, EL, this Christian noncompliance is being celebrated, encouraged, and held up as a righteous thing to be doing. The 700 Club began it, and many in the media, overtly Christian or otherwise, are also doing it. We are seeing these news stories in the first place because of this new trendy martyrdom notion.

That's what no one has yet mentioned. This is a new cause celebre among the Christian right. There is ample tradition and there are many examples throughout Christian history of martyrs for the faith who took various conscientious stands on one thing or another.

Good post Cantdog!

I am however, again, struck by similarities with arguments for and against the various religions involvment in the Civil Rights struggle.

I think what bothers me about the current situation is that the tactics that were so effective in increasing tolerance and lifting legal restrictions in the civil rights movement are being aimed at reducing tolerance and imposing legal restrictions. And, I must admit, that I'm on the opposite side of the issue from the "martyrs" in this instance.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

There is no moral way to reconcile not doing your job as a doctor or a nurse or an ambulance driver or a pharmacist. None, zero, nada.

If the man on the operating table is the reanimated zombie of Adolph Hitler, you damn well try and save his unlife to the best of your ability. That is the oath you take when you enter the medical profession. That is your highest order. There is no wiggle room, there is no some patients shouldn't get their treatment. You do all that is required because that's what makes the medical profession what it is. That is the Hippocratic Oath.

We can make a lot of bluster about the first amendment and morality, but being in the medical field means that people can live or die based on your decisions, means that you are charged with the responsibility of helping everyone, saving everyone and taking everyone where they need to go. Refusing is refusing to be in that profession. It is breaking the Hippocratic Oath, end of story.

Pharmacists are the worst to refuse any treatment because they have absolutely no say in whether or not they fill something out. They are not the doctor though they are bound by the Hippocratic Oath. If there is a valid prescription, they have to fill it. That is their sole reason for existence. They do not have the valid power to refuse service, to go hunting and put their life in danger because a lowly pharmacist wants to play god. And I know what I'm talking about, my mother was a pharmacy tech for many years. You fill out the prescriptions and you mix up the drugs that need mixing and you don't fuck up. That's it. You don't make suggestions or change prescriptions or decide that the drug that they are taking is bad and refuse to give it. She and he pharmacist often had people come in with prescriptions for drugs with nasty side effects or other ugliness or ugliness potential or were otherwise becoming infamous among the pharmacy circle. Did they refuse to fill them when the patient didn't seem to need them? NO. They explained the side effects and put it in a little bag and handed it over the counter. They were in the right.



On the beginning of life and humanity, I'm sure we could easily have a spirited debate and at the end of the day no one's mind will have been changed. I could bring out the charts and graphs and state that the capacity for sapience doesn't even exist in a fetus until very exceedingly term, but that doesn't matter. So, on this count I formally state nothing.


But on the duties of one in a medical office, it goes far beyond mere "do your job or be fired." There is an oath and a code that must be followed and maintained even above one's own beliefs because otherwise people die. If the man you're treating is the man who killed your brother, the evilest gnome you have ever met, or simply a race or ethnicity you know in your beliefs to be up to no good, you will treat him to the best of your abilities. If they are undergoing a process you find morally abhorent (such as elective plastic surgery) and dangerous for the patient, you warn them about side effects and end up prepping them for the procedure they end up choosing. If the man in the OR is in fact Hitler and he needs a new lung and there are more deserving people in the queue for lungs, one of whom is the greatest person in the world and won't have long to live if they don't get their surgery soon, but you're the surgeon and it's his turn in the queue, you give Hitler that lung and you try your damndest not to kill them in the process.

This is true no matter what ethnicity, sex, religion, goat, or otherwise personal attribute or belief may be. There is no other law that is higher when you are at work and in that field and we can kvetch and whine for our personal beliefs and what we desire to foster onto others, but that is the way it is and the way it must be.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

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).

I'm not interested in the religious right's websites, any more than I am the non-religious left's (okay, I was just aiming for the opposite of religious right with that title). I understand from past experiences that your strongly opinionated politically, but this thread, to my knowledge, was not a weighing of the political right and left. We were discussing our own viewpoints on more specific situations (in fact, as I stated to WH, we deviated quite distinctly from the original post and topic of the thread) and while there are always political undertones, I have no interest in discussing politics in wider scope, nor answering for anything anyone besides myself has to say.

