I am Truly Disturbed

[grotto]

That's just medically impossible..

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

yes but to some the spilling of semen anywhere other than during intercoarse is a sin because it has " the seed of life" and is a potential human being. Now off to the confessional dunastor, here is your hair shirt and flogging chain, be repentent.

[achilleus]

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.

I don't think people in the south or a small town are any of those things.
I think the people in article are stupid and religously bigoted.

I read this article that describes pharmacists, acting on 'moral values', denying patients medication. Causing a person to miss a day or two of medication can be disastrous, even birth control. Many of my female friends have been prescribed the pill for medical reasons as opposed to choice.

It's wrong.

[dunastor]

Now off to the confessional dunastor, here is your hair shirt and flogging chain, be repentent.

Alas, I am unsalvagable....

[dunastor]

I read this article that describes pharmacists, acting on 'moral values', denying patients medication. Causing a person to miss a day or two of medication can be disastrous, even birth control. Many of my female friends have been prescribed the pill for medical reasons as opposed to choice.

It's wrong.

The important thing is that a pharmacist should be an educated person, and therefore should know something about the importance of medication. Most educated people also have a more differentiated opinion about religion and its moral implications in the medical world. Medicine is a pragmatic profession, and pharmacy should be too...

[mrbiggs]

yes but to some the spilling of semen anywhere other than during intercoarse is a sin because it has " the seed of life" and is a potential human being. Now off to the confessional dunastor, here is your hair shirt and flogging chain, be repentent.

This is oftentimes a misinterpretation of a passage in I think Exodus. Not far after Exodus, for sure. Basically, a guy dies, so his brother has to marry his wife (in those times), and then when his brother marries his wife, for some reason he doesn't want the widow to have children, so he....releives himself on the ground. This angered God, so the guy was severly punished somehow. Some think that it's because he spilled his stuff on the ground, but it's actually because he disobeyed God's will.

[noodle]

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timely_000775.php

[Louweasel]

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.

I don't thinkanyone is bashing the south or small towns as such - it's simply that a small town is morelikely to have only one pharmacist by definition of its smallness, so if he refuses toprovide the pill it is more troublesome than if youcan goround the corner to another chemist's. Plus, I think few wouldargue that one is less anonymous in a small town, people tend to know each other's business more and news/gossip travels faster. And if a pharmacist is arrogant enough to take someone else's business into his own hands by refusing them the pill in the belief that he is doing them a favour, can he be trusted with confidentiality? Or would he do them another "favour" by outing them as "immoral" in an effort to shame them into repentance?!

As for the south, well, it isn't called the bible belt for no reason, and it is where most of these stories seem to emanate from. Nobody is saying everyone living in the southern us states is a religious bigot, just that extremist christian practices tend to manifest themselves there a bit more than in other areas.

[Louweasel]

All together now, "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great! If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!"

[Inquartata]

Causing a person to miss a day or two of medication can be disastrous, even birth control. Many of my female friends have been prescribed the pill for medical reasons as opposed to choice.

True enough. I know one young woman who is not sexually active at this time but continues to take it because it clears up her complexion. Trivial and shallow perhaps, but unless her pharmacist is anticipating another virgin birth I cannot see how it's even birth control, much less "murder"...

But there is another issue here: how does the state get off forcing a
person---any person---to put his or her exigent beliefs in abeyance as a condition of employment when there is no crime being committed? I mean, it doesn't force conscientious objectors to fight even if they're in the military, does it?

"Best interest of the patient" is a horribly vague concept. You could drive trucks through it.

[Gav]

But there is another issue here: how does the state get off forcing a
person---any person---to put his or her exigent beliefs in abeyance as a condition of employment when there is no crime being committed? I mean, it doesn't force conscientious objectors to fight even if they're in the military, does it?

I don't think that you can compare the two. May I suggest that the definition of a conscientous objector is different than a pharmacist refusing to put his religous beliefs to one side. I would also suggest that if a pharmacist finds it morally objectionable to hand out the pill that he might be in the wrong job? Certainly a soldier who suddenly finds that he can't do his job would be advised to get another job. Really, the idea of concientous objection comes from the days of conscription where people were being forced to join the army - I would say that the state had already invaded [said objector]his liberty...

