I am Truly Disturbed

[Soldier]

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.

And, actually, are forbidden to take up arms.

[Inquartata]

People take these pills for other reasons than just birth control - you yourself cited one example.

But not one involving "illness", really. Purely cosmetological, that.

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...

I daresay the answer to that would be: then don't have sex....

[Inquartata]

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.

At this I can but shrug and lift my palms. My comment did not speak to the coherence of the beliefs themselves, but on the idea of acting on them---again, so long as no laws are being transgressed.

Let us say that I believe that aliens are trying to control my thoughts remotely, and that I can balk them by lining my room with aluminum foil. Nutty as a fruitcake, sure, but on what legitimate grounds do you tell me I may not do it, in my own home, on my own account? Why does your belief trump mine, and force me to behave according to yours? You are setting yourself up to act in just the way you attack the pharmacist from doing: you would impose your idea of propriety on me. No?

And I think we all know just how angry certain messianic and moralistic persons can get.

Well, certain of us seem to need such persons around, though. Apparently they give us someone to whom we can feel superior.

I'm not sure if you're advocating a completely free market system or not.

I am not.

But the original poster was disgusted by the new laws that indicate that access to birth control is not a right.

We seem to have some awfully generous definitions of the term "right" going on here...if one needs a prescription to exercise a right, is it really a right?

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.

You really think those are close analogies? Rat poison and the Pill?

[Gav]

But not one involving "illness", really. Purely cosmetological, that.

I suppose I'll have to refer you to someone else posts where some more reasons were listed...

I daresay the answer to that would be: then don't have sex....

It's not that easy - and you know it.

If that is the case: Why should these pharmacists dictate to people whether they should have sex? (seeing as you are extending outside of the original question of this tread)

[achilleus]

But not one involving "illness", really. Purely cosmetological, that.

Previously posted:

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!

I would add that I've known a number of girls and women prescribed the pill for some of the medical reasons above, not cosmetic reasons.

In addition, I've known some women that were prescribed the pill due to other medication they were taking, due to the medication seriously affecting the fetus.. In one case, the Dr. said that under state law, they were not allowed to give the medication without a waiver and prescribing the pill.

I daresay the answer to that would be: then don't have sex....

I would daresay the answer to a pharmacist who doesn't want to contradict their moral values would be a change in profession.

[esskreemr]

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

I still love the way you type your Es and As...

[esskreemr]

At this I can but shrug and lift my palms. My comment did not speak to the coherence of the beliefs themselves, but on the idea of acting on them---again, so long as no laws are being transgressed.

Let us say that I believe that aliens are trying to control my thoughts remotely, and that I can balk them by lining my room with aluminum foil. Nutty as a fruitcake, sure, but on what legitimate grounds do you tell me I may not do it, in my own home, on my own account? Why does your belief trump mine, and force me to behave according to yours? You are setting yourself up to act in just the way you attack the pharmacist from doing: you would impose your idea of propriety on me. No?

?!?!

Your analogy is waaaay off base.


A closer analogy would be for me to contract you to roof my house. I have sought you out because there is damage to the shingles on my house. I looked in the yellow pages and looked for licensed contractors who do roof repair. I have asked you for asphalt singles. You have decided to shingle my house with tin foil to keep the aliens from "controlling my mind". While getting the tin foil replaced, it rains. The subsequent flooding of my house has caused significant damage.

Should I be forced to pay for the subsequent damage because, based on credentials, I sought out a certified professional with an expectation that they would adhere to the building codes? Your "beliefs" interfered with the proper roof replacement. Your faith based actions have caused me grievous harm.

We seem to have some awfully generous definitions of the term "right" going on here...if one needs a prescription to exercise a right, is it really a right?

Well, we need permits to exercise some of our "right to free speech", so yeah sure...

[Allez]

Well, certain of us seem to need such persons around, though. Apparently they give us someone to whom we can feel superior.

You're self-admittedly pro-BC so I suppose that you didn't take my comments personally. As far as inferring that I somehow take pleasure in there being crazies in the world - HUH? I would be a much happier individual with less of these walking time-bombs around. They scare me. Homeless on street with big sticks can be scary too, but these crazies are actually affecting policy! I can defend myself on the street, but am I being defended from crazies in the government?

You really think those are close analogies? Rat poison and the Pill?

