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

[Huckleman2000]

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.

Hi Pure! I'll play your silly game! If you play mine. Although I suspect we'll both agree to a large extent. Maybe not, though.

Your first example of the gay teen is particularly heinous on the part of the policeman. "To serve and protect" doesn't seem to draw any line at the bedroom door, even though I'm sure there have been instances not too different from the example you posit. Not even necessarily gay - but when confronted with examples of so-called 'street justice'. (The example of the Catholic priest/molester who was murdered in prison comes to mind, although the resultant murder case was prosecuted.) Whether Xtian in origin, or just from years of personal experience with criminals, law enforcement lends itself to a great temptation to take justice into one's own hands. There may be some jurisdictions where the County Sherriff is an elected official and they've put a virulent Xtian into office who may actually condone this sort of behavior, but it's clearly against the law. The enforcement branch of government is not the interpretive. Yet.

Likewise, the firemen would be derelict in their duty not to fight the fire in the porn shop. Again, there may be a corrupt mayor or fire chief in the town with a god-complex, and hopefully there would be enough of a case to apply discipline at the state level. Insurance companies would be another means of enforcement against negligence. As well, I would hope that within the firefighter fraternity there would be some pressure on each other to have similar commitment to their duties. I'm reminded of E.L. Doctorow's novel 'Ragtime' as an example of this sort of selective response on the part of firefighters - I just hope we've progressed beyond that sort of thing.

Here's my real-world example again:
'Rape-Gurney-Joe' Lieberman supporting the 'right' of Catholic Hospital emergency rooms not to stock MAP, even though as emergency rooms they are legally required to accept emergency patients such as rape victims, and ambulance drivers are expected to transport patients to the closest hospital. At least, I'm sort of surmising these requirements. Lieberman's position is that it isn't a burden for the patient to go to another hospital. Although, judging from the initial example of the thread, she wouldn't have the expectation of being transported by the ambulance. I'm not sure about how hospital funding works - as public emergency rooms, do they receive public funds? Considering the anti-choice stipulations placed on many public healthcare funding, this seems like it would be a legal conundrum.

 

[cantdog]

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

My basic objection has to do with the sort of thing your original post addressed: refusing someone because they're gay, or brown-colored, or have a scarlet letter on. Much of the battleground in the '60's civil-rights struggle was over the supposed rights of merchants to refuse custom ad libitum. The seller claimed that she had every right in the world to turn a black person away. Seller's rights arguments very much have this flavor, for me, because I remember those arguments. They were the "talking points" of the segregationists. Similar "rights" were said to exist for landlords who were refusing rents to black people.

And the laws, then, agreed with them and enforced segregation.

 

[Huckleman2000]

My basic objection has to do with the sort of thing your original post addressed: refusing someone because they're gay, or brown-colored, or have a scarlet letter on. Much of the battleground in the '60's civil-rights struggle was over the supposed rights of merchants to refuse custom ad libitum. The seller claimed that she had every right in the world to turn a black person away. Seller's rights arguments very much have this flavor, for me, because I remember those arguments. They were the "talking points" of the segregationists. Similar "rights" were said to exist for landlords who were refusing rents to black people.

And the laws, then, agreed with them and enforced segregation.

Amen!
I was young then, but I read Time and Life and Newsweek, and my parents were both staunch Catholics and staunch civil-rights Democrats, and there was no conflict between the two positions.

 

[Pure]

cant and huck

cant: My basic objection has to do with the sort of thing your original post addressed: refusing someone because they're gay, or brown-colored, or have a scarlet letter on. Much of the battleground in the '60's civil-rights struggle was over the supposed rights of merchants to refuse custom ad libitum.

interesting point. i suppose the civil rights argument is that the lunch counter is ostensibly 'open to the public', although there might be a sign saying "whites only." i wonder what our capitalist ideologues say about this one, for bias certainly distorts the 'free market.' and the 'free market' has no remedy, i.e. these lunch counters did not 'go under' because next door another restaurant decided to make a huge profit by selling to whites and blacks.

on this note: is there a 'right of conscience' of Baptist or Catholic waitresses to refuse service to those on their way to or from the abortion clinic down the street? or to known fornicators? this reminds me of the old westerns where the prostitute goes into the general store and is snubbed by all and can barely get service to buy a sack of flour.

incidentally, the Christian Evangelical colleges claim a right to expel for fornication, just as the Catholic colleges do. and faculty may be fired for adultery. all this is upheld in court as part of freedom of religion. one could style this a 'right of conscience' on the part of the University administrators and Boards of Governors.
---

Huck, as you say, this sort of example is not that far fetched.
H: Your first example of the gay teen is particularly heinous on the part of the policeman. "To serve and protect" doesn't seem to draw any line at the bedroom door, even though I'm sure there have been instances not too different from the example you posit. Not even necessarily gay - but when confronted with examples of so-called 'street justice'.