More specifically: Saying that a person running their own private business can sell only things they approve of doesn't mean that:

1) in every case when the sale of things is prohibited by someone that it falls under my own agrument

2) that my agrument makes me responsible for the agrument of everyone else who agrees in part with me

or

3) that what a person sells has something to do with someone not being rescued from a fire because they're Jewish

Q_C

 

[Pure]

excellent post, weird h,

I think what bothers me about the current situation is that the tactics that were so effective in increasing tolerance and lifting legal restrictions in the civil rights movement are being aimed at reducing tolerance and imposing legal restrictions. And, I must admit, that I'm on the opposite side of the issue from the "martyrs" in this instance.

yes, the 'rights' talk is turned on its head; not unlike a fascist's declaration that the "people" have a right not to subverted by decadent art. now we have talk of the Xtians rights, in a mixed religion school, to put on a school 'Birth of Jesus' play, regardless of the Jewish kids that will necessarily be present.

i think part of the answer is that 'martyr' does, at first blush, sound admirable; but once you think about it, martyring oneself is noble or evil or idiotic, depending on the context: the 9-11 actors were martyrs, as, in a way, was Joe McCarthy and Adolf Hitler, and maybe Charles Kopp.

 

[Matadore]

Q_c

This is information well-associated with the abortion debate. This is not the abortion debate. Where life begins, whether it should be legal or is right is not the issue in this case.

It became an issue when Joe brought it up to support one of his points. I simply am refuting his assumption that the druggist, by establishing in his mind the beginning of life, he could legally make a "professional decision."

This represents an ideal. Ideally, we could separate this from that, fully. But no. In reality, the parts blur together. The word judgment implies a decision made on the part of an individual, a human being, whose judgment will always be affected by personal beliefs, both religious (if said person is affected by such) and moral. It simply implies that that judgment is one that affects the person's profession.

At issue here is not just any "judgment," but a certain specific type of decision based not upon morality or religious dogma, but on law. This also was established by Joe. To the extent that a professional can't separate legal and ethical from personal (moral), they have failed their profession.

As cant pointed out, right or wrong, there are always consequences, just not always legal ones. More directly to your post, I'm not familiar with said licensure, and if it was posted here (or a link to it was) I didn't see it. If that license was granted on the grounds that all medications had to be made available if a prescription was shown, then sobeit, the pharmacist should sell it there. If not, if the license was granted on grounds that the medications that the phamacist makes available there had certain guidelines in dispensement (is that a word?) then the last part of your post isn't relevant.


Joe was pointedly (if I read him correctly, discussing the issue from the viewpoint of legality). Pure has already established that the law has found that the druggist was in fact, wrong in his "professional judgment." As such, all of this discussion since has been moot. Joe wisely declared himself correct and left the thread.

Pure also posted a link to a site that focuses on California Pharmacy law. From that one may glean that a druggist is expected to dispense prescriptions based upon his "professional judgment" which obligates him to follow the law and professional precedent. He might be justified in hesitating in the event that he questions the validity of the perscription or that for some physiological or medical fact the drug would likely cause harm to the patient for reasons unknown by the physician.


I must be more intellectually challenged than I thought. Could you please explain again your logic that renders my thoughts lees than relevant? If you didn't understand "dispensement," you certainly seemed to, but I was referring to the sale and/or point distribution of product (in this case the MAP).

Perhaps you would consider discussing your opinions on the differences of morality, ethics, and legality as related to this thread? That is unless, of course, you hold them to be irrelevant to the thread.

 

[Pure]

nice post, matadore. one small correction. i posted stuff about Wisconsin law, and the Noesen case. Joe posted a link to a Calif. pharmacy-related website.

you speak of
Mat: the differences of morality, ethics, and legality as related to this thread?

P: that's a critical issue. esp. since the legal issues are getting settled. pharmacist refusal without redirection is going to be illegal in Wisconsin, Illinois and Mass, but legal in Mississippi and mostly the 'red' states of the South and Midwest.

yet the moral issues remain. perhaps the pharmacist case is, at first blush, a bit less clear, since a pharmacist is also a business man running a business. so we get all the crap about 'sellers sell what they please,'. as has been pointed out by lucifer and others, health professionals have pledged themselves to the patients' welfare. that is broader than keeping them from dying. it is, in some cases, a medical necessity for a woman to go on the pill--with serious risks otherwise. the pharmacist is *supposed to be dispensing drugs as part of a medical service team, and sharing its goals.

it is true that some professionals are 'free agents,' and hence the absense of contract may be relevant. i can't insist that Engineer X, come and advise me on how to shore up my teetering building.

BUT, once he's taken the job, he's NOT moral and NOT professional in my opinion if he says, "I've learned that condoms are being sold in the building** and I think they encourage immorality and sometimes kill babies, so I quit; i won't advise you further; nor will i help you find another engineer to aid you in this project which furthers evil".

(I've made the engineer a bit like Mr. Noesen, the Wisconsin pharmacist.)
==

**and by the way, i do NOT think it my duty to tell the engineer initially about the items sold in the building. it's simply none of his business.

 

[Matadore]

nice post, matadore.

Thank you, Pure.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

This is information well-associated with the abortion debate. This is not the abortion debate. Where life begins, whether it should be legal or is right is not the issue in this case.

It became an issue when Joe brought it up to support one of his points. I simply am refuting his assumption that the druggist, by establishing in his mind the beginning of life, he could legally make a "professional decision."

He can.

Period.

And Luc pointed out why, though not in support of the pharmacist and his/her views.

We can make a lot of bluster about the first amendment and morality, but being in the medical field means that people can live or die based on your decisions, means that you are charged with the responsibility of helping everyone, saving everyone and taking everyone where they need to go.

I disagree with the last part of that last sentence. Not every time someone is transported, life is hanging in the balance, or wellness. But on the occasions when it is in the balance, yes, I agree with him.

I want you to consider something, before I go further. We're not discussing someone who refuses to fill prescriptions based on some obscure belief. This wasn't some crackpot who refused to dispense blood-pressure medication because he believes that Mikey from the Life cereal commercials mistook it for Pop Rocks and swallowed it with a can of soda and his head exploded. We're discussing someone whose views are as widespread, though no more universal, than those who disagree with them. Hence the strong debate and split opinions on the matter.

What we're discussing in this case is a pharmacist who is most likely acting on a personal judgment of where life begins, moreso than the specifics of individual cases, specifics of which aren't even presented to said pharmacists in most cases, I dare assume.

Why is this relevant?

Here's a term you may have heard before: Pro-Life. That second half is important. It represents what they see in place of the fetus or conceptus (or whatever other terms an individual on this side of the debate, or any side for that matter, chooses to use, I don't want to attempt to list them all) that someone who is Pro-Choice may see. In many cases, the pharmacist who is Pro-Life looks across the counter at a woman requesting the MAT and sees, not one, but two lives in question, one within the other. The woman requests a pill that, in said pharmacists judgment, will end the life of one of them.

...people can live or die based on your decisions, means that you are charged with the responsibility of helping everyone, saving everyone ...

I don't expect you to agree with their assessment, nor with anyone else's but your own. But could you say that, because of reasons that may be as simple as someone's life is going to change and they're not ready, or are scared, or don't want it to change, that another life should be taken to counter-balance those changes and make things as close as they can be to how things were before? To keep them from changing ina particualr direction, even if they are extremely different? That's the choice this pharmacist is faced with.

To you, it may be a patient who is prescribed a medication that they may not be dispensed at this particular pharmacy. To the pharmacist, it more like saying that someone who has a liver disfuntion that will afftect them long-term, even if it's specifically negative in its effects, but may not cause certain death should be given a healthy liver in its place... from a donor who will die as a result, and never signed to consentually donote the liver.

Professional judgment, all judgment, will always be affected by moral and personal judgment. They're simply inseparable. This case is no different.

This represents an ideal. Ideally, we could separate this from that, fully. But no. In reality, the parts blur together. The word judgment implies a decision made on the part of an individual, a human being, whose judgment will always be affected by personal beliefs, both religious (if said person is affected by such) and moral. It simply implies that that judgment is one that affects the person's profession.

At issue here is not just any "judgment," but a certain specific type of decision based not upon morality or religious dogma, but on law. This also was established by Joe. To the extent that a professional can't separate legal and ethical from personal (moral), they have failed their profession.

Oh? So, reading this correctly, do you intend to tell me that every pharmacy has to carry every type of medication known to man in case it is prescribed? If that is the case, then sobeit. If the liscensure we discussed earlier states that, then then should carry it, period. Some may believe that having them swear by the aforementioned Hippocratic Oath is a conflict in that liscensure, but the Free Market discussion we had earlier would be decided. Or, if there is a list of certain medications, according to said liscensure, that must be provided and the medications in question are on it, then sobeit as well.