The problem here is that the pharmacist is providing a service to his community. If, he is refusing to honour 'scripts handed out by medical proffesionals, he is potentially harming his community and those patients directly. He is also imposing his beliefs on his customers - where does he "get off" on that?

Inq, I have more faith [ha ha ha] in your argument that customers would go elsewhere - thus sorting out the ethical question through the market.

[Inquartata]

I don't think that you can compare the two. May I suggest that the definition of a conscientous objector is different than a pharmacist refusing to put his religous beliefs to one side.

You can certainly suggest it, but you'll have also to support it if you wish to vitiate the analogy. Why are the two incomparable?

A pharmacist in private practice is not a public servant, but a businessman. On what grounds does the State justify interference in his conducting his business as he sees fit as long as he is complying with the law? If there is a law mandating that he serve all customers regardless of his personal inclinations, that is one thing---but I do not think such laws exist beyond the antidiscrimination statutes. In which case, why can he not follow his beliefs?

I would also suggest that if a pharmacist finds it morally objectionable to hand out the pill that he might be in the wrong job?

Again this is a perfectly reasonable view, but---how does it follow that he may be forced to find another profession? Why does our opinion of his qualifications or lack thereof, based on OUR beliefs about how he ought to behave, override HIS belief to the contrary?

Certainly a soldier who suddenly finds that he can't do his job would be advised to get another job.

However, one who is in the service may still apply for and be granted that status---and NOT be forced out before his enlistment ends.

Chaplains, too, be it noted, have this status, because of their beliefs, and yet serve full careers in the military. They are soldiers, yet they are not required to take up arms. The only reason for the latter are their creeds.

The problem here is that the pharmacist is providing a service to his community. If, he is refusing to honour 'scripts handed out by medical proffesionals, he is potentially harming his community and those patients directly.

This could be applied to almost anyone. The strictly observant Jewish cabdriver who refuses to drive on the Sabbath, for instance. Certainly he is "providing a service to his community". How DARE he let his faith override the wish of another to get to the airport?

He is also imposing his beliefs on his customers - where does he "get off" on that?

I agree that it is reprehensible, but not that it should be illegal. I do not feel that the State should be permitted to start dictating which legal personal behavior is mandatory...

[Gav]

Inq, Inq, Inq ...

Tsk tsk

By breaking up my statements there you take them out of context and deny the very explanation that you are asking for. Your analogy of the cab driver is also not pertinent as his withdrawl from service is very unlikely to result on people becoming ill - unlike pharmacists. I would argue that on the scal of things pharmacists are much higher up the scale of 'necessity' then cab drivers. In fact taking a cabbie of the road might stop some people from dying [based on those that I know].

Oh, and about your military examples - your exceptions prove the rule. Chaplains are special cases. As for those who suddenly find themselves to be conscientous objectors following enlistment .. I don't have much sympathy. Ok, so they get a nice deskjob [or whatever] until they finish their sign up but I still think that if you are in danger of finding your beliefs conflict with your chosen prefession then you have chosen the wrong profession.

[Philistine]

{snip}
But there is another issue here: how does the state get off forcing a
person---any person---to put his or her exigent beliefs in abeyance as a condition of employment when there is no crime being committed?
{snip}

Two things. The first is that Pharmacists are licensed by the state--and thus the State does have control over the requirements of the profession.

Secondly--in this case, it is not the state forcing anyone to put their beliefs in abeyance. In fact, in those states which the article talked about, the state is forcing the owner of the pharmacy to put their beliefs aside, and is preventing them from firing pharmacists who refuse to follow their instructions--and refuses to allow the free market to work.

In the vast majority of states--you refuse to serve a customer as a pharmacist, and you're likely out on the street the next day because you're losing money for the pharmacy (unless you own it, or a like-minded person does). In a few states, the state is interfering with that employment relationship.

--Philistine

[Louweasel]

I agree with Gav. If a pharmacist's beliefs prevent him from fulfilling his job properly, he should find another job. Nobody is forcing him to be a pharmacist. And there are plenty of areas in pharmacy and pharmacology that he could use his qualifications for without dispensing drugs. If you aren't prepared to do your job properly, do something else. As my mum says, if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well.

If I had a moral objection to sitting in parked cars eating doughnuts, serving courts summonses, rooting about in other people's dusty cupboards or compiling very long excel files, I would choose a different job from the one I've got.

[Inquartata]

Your analogy of the cab driver is also not pertinent as his withdrawl from service is very unlikely to result on people becoming ill - unlike pharmacists.

Uh...lack of birth control pills are going to "result in people becoming ill"?! Unless pregnancy is an illness, I don't see how...

I would argue that on the scal of things pharmacists are much higher up the scale of 'necessity' then cab drivers. In fact taking a cabbie of the road might stop some people from dying [based on those that I know].

Very droll ( also very true ). But---fallacy of irrelevant humor!

How are we to make laws that take into account "relative scales" of importance? You then have a system of legislated inequality, with laws that apply to some more than others without any foundation in culpability for an actual offense...

your exceptions prove the rule.

Tsk! Exceptions test rules. It's "prove" in the sense of "put to the
test"---like proving armour. They do not strengthen or establish a rule.

I still think that if you are in danger of finding your beliefs conflict with your chosen prefession then you have chosen the wrong profession.

So you are OK with punishing people for choosing the wrong profession?!

Ultimately it comes down to that. Holding the opinion that the behavior is wrong or bad is one thing; making your opinion law, and sanctioning those who hold varying opinions on that basis alone, is another.

[Gav]

So you are OK with punishing people for choosing the wrong profession?!

I never said they should be punished - I said that they should consider alternative employment.

I also didn't say that any given behaviour was bad, except withthin the context of this thread, of a pharmacist making a decision about someone else's well being based upon their (the pharmacists) faith.

And as for:

Uh...lack of birth control pills are going to "result in people becoming ill"?! Unless pregnancy is an illness, I don't see how...

People take these pills for other reasons than just birth control - you yourself cited one example. I would say that an unwanted pregnancy forced on someone because the dispensing pharmacist doesn't think you should take them could be classed as an illness. It's not like a 9 month prenancy has less serious consequences than a cold...

[dunastor]

As long as we're using analogies here, I've got one too.

Doctors are medical professionals, with sort of the same professional status as a pharmacist (at least IMHO).

A doctor who would refuse doing an abortion (to stay on the same subject) without referring the patient to someone other would be eligible to get sued by the patient for not providing the necessary service to his patients.

This can be extrapolated to any situation imaginable. A doctor (or pharmacist) should use his professional status to help his patients (or customers, or whatever you'd like to call it). Denying help to one of your patients leaves you open to malpractice trials. To say that you just didn't feel like helping someone because you had a religious bias doesn't really help you with that... In the very least you should always refer someone to someone who WOULD help that patient.

[Gav]

Very True dunastor - and that makes it all the more unpalatable that a pharmacist should deny a patient their script because of the pharmacists personal beliefs.

[Maeve_Mari]

People take these pills for other reasons than just birth control - you yourself cited one example. I would say that an unwanted pregnancy forced on someone because the dispensing pharmacist doesn't think you should take them could be classed as an illness. It's not like a 9 month prenancy has less serious consequences than a cold...

Birth control pills are prescribed for many purposes. The combination of estrogen and progestin have many positive health benefits for women. Most importantly the mere presence and use of birth control pills in the marketplace has resulted in the expansion of women's health issues and has led scientists in examining women's health needs - an area that had been long ignored. Many women who take the pill have fewer menstrual cramps and lighter periods. The pill also offers some protection against pelvic inflammatory disease, which often leads to infertility when left untreated.

The birth control pill offers many other benefits, including protection against:

acne
cancer of the lining of the uterus
cancer of the ovaries
ectopic pregnancy
excess body hair
iron deficiency anemia that can result from heavy menses
noncancerous breast growths
osteoporosis
ovarian cysts
premenstrual symptoms, as well as related headaches and depression (PMS)

Protection against developing cancer of the ovary or the lining of the uterus (endometrium) can last up to 30 years after stopping the pill. Protection against both of these types of cancer increases with each year of use:

Eight years of the pill use reduces the risk of endometrial cancer by up to 80 percent.

Ten years of combination pill usGetting the Right Pill reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by up to 80 percent.

Physicians have also prescribed continuous birth control pills for women who experience severe pelvic pain with their periods or who suffer from migraines linked to dips in their hormonal flow, so-called menstrual migraines. For some women, this pain is so severe that they can experience fainting and even temporary total debilitation, requiring bed rest for up to a full week!

These are valid non-birth control reasons for prescription of, and further research in, birth control pills for women.

And, there are many of us grown, responsible, professional, and moral women who really think family size doesn't have to require owning a bus to cart the children off to music lessons!
Women: Watch Out!
14-Sep-2004
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=4117

Don't take birth control for granted—there are doctors and pharmacists who want to eliminate birth control pills.
Jill McGivering writes in bbc.com that in the U.S., an increasing number of doctors and pharmacists are refusing to give women the Pill, saying it's actually a type of abortion. While mainstream medicine doesn't define it that way, some pro-life professionals do.

Dr. Cynthia Jones-Nosacek, who is a family doctor in Milwaukee, is one of these. She says, "The contraceptive pill doesn't always prevent ovulation. As often as 30% of the time, ovulation may occur and if that happens, fertilization may occur. Then there are other mechanisms that can prevent that being from surviving. It's called a chemical abortion."

Texas mother of two Julee Lacey used the Pill for nine years before her pharmacist refused to refill her prescription. She says, "She [the pharmacist] began to tell me she personally does not believe in birth control. I was a little caught off-guard and shocked…I asked her again. She said, 'No, ma'am, I don't believe in birth control. I can't help you'…I really couldn't believe she had the right to withhold my medication from me."

This year 12 states introduced bills with clauses which would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense certain drugs on moral grounds, without losing their jobs or licenses. Representative Curt Gielow says, "There was an incident where a pharmacist who worked in a retail drug store refused on conscience to fill a prescription and that individual was terminated from employment. That, I believe, set the stage for concern there might be employment discrimination opportunity here if in fact you listened to your conscience instead of doing what the boss told you to do."

Lisa Boyce of Planned Parenthood says, "They've done so much with outlawing and restricting access to abortion that they've set their sights on birth control because there's nothing else really they can do to further restrict abortion here in Wisconsin. Which is counter-intuitive because if you're against abortion in the least you'd think you would see the value in enhancing access birth control, the very means women look to preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion."

[Allez]

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...

+

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.

People do not have the right to murder. That's why it's the government's (police's) job to use all legal means to stop them. That said, if the police weren't around and I had to choose between harming the killer and doing nothing, I would harm the killer. However, I would fully accept punishment for vigilantism, because I am not an officer of the law.

But if some people are trying to connect the preventing a murderer situation with preventing a woman from getting birth control pills, then yes, I would call them either crazy or stupid. On second thought, I would call them delusional extremists with an overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness. Actually, a better term might be self-deluded proponents of the subjugation of women. But hmm...now that I think about it, crazy and stupid cut straight to the point. Of course, this is just how I think about them. I avoid using this terminology in conversation because it tends to elicit the antithesis of clear thought: anger. And I think we all know just how angry certain messianic and moralistic persons can get.

As far as the blind faith in the market economy. Well, I'm not sure if you're advocating a completely free market system or not. If that were the case, we would have markets for child pornography, arms for would-be criminals and other such nastiness. I think you would agree that the government is wholly welcome in regulating such business transactions. Thankfully, they still do in this country. But the original poster was disgusted by the new laws that indicate that access to birth control is not a right. Now I am completely ignorant of law, so I don't what sort of legislation we have on birth control right now. But I do know a little about economics and history. Situations like drinking poison during prohibition, getting rat meat in your sausage before the USDA, and dangerous operations during back-door abortions before Roe V. Wade all seem to tell me that it would be in society's best interest for government to enforce a woman's right to birth control pills. If left to itself, a free market is only as righteous as the people who engage in it.