P: A similar real example concerns violence to prostitutes by customers or pimps. Where prostitution is illegal, she is in a vulnerable position, since her criminality undermines her complaint. Indeed her complaint is about what happened while she was doing something criminal.

This, one might say, is like a bank robber trying to get the police to charge the security guard who took a shot at him.

In our city, it's only been the last 20 years when prostitutes could (but not usually do) go to police. These women used to say, "What's the point?" since they heard "Comes with the territory!"

More seriously they used to hear, "With your pimp, youre carrying on an illegal act. Now how could we charge him with assaulting you and not charge you with prostitution. On your own testimony, you were assaulted because your actions as a prostitute did not earn him enough money, on the night in question."

A lot of this does remind me--as you say-- of "The Scarlet Letter." There were the Puritans of old, and now there are the new Puritans; both want the State to back up their harmful acts toward sinners.

I like this real life example, also:
H: Here's my real-world example again:

'Rape-Gurney-Joe' Lieberman supporting the 'right' of Catholic Hospital emergency rooms not to stock MAP, even though as emergency rooms they are legally required to accept emergency patients such as rape victims, and ambulance drivers are expected to transport patients to the closest hospital. At least, I'm sort of surmising these requirements. Lieberman's position is that it isn't a burden for the patient to go to another hospital. Although, judging from the initial example of the thread, she wouldn't have the expectation of being transported by the ambulance. I'm not sure about how hospital funding works - as public emergency rooms, do they receive public funds? Considering the anti-choice stipulations placed on many public healthcare funding, this seems like it would be a legal conundrum.


P: These coercive measures are not really different from that famous case, caught on film, of the execution of a Saudi princess, maybe 25 years back. She broke a religious law, essentially on fornication, but is shot by the police.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kcsm/arts.artsmain?action=viewArticle&pid=160&sid=6&id=885357

Others [Arabs interviewed] were more practical about the executions. “She committed a very grave sin against Islam,” says the owner of a fashionable boutique in Saudi Arabia. “He [the Prince, her uncle] couldn’t let her get away with this. All sorts of silly girls would have followed. She had to be sacrificed.”

 

[Matadore]

i'm getting a bit tired of this pharmacist thing...

Again, thanks Pure for setting matters straight.

I have difficulty following QC's logic and writing at times and then I become confused. He may have missed the points that I was attempting to make, but your answers confirm that you didn't.

I don't think that I have anything left to offer or gain from this particular thread.

It has been very interesting and I have learned much.

Not to point to any single post, but some here have used the debate strategy that follows the axiom, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit.”


M

 

[Quiet_Cool]

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?"

Again, as I responded to this when you asked before, we pretty much all agreed earlier in the thread that the employee, if the medication is there, had no right to refuse. The discussion went beyond that issue, in several different directions since then. I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm agreeing fully. Said employee should have followed the employer's example and dispensed the pill.

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

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 think we all are, but it seems to be the case that drew the most attention in the thread.

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 don't think I'll bother with that Pro-Life thread, especially considering that I'm not Pro-Life any more than I'm Pro-Choice. And I see no reason for my statement to be labeled as you attempted to. I wasn't attempting to equate anything with anything. But the viewpoint of many on the thread seems to be that there was only one person in the situation, and a Pro-Lifer might see two. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I think the perspective of a person, particularly in cases such as these when they feel a life may be in danger, is necessary to consider before a misplaced, matter-of-fact judgment on a situation can be passed. It's one thing to disagree with thier perspective, but to think you needn't consider it at all... I'm not sure how someone could come to that conclusion.

In the example I gave about the pharmacist who thought blood pressure medication would make one's head explode... Yeah, the guy was obviously nuts, but you should at least consider that the crazy bastard cared enough not to give you something he felt dangerous.

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.

My point in mentioning said case was simply that there was more to it than whether or not the doctor stocked the drug. That was all. I'm not taking Noesen's side in any way.

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.

I don't want to pursue this either, mostly because I don't have any quarrel with b.c. pills, but also because that topic is no more the point of the thread than abortion is. I am fully aware of what the pill does. I've used it (though it was she who was taking it, believe me, it was to both of our advantages) and have no issue with its dispensement.

That being said, I think this thread is well-beyond it usefulness. I'm outta here.

Q_C

 

[Selena_Kitt]

About Rape-Gurney-Joe:

I'm not sure about how hospital funding works - as public emergency rooms, do they receive public funds?

The answer is YES. They do.

 

[Guest]

"The conscience debate has a flip side: Some health workers chafe at requests to take extraordinary measures for terminally ill patients..." (from the original post)

*Just a note: I have not tried to read through this entire thread. So, if I am repeating another post, forgive me. Also, these are just the thoughts and feelings of one sleep-deprived nurse. I am going to the grocery store after I post this; I won't be here to read it if you call me names. LOL.

I am a pediatric ICU nurse. Pediatrics, of course, is a world apart from adult medicine in many respects. That being said, I've never seen anyone, doctor or nurse, refuse care of a patient.

What we discuss, almost every night, is quality of life.

Premature babies are kept alive at younger and younger ages of gestation. 24 weeks is not unusual now. No one discusses with these parents the long term effects of "saving" a child at this age. Neonatalogist and NICU staff don't discuss with parents the high likelihood of having a chronically ill child with a short life span filled with ventilators, trachs, g-tubes, and sundry other medical devices. They don't discuss an infant who can never suck a pacifier or eat by mouth, who can never breathe without assistance, who may well be deaf and/or blind from the very procedures that kept him alive at one time.

I am certain that there are some people who would still choose this destiny for their child. As long as the child is alive, they have what they want. Sadly enough, for me, that is job security.

After these children go home "successfully" from the NICU for short times, they spend a great deal of their lives with me, in the PICU. And, I fall in love with them. I care for them as if they are my own. And, I swear to God that I will drive as far away from a hospital as I can and give birth in a field if I am in this kind of premature labor to avoid anyone "saving" my child's life. More than one neonatologist will tell you the same thing.

I'm not mean or judgmental in my relationship with the parents. I don't bawk at the choices they've made. I don't question that these parents love their children. But, we all ask, are these medical advances?

We know that "normal" people have no idea what we do.

I have coded children for hours, literally, because their parents could not accept that their child was gone. I've sent children to surgeries that my experience told me they were unlikely to survive or would permanently change them in ways their parents couldn't anticipate. I've stood beside one of our (very devout Catholic intensivists) when he turned off the ventilator. I've been at the head of the bed in the OR when they clamped off the heart to do an organ harvest. I have performed "life-saving" measures on a brain dead child because an abusive parent was trying to avoid murder charges. Is the intensivist less devout? Am I immoral for providing care that sometimes feels like torture to me? What about the transplant surgeon?

I do my job because I love these kids, all of them, believe it or not. In a lot of senses, I leave who I am in my everyday life at the door when I come to work. I may write smut, drink, smoke the occassional cigarette, get laid by some cute dr just because I can, buy more shoes than any human could need, love my animals more than my neighbors, live on wine and hershey's kisses for days, etc. Still, I don't laugh when families get on their knees and pray; I only hope that it works. I have never even thought of not caring for a child because their family has Bibles in the child's bed and verses posted on the walls. I don't turn away when a family tells me they are praying for me.

Ironically enough, one of our intensivists is an atheist. He absolutely thinks this is it. You get one life. There is no God. He is usually the doctor that religious families love the most. Why? He is the most sincerely compassionate one I have ever met. He never lies to families. And, he mourns every death as much as all of us do, maybe moreso.

