Can Pharmacists Morally Object? - Page 3

Mikeyy · #21 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Baron

“I understand your position.

I wholeheartedly disagree 100% with it.” - tristanrobin

Say it ain’t so!

“If he doesn't want to fill the prescriptions from doctors, he needs to go into a different field.” - tristanrobin

So a mature, educated adult should not be allowed to decide how to run his own business?

This isn't any business. This is a government regulated business. So they can set the standards. I have worked under state lic.. If I didn't comply by state standards I would lose my Lic.. I understood that. I had a board and care home. Sure it was my own business. But I had to provide certain services in order to maintain a Lic. That's not extraordinary.

What if a Pharmacist wanted to make his own concoctions? Its his own business isn't much of a defense.

The Baron · #22 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 03:11 PM

“This isn't any business. This is a government regulated business. So they can set the standards. I have worked under state lic.. If I didn't comply by state standards I would lose my Lic.. I understood that. I had a board and care home. Sure it was my own business. But I had to provide certain services in order to maintain a Lic. That's not extraordinary.” - Mikeyy

As I understand the controversy as it currently exists, there is nothing that compels pharmacists to fill an abortion prescription (thus the “controversy”). But I do understand your point-of-view. I would simply argue that the free-market should decide.

I tend to see this debate in this way: Does a mature, educated, informed adult working in a profession of his choice allowed make decisions based upon his own moral and religious beliefs as it pertains to abortion or will he be forced to act according to the moral and religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of another?

cnredd · #23 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Baron

“This isn't any business. This is a government regulated business. So they can set the standards. I have worked under state lic.. If I didn't comply by state standards I would lose my Lic.. I understood that. I had a board and care home. Sure it was my own business. But I had to provide certain services in order to maintain a Lic. That's not extraordinary.” - Mikeyy

As I understand the controversy as it currently exists, there is nothing that compels pharmacists to fill an abortion prescription (thus the “controversy”). But I do understand your point-of-view. I would simply argue that the free-market should decide.

That's the way I see it...

Imagine if the government called McDonald's and forced them to stock and sell Grape-Nuts...

Mikeyy · #24 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 04:28 PM

If you don't want to do what the job requires then why do the job? I'm sorry. But why would someone become a abortionist if they didn't want to do abortions? Why be a plumber if you don't want someone to see your butt crack. People should probably not take jobs that they have a moral problem doing.

I can see your point. But I gotta go with letting people take care of their health. Health decisions should be made between you and your dr. Without the religious beliefs of Pharmacists adding hurdles to their health care.

tristanrobin · #25 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

That's the way I see it...

Imagine if the government called McDonald's and forced them to stock and sell Grape-Nuts...

If doing otherwise would cause great harm to the public, the government SHOULD step in and tell them to sell Grape-Nuts. And if Grape-Nuts is the only cure for a health issue, then, again, the government SHOULD step in.

The problem with all of these analogies is that none of them are relevant to public health care. The closest was a much earlier one, questioning whether a firefighter should be allowed to refuse to put out the fire in a brothel.

The Baron · #26 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 05:30 PM

“If you don't want to do what the job requires then why do the job? I'm sorry. But why would someone become a abortionist if they didn't want to do abortions?” - Mikeyy

I think that’s kinda the point. There are pharmacists that don’t want to be abortionists or take any part in an abortion. And in America, I think that Pharmacists should have the right to decide that for themselves.

“The problem with all of these analogies is that none of them are relevant to public health care. The closest was a much earlier one, questioning whether a firefighter should be allowed to refuse to put out the fire in a brothel.” - tristanrobin

I really don’t think that any analogies does this justice as I really don’t think anything else compares.

saltwn · #27 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

No, But if you are lic. by the state they can set the standards of practice for a pharmacy. Nobody forced them to be in the pharmacy biz. But you choose to be a supplier for the public it takes your choices out of your hands. You have agreed by accepting the Lic. that you will follow state law.

I could no find a link that stated what pharmacies should carry. But I ran across this pretty recent article about a Washington state ruling. Judge again rules druggists can deny morning-after pill

Quote:

TACOMA -- Pharmacists and drug store owners in Washington can still refuse to sell the "morning-after pill" if they have religious objections to the emergency contraceptives, a federal judge ruled Friday...Critics consider the pill tantamount to abortion, although it is different from the abortion pill RU-486 and has no effect on women who already are pregnant...Rules adopted by the state last year said a patient's right to purchase Plan B trumped any pharmacist's or drug store owner's moral objections to the pill's interference with potential pregnancy.

But two druggists and an Olympia pharmacy owner sued over the rules last summer, saying their constitutional religious rights were being violated. They asked for an exemption to the rule while the lawsuit was in motion...In back-and-forth questioning with lawyers during Friday's hearing, Leighton said he sensed that wrangling over the issue is driven by bitterness between the two sides, and not by desire for good health care policy.

"I do get the impression that this is a solvable problem, and it's not an issue that anyone wants to have solved," he said...Leighton also denied a state request to hold up the underlying lawsuit while the injunction is appealed, although the judge predicted that the case eventually could wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court...

Quote:

Plaintiff Kevin Stormans, a co-owner of the Stormans Inc. family grocery business in Olympia, was relieved after the hearing. "The Constitution tells me that I should have the ability to practice what I believe is right," Stormans said...
Karen Cooper, director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington, said she was disappointed by the ruling but not surprised. "Patient access to appropriate care should not be undermined by personal, nonmedical judgments," Cooper said.

(more of the story): Judge again rules druggists can deny morning-after pill

I will state for the record here, that I have had dealings with NARAL. I got signed up for their news letter through some other site and they continuously send inflammatory messages about my rights being taken away for one reason or another. Just like a GOP newsletter I also receive. LOL

But the drug company that makes this pill also has a stake in this-let's not forget.
Hhhhmmm...Wonder who funds NARAL.
No.
I don't want to know.
I have other more important things to fill my head with today.
(Like crochet patterns.

)

fxashun · #28 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 10:29 AM

From the Wal-Mart link...
Wal-Mart to Begin Dispensing "Morning After" Pill This Week
However, it remains to be seen whether Plan B will actually be available at Wal-Mart pharmacies. The company says it will allow pharmacists who object to the pills for personal reasons to refuse to dispense them, sending customers elsewhere.

foundit66 · #29 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Baron

I think that’s kinda the point. There are pharmacists that don’t want to be abortionists or take any part in an abortion. And in America, I think that Pharmacists should have the right to decide that for themselves.

Should Muslim surgeons be able to decide whether or not they get to wash their hands?

And the point of Mikeyy's post was that if they can't handle the job of the pharmacist, including giving out drugs for things they don't want to, then they shouldn't do the job in the first place.

This makes as much sense as a Jewish man fighting for his food quality job at a ham plant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Baron

I really don’t think that any analogies does this justice as I really don’t think anything else compares.

Quite the dodge you got there.

Are you sure that the reason it doesn't compare is that it's YOUR interests and not somebody elses?

The Baron · #30 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 06:53 PM

"However, it remains to be seen whether Plan B will actually be available at Wal-Mart pharmacies. The company says it will allow pharmacists who object to the pills for personal reasons to refuse to dispense them, sending customers elsewhere." - fxashun

Good for Wal-Mart!

It's nice of them to allow adults to make adult-decisions for themselves.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to The Baron For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos, marylouc

The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos