I am Truly Disturbed

[Maeve_Mari]

i mentioned this in the abortion thread a while back:
bush has been pushing anti-birth control legislation, including condoms. i would not be suprised to see BC go with roe v wade, if it happens.

That's what they said has been at the root of it all along. They have never supported Planned Parenthood - even when the counseling and services weren't abortion topics. For some absolutely crazy reason the raving right and Christian lunatic have never tolerated birth control or even sex education.

[darius]

How are they asking the gov. to intervene?

From the article:
Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

Sounds like government intervention to me. I understand not wanting to prescribe something for your own moral reasons, but forcing it upon others is incorrect. Pharmacists are there to supply drugs which doctors prescribe.

But, aha! A compromise position! More from the article:
The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

Now, here's what the Pharmacists for Life International say:
Q. If a pharmacist objects to dispensing, say, an OC/MAP he knows is abortifacient, is he obliged to refer that client to someone else?

A. A pharmacist by virtue of properly understood conscience cannot be licitly compelled to cooperate in such a fashion with what he knows will result in a chemical abortion and, hence, a dead baby. Such activity is called material cooperation. Further, it is not an inconvenience to refuse to refer such a client since the pharmacist is doing the woman and her preborn child a favor in terms of physical and spiritual health.

Material cooperation with such an evil can never be licit even if it may be lawful, as it is in today's society. In fact, pharmacists aware of the evil nature of such a scenario would have a duty as a pharmacist and a person not to cooperate in such an evil even under pain of serious adverse ramifications. Some authors, hiding their publicly stated support for any and all baby killing, have erroneously stated shameful opinions which equivocate on the rights of conscience and thus claim a pharmacist may have a right of conscience, but if all else fails, he must cooperate with the evil in our example. Such thinking shows the irrational absurdity and confusion in the minds of those who adhere to such ideas.

Yow.

Wait, shouldn't the decision of moral/immoral prescriptions lie in the doctor-patient relationship? I'm not a great expert on reproductive planning (since we've created a culture where women are mostly responsible for that), but I know people who were prescribed the pill years before they were sexually active, to combat nasty cases of cramps and such.

Any zealots out there who can tell me why that's immoral, if no babies are actually being harmed?

darius

[Inquartata]

You know, I'm pro-choice and pro-BC myself, but I don't really get the view that those who aren't are "crazy" or "stupid". Just because someone holds a differing opinion, whether founded in religion or philosophy, does not make them ignorant or idiots.

As to this particular issue, there may be a slippery slope from this to pharmacists refusing to issue insulin to a diabetic because his name has turned up on a sex offender registry, or asthma inhalants to a doctor who performs abortion. But such an inevitable progression hasn't been demonstrated---or even its likelihood. In the end, incidents like this will lose business for that pharmacist, and not just from a few customers: word of mouth is powerful. Other pharmacists will get that business instead, and eventually competition will drive the first one out of business. The market will solve the problem.

[Schiavona]

Sadly, the "prayer method" doesn't work very well when it comes to preventing pregnancies

If it did there'd be a lot less people around

[Gav]

A. A pharmacist by virtue of properly understood conscience cannot be licitly compelled to cooperate in such a fashion with what he knows will result in a chemical abortion and, hence, a dead baby. Such activity is called material cooperation. Further, it is not an inconvenience to refuse to refer such a client since the pharmacist is doing the woman and her preborn child a favor in terms of physical and spiritual health.

Material cooperation with such an evil can never be licit even if it may be lawful, as it is in today's society. In fact, pharmacists aware of the evil nature of such a scenario would have a duty as a pharmacist and a person not to cooperate in such an evil even under pain of serious adverse ramifications. Some authors, hiding their publicly stated support for any and all baby killing, have erroneously stated shameful opinions which equivocate on the rights of conscience and thus claim a pharmacist may have a right of conscience, but if all else fails, he must cooperate with the evil in our example. Such thinking shows the irrational absurdity and confusion in the minds of those who adhere to such ideas.

It's absurdity aside, that has to be one the worst written paragraphs that it has been my displeasure to read.

[Louweasel]

All I can bring myself to say on this subject is

*screams* AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGHH!!!!!!! !

That is UNBELIEVABLE! It's HORRIFIC! I am APPALLED!

This is something you would expect to read about a middle-eastern theocracy with a lot of women's equality problems - not america!

*bares weaselly teeth in rage*

[Inquartata]

Quick, Farnsworth! The tranquilizer dart rifle! We have a weasel rampage on our hands!

No, sir, don't you remember? We can't get animal tranquilizers any more, the pharmacists all refuse to enable animal cruelty!

Then run, Farnsworth! Run for your very life! No, no, you fool! Not AHEAD of me!

[Louweasel]

Just because someone holds a differing opinion, whether founded in religion or philosophy, does not make them ignorant or idiots.

True. But abusing their position of power as a dispenser of drugs to force this opinion onto somebody who does not share it, thereby having a significant impact on their health and lifestyle, DOES make them reprehensible.

They can think what they like and apply it to their own lives, that is their prerogative. But stuffing it down the throats of others, who are attending to their own lifestyle and health needs legally, and according to proper procedure, is unacceptable in a modern and liberated society.

As for both refusing to honour the prescription AND refusing to hand it back to the customer or to another pharmacist, I would argue that is theft. The pharmacist should only have possession of a prescription in order to provide its requirements. Otherwise retaining it is surely stealing from the customer?

[xcr]

Pharmisits are not supposed to provide whatever a doctor prescribs without consideration. They are supposed to be the experts on drug inteaction and suchlike, and act accordinly. This is why on-line pharmacys are not necessaraly a good idea.

This does not fall under the above, however. I dont think special gvernment protection is in order, but also do not think that a pharmicist should be required to provide for 'chemicial aborition', either in provision of the drug or referal. However they should not be able to keep the perscription sheet in such a situation.

[Inquartata]

But abusing their position of power as a dispenser of drugs to force this opinion onto somebody who does not share it, thereby having a significant impact on their health and lifestyle, DOES make them reprehensible.

They can think what they like and apply it to their own lives, that is their prerogative. But stuffing it down the throats of others, who are attending to their own lifestyle and health needs legally, and according to proper procedure, is unacceptable in a modern and liberated society.

As for both refusing to honour the prescription AND refusing to hand it back to the customer or to another pharmacist, I would argue that is theft. The pharmacist should only have possession of a prescription in order to provide its requirements. Otherwise retaining it is surely stealing from the customer?

Which is probably why they're having to enact special laws enabling it. It still won't do them any good, though, as the market is not affected by such maneuvers.

It's a bit of a vexed question. I mean, say you're standing next to someone who pulls out a gun preparatory to shooting his estranged wife. Do you act, thus interfering with his sovereign right to autonomy? Or do you let him do as he wills? As I understand it, people such as this pharmacist see no difference between the two situations. To them, in both cases to do nothing is abetting murder, or at least washing ones hands of it...

I don't quite get how the pill is quite the same thing as murder, myself, but apparently to some of the more zealous sorts it is. And so believing, how is society to tell them they may not act on their convictions, so long as they commit no crimes? ( The theft angle is an interesting one. )

It's a tough issue.

[Gav]

XCR:

What has:

Pharmisits are not supposed to provide whatever a doctor prescribs without consideration. They are supposed to be the experts on drug inteaction and suchlike, and act accordinly.

Got to do with

however. I dont think special gvernment protection is in order, but also do not think that a pharmicist should be required to provide for 'chemicial aborition', either in provision of the drug or referal.

Your first paragraph is correct, that is why pharmacists who are concerned with people who appear to be abusing their 'scripts (methodone addicts for example) should challenge the patient. Similarly, that is why [well, in the UK at least] good pharmacists will talk to the patient about their [the patients] concerns about the medication that they have been prescribed and also tell you how you should take it.

You also don't seem to understand, with this post, what the difference is; between the contraceptive pill and the 'morning after' pill.

[Philistine]

{snip}
I don't quite get how the pill is quite the same thing as murder, myself, but apparently to some of the more zealous sorts it is.
{snip}

It's because birth control pills do not always prevent conception, but also act as a contragestive (it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg). Thus, to some, the pill is not merely contraception, but also effectively causes an abortion.

--Philistine

[esskreemr]

Pharmisits are not supposed to provide whatever a doctor prescribs without consideration. They are supposed to be the experts on drug inteaction and suchlike, and act accordinly. This is why on-line pharmacys are not necessaraly a good idea.

This does not fall under the above, however. I dont think special gvernment protection is in order, but also do not think that a pharmicist should be required to provide for 'chemicial aborition', either in provision of the drug or referal. However they should not be able to keep the perscription sheet in such a situation.

Isn't there an inherent "understanding" that the pharmacist, and any other health care provider, will act in the best interest of the patient based on their knowledge of drug interaction? Perhaps by law the pharmacist should be required to display a warning that "The dispensation of medication from this pharmacist will be influenced by his/her moral, ethical, and religious convictions." How long do you think that they will retain their job?

As for refusing to give the customer their perscription back, a couple of multi-million dollar lawsuits from missed medication will persuade pharmacies to be a little more careful about the wackos they hire.

[dunastor]

It's because birth control pills do not always prevent conception, but also act as a contragestive (it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg). Thus, to some, the pill is not merely contraception, but also effectively causes an abortion.

I do not think the prevention of implantation of a zygote is the definition of abortion....

[Philistine]

I do not think the prevention of implantation of a zygote is the definition of abortion....

Nor do I.

But some people do.

--Philistine

[esskreemr]

I do not think the prevention of implantation of a zygote is the definition of abortion....

There are people who believe that masturbation is a form of abortion.

[achilleus]

I also wonder what happens in the smaller towns, when the only pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for something like the pill, and then spreads word in the town about how immoral the person is.

It's just wrong. All of it.

[dunastor]

There are people who believe that masturbation is a form of abortion.

That's just medically impossible..

I wish people would stop making this weird stuff up...

[S. Hunter]

I also wonder what happens in the smaller towns, when the only pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for something like the pill, and then spreads word in the town about how immoral the person is.

It amazes me how stupid, religously bigoted, and just generally evil some people think those who live in the south or a small town are. I live in a small western PA town, and we all have our equal share of *****s, gays and druggies. Its not like we tie then to a cross and make them repent - They are generally just left to their own devices. Half the people here are single parents, and some don't know who the fathers are. We don't stone them, and I'm sorta sick of this bashing of anything thats not the urban lifestyle.

[esskreemr]

That's just medically impossible..

I wish people would stop making this weird stuff up...

Actually, I should probably clarify that before Inq boots his computer up:

There are people who equate ejaculation with abortion.