Maybe you'd say because I am not religious, I don't understand. Maybe so. I only know that I've never questioned doing my job. And, I've never met a pediatric doctor or nurse who did. As charge nurse, I have had parents ask (in a suspicious manner) why I'm not married or don't have kids at my age (35), request not to have the black/hispanic/lesbian-looking/male/fat/whatever nurse, feel entitled to break the unit rules because of religion, race, etc. I've had more than one mother pitch a holy fit because they think their bf has some thing for one of the nurses. I've had parents tell me they were going to take their critically ill child home because someone has offended their sensibilities, amongst other reasons. (Um, no, we don't let them do that. That's what court orders are for.)

All of that being said, I would be the first one in the medical director's office if I saw someone refuse care of a patient (or family, in my case.) I would be (and have been) the one to stand beside any of my nurses when the doctor has written an order that endangers a patient, medically not morally. That's my job.

Okay, enough of my rambling. These were just some of my thought after reading the original post.

Oh, we could argue that public funding thing for emergency rooms, too. It's not a simple issue. ED's are only *required* to take patients who are emergently ill or in active labor. Even then, they are only required to stabilize the patient before they transfer them to another facility. As far as these requirements are concerned, most ER's would never turn away a patient for the simple reason that they fear lawsuits, fear a patient may be more ill than they appear, etc. The cold, hard truth; but the medical profession and lawsuits could be another thread.


PS: If you're going to post and tell me how wonderfully your premature child has developed, feel blessed. I truly am happy for you. You're one of the lucky ones. Just know that 34 weeks is not the same ballgame as 24 weeks.

I hope everyone has a great weekend!
Lisa

 

[Pure]

nice posting iluvu,

those are good points. in an earlier posting i mentioned a number of cases where lots of us, including me, would admire a health or other prof who acts on conscience; one might think of drs. who refused to help the Nazis kill. i gave the examples of soldier or executioners who decide they won't kill any more.

i agree the prolongation of life by 'heroic' means, is often inhumane, and may even be unethical. in my view, a certain mainstream techonological medical establishment often tries to do these extraordinary extensions (partly as 'learning experience'). i don't think you should always blame the parents, who may be reacting to the way the alternatives are posed.

so i see that a nurse, doctor, or other might refuse to inhumanely extend life. i think we know what would happen. they'd be disciplined, and they wouldn't be cited on the front page of the Southern Baptist News or lauded by the Vatican.

it's not a easy job to distinguish the (hypothetical) cases you mention from ones lots of us disagree with. that's what makes the issue so controversial: the religious right are using the terms of the civil rights and patients rights and dying rights movements.

 

[Guest]

Just a quick clarification...then, I really am going to the store.

I don't blame the parents. My frustration is with doctors who don't tell parents all the facts, give them real options or perpetuate false hope because they don't want to deal with grief.

Don't misunderstand. I'm human. I certainly do personally disagree with choices some parents make. But, I'm a professional, too. I do my best not to let that disagreement interfere with the care I give a child or my relationship with the family.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

That was a compassionate and heartfelt post, ILU, and I'm in awe...

I'm also glad to hear that you think about it, to hear a first person perspective that shows that the medical community is really thinking about these things.... that's moving, too...

I'm of the same mind as you, when it comes to those life-saving measures for preemies... 24 weeks? my god... I wouldn't make that choice FOR someone, but I'd make it for myself, I know... I'd be in a field, too.

I just wanted to say what a gift it was to read this... and I can feel your heart in it, and it's beautiful.

 

[Weird Harold]

Don't misunderstand. I'm human. I certainly do personally disagree with choices some parents make. But, I'm a professional, too. I do my best not to let that disagreement interfere with the care I give a child or my relationship with the family.

Thank you for providing a personal, real-life example of how people should be. Your professionalism stands in stark contrast to the small-minded obstructionists that prompted this thread.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

and not to threadjack or anything, but congrats on your monthly contest win, I_Love_U_In_Me.... WTG!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Iloveu- I love you!

 

[Guest]

You guys are going to make me blush...and that's not an easy thing to do! Thank You!

Lisa

 

[cantdog]

People who blithely say they want health care workers to "do everything" to save someone ought to be made to watch the torture which their decision has made happen. Who needs to go out in a welter of medical torture?

Sometimes I suspect the, um, loved one of having a pretty good idea what's in store, and making the decision maliciously. Particularly if the life partner of the same sex is trying to be heard with an opposite viewpoint. End-of-life, next-of-kin issues. No clearer demonstration that the anti-gay campaign is hate-based could be found, barring the beatings and killings in the streets.