However, you are trying to divide the issue of what judgment is again. And should the things I listed in the paragraph above are not decidedly the case, then law you're referring to that the pharmacist's judgment is supposed to be based on isn't a list of things he/she must do, but guidelines that he/she must act within. Meaning that they are liscenced to responsibly dispense the medications at their disposal (accurately give the pills requested on the prescription, and only with said prescription). Someone with a liscence to sell alcohol doesn't have to carry every type, they simply have guidelines within which they can sell the product. I can't sue because I want Johnny Walker Red and they only carry Johnny Walker Black.

Pure has already established that the law has found that the druggist was in fact, wrong in his "professional judgment." As such, all of this discussion since has been moot.

Sounds like said judge may have made one of those "professional judgments." Another judge may have decided differently. Also, I believe the issue in that case was more the refusal of the pharmacist to aid in the tranfer of said prescription. I gathered that from Pure's post, not any particualr news release. If the law states, in the area of such, that they must transfer, then sobeit. I never said that the pharmacist was above the law, but the law allowing the sale of something doesn't obligate someone to sell it, even if they are liscenced to do so. I've said it before: I didn't see the liscensure agreement.

As such, all of this discussion since has been moot. Joe wisely declared himself correct and left the thread.

No, Joe got tired of repeating himself and feeling unheard. I'm getting closer to imitating his exit.

Pure also posted a link to a site that focuses on California Pharmacy law. From that one may glean that a druggist is expected to dispense prescriptions based upon his "professional judgment" which obligates him to follow the law and professional precedent. He might be justified in hesitating in the event that he questions the validity of the perscription or that for some physiological or medical fact the drug would likely cause harm to the patient for reasons unknown by the physician.

I covered this. If he feels a life is in danger, then as a medical professional, he may refuse, but bear in mind, this particualr part of this discussion still hinges on whether or not the pharmacy must carry the medication.

I must be more intellectually challenged than I thought. Could you please explain again your logic that renders my thoughts lees than relevant? If you didn't understand "dispensement," you certainly seemed to, but I was referring to the sale and/or point distribution of product (in this case the MAP).

Perhaps you would consider discussing your opinions on the differences of morality, ethics, and legality as related to this thread? That is unless, of course, you hold them to be irrelevant to the thread.

Good thing you didn't take my disagreeance personally.

To tell the truth, if you used the word "dispensement," I didn't even realize. I haven't gone back to see if you did or not, and I won't. I don't see the point. It was while I was using it that I questioned it's existence. If you want to take that otherwise, go right ahead. If it makes you feel any better, I just realized I've been mispelling "licensure" throughout this post. If you want to criticize, knock yourself out.

As far as your thoughts being less relevant; if I thought they were, I would have used the phrase "less revelant," or the term "irrelevant." Instead, what I said is that the relevance of the part of your post I quoted, a reference to the pharmacist "not fulfilling the letter of one's licensure" depended on said letter in said licensure. That was it.

And morality, ethics and leglity... We've discussed all three, myself included, in many facets throughout the thread. I'm not going to cite examples, because they're already cited, throughout the entire thread. Everyone who's been in here has discussed, politely until I now for the most part, their agreeances and disagreeances. We've broken the discussion into numberous issues and discussed them both individually, and as part of a whole. I'm not sure what it is you think I'm supposed to say that would be more relevant that what I've already said.

Q_C

 

[Pure]

hi q c

i'm getting a bit tired of this pharmacist thing, and wish we could discuss some of the half dozen other cases i've offered, real or hypothetical.

i don't want this thread to become a debate about 'pro life'. set up your own thread. the result here is equate the pharmacist problem, with the basic problem of 'pro life' arguments.

i'll make a couple comments, however, very specific.

Re Noesen case:
QC: Sounds like said judge may have made one of those "professional judgments." Another judge may have decided differently.

Actually the Pharmacists' Board first found that Noesen had erred; i posted that; why don't you read it. The court then upheld the Pharcmacists Board.

Also, I believe the issue in that case was more the refusal of the pharmacist to aid in the tranfer of said prescription. I gathered that from Pure's post, not any particualr news release. If the law states, in the area of such, that they must transfer, then sobeit.

Yes, the case involved BOTH the initial refusal AND a refusal to have a supervisor pharmacist do the dispensing, AND a refusal, when contacted by *another pharmacy, to transfer the prescription.

However, the referral or transfer was not simply a matter to be debated as to 'professional judgement' and interpretation of the law and Administrative Code [which i posted]. Noesen had given the store a written undertaking stating his objections to certain medications and stating that he would pass along such cases to the supervisor. So he broke the professional rules, arguably, and his own word, quite clearly.

Note: i'm not pursuing this, but, for the record, there is no good evidence that taking** b.c. pills [estrogen progesterone] terminates any "life". Basically, they mimic pregnancy and prevent ovulation.
---

**Added. On a NONemergency basis, standard dose, once a day for 21 days, beginning right after a period.

 

[Weird Harold]

Oh? So, reading this correctly, do you intend to tell me that every pharmacy has to carry every type of medication known to man in case it is prescribed? If that is the case, then sobeit. If the liscensure we discussed earlier states that, then then should carry it, period. Some may believe that having them swear by the aforementioned Hippocratic Oath is a conflict in that liscensure, but the Free Market discussion we had earlier would be decided. Or, if there is a list of certain medications, according to said liscensure, that must be provided and the medications in question are on it, then sobeit as well.

However, you are trying to divide the issue of what judgment is again. And should the things I listed in the paragraph above are not decidedly the case, then law you're referring to that the pharmacist's judgment is supposed to be based on isn't a list of things he/she must do, but guidelines that he/she must act within. Meaning that they are liscenced to responsibly dispense the medications at their disposal (accurately give the pills requested on the prescription, and only with said prescription). Someone with a liscence to sell alcohol doesn't have to carry every type, they simply have guidelines within which they can sell the product. I can't sue because I want Johnny Walker Red and they only carry Johnny Walker Black.

I don't belive ayone has asserted or even implied that any paharmacy MUST stock every medicatication, only that if it is stocked, it should be dispensed when the requirements for legally dispensing it have been met.

If you're over 21, not obviously already intoxicated, and there is a bottle of Johnny Walker Red on the shelf, you'd be justified in raising Hell, or even suing the store, if the clerk refused to sell it to you because the clerk believed drinking was sinful.

The basic question is, "when does an employee's moral or "professional" judgement trump the collective moral, business, or professional judgement of his employer, the prescribing doctor, and the lawmakers/regulators that established the requirements to leglly dispense a medication or sella product?"

 

[cantdog]

Exactly; The MAP is not an abortificant. A pharmacist ought really to know that.


And, the way it acts, it needs to be taken very soon after the rape to have any kind of effect. The rape victim just doesn't have a lot of time. She cannot afford to be dicked around with and made to search the county for someone else who has less of a pyretic conscience about all this. I suspect the pharmacist knew that, too, and performed the delaying tactics precisely to close her window of opportunity.

For both reasons, the judgement is a little screwy. Whether it's a professional or just an ordinary judgement.

The only reason for even a person who is radically anti-abortion to get all honked off about the MAP, it seems to me, is from a conviction that the choice must be God's and God's alone. That the coin-toss of whether a conception takes place or not should be entirely in God's hands. Which makes them not pro-life but actually anti-choice, since no life is being put at risk. From the point of view of any woman, but especially a rape victim, I think we have to imagine that it looks a whole lot like anti-woman, too.

 

[Pure]

Hi Harold,

good posting. one quibble.

WH: I don't believe anyone has asserted or even implied that any paharmacy MUST stock every medication, only that if it is stocked, it should be dispensed when the requirements for legally dispensing it have been met.

P: This is not quite right. It's a little canard that Joe and some others have been pushing or assuming. A pharmacy is typically compelled to carry a certain basic range of drugs, and in part this means they have to get what they're out of, in a hurry, if asked. (Typically, around here, a pharmacist will say, next day or maybe two.) Of course there are variations by state, and maybe the socalled prolife pharmacists have gotten legal exemptions from stocking abortion-related drugs, but the general principle holds.

The pharmacist, contrary to Joe, is NOT like the corner grocer who doesn't choose to carry pizza sauce, and declines to get any, even when I ask. "Seller's rights" are only marginally related to the problem at hand, because as i say, a basic stock is mandated.

Almost certainly, a pharmacist COULD rightfully make choices in other areas (non prescription), i.e. he could not stock condoms, or sponges. That's arguably a commercial-looking decision (though it isn't) and is protected as a right of someone doing commerce.

**Does anyone have anything to say about the NON pharmacist cases???**