My comment was referring to impacts of the policy. If you create a situation where people are prohibited from purchasing BC (either legally, socially or otherwise) then there will be other markets for it that will develop as you yourself noted. Unfortunately, these markets may not be regulated as the markets I noted were not. Those lead to plenty of deaths. These imagined ones could in this case.

[Inquartata]

It's not that easy - and you know it.

Which part of "Devil's advocate" don't you understand?

Like I said, I am not agreeing with their reasoning, or the process by whicch they arrive at their beliefs. But they are their beliefs, and I just question our right to tell them that they may not follow the dictates of their consciences. If there were crimes being committe in the name of personal beliefs, it would be another matter. But we foist our own beliefs on others every day, in every walk of life. We make choices that affect others, based on our own private views and wishes. How do we pick and choose which views and wishes are to be prohibited? On the basis of our contervailing views and wishes only?

[Inquartata]

I would add that I've known a number of girls and women prescribed the pill for some of the medical reasons above, not cosmetic reasons.

A) The example I gave---the one specific example---was and is purely cosmetic. I never intimated that it should be extrapolated to all possible examples.

B) Are there alternative treatments for those afflictions? If so the Pill is superfluous for those indications...

In addition, I've known some women that were prescribed the pill due to other medication they were taking, due to the medication seriously affecting the fetus.. In one case, the Dr. said that under state law, they were not allowed to give the medication without a waiver and prescribing the pill.

I suspect that a pharmacist would be aware of such specific courses of treatment. There is no sign in the article detailing the incident that such was involved.

I would daresay the answer to a pharmacist who doesn't want to contradict their moral values would be a change in profession.

Indeed, but again, it is not up to society to FORCE such a change, is it?

[Inquartata]

Your analogy is waaaay off base.

Why?

A closer analogy would be for me to contract you to roof my house.

Again, why?

Well, we need permits to exercise some of our "right to free speech", so yeah sure...

In this case one needs a "permit" to exercise ANY of the supposed "right". Sounds very little like a right to me...

[Inquartata]

You're self-admittedly pro-BC so I suppose that you didn't take my comments personally.

No. But again, it's not the issue itself that I'm on about: it's the matter of judging and sanctioning others on the basis of their holding beliefs contrary to ours. To scold someone for following his conscience, much less to aver that he ought to be prohibited rom doing so, just strikes me as odd in a society so big on choice and personal values...

As far as inferring that I somehow take pleasure in there being crazies in the world - HUH?

I said that where? Your inferences are your own business; I am only responsible for the actual statements I make, not for how you wish to interpret them. I was responding to a somewhat supercilious remark about "messianic and moralistic" people, noting that they, like others whose opinions are looked down upon as crude, uncouth or illogical tend to get derided---which has the effect of making the derider feel superior for holding the opposite, more "enlightened" views. You have to look no farther for evidence that some look down on religious-based opinions than the scornful epithet "Jesusland" for the states which irrationally chose to vote for the obvious "wrong" Presidential candidate...

I would be a much happier individual with less of these walking time-bombs around.

The defense rests.

I can defend myself on the street, but am I being defended from crazies in the government?

You mean, like Senators Kerry and Kennedy and Clinton and Shumer and Feinstein and Boxer and....

If you create a situation where people are prohibited from purchasing BC (either legally, socially or otherwise) then there will be other markets for it that will develop as you yourself noted.

Fine, but when did we start talking about prohibiting BC or the Pill? I thought we were talking about the legitimacy of forbidding or sanctioning people who chose, of their own accords, not to truck with these things---who are making choices in line with their own consciences...

[dunastor]

Like I said, pharmacists are there to provide a service to the public. To withhold this service doesn't do justice to his own profession, and to actively keep patients from purchasing drugs is IMHO unjustified.
It would be another matter if, with every "Pill" they sold, they'd give oral commentary or give away some flyer about why it would be better to use other methods of contraception, or none at all.

And about the argument that we all affect other people with our own beliefs... I'm open to an argument about where to draw the line

[Inquartata]

Like I said, pharmacists are there to provide a service to the public.

Sorry, but no. They are not public servants. They are private business people. They are regulated, as is almost every profession these days, from barbers to cab drivers to nuclear physicists. But they are not "there to provide a service to the public". That's your opinion you're forcing on them, not generally accepted reality. They are there to do a job, for which they are paid. If a restaurant owner can choose not to serve people without shirts, or an airline not to carry people on watchlists, why can other business people not set conditions on whom they will serve and how?

The Oath

By Hippocrates

Written 400 B.C.E

Translated by Francis Adams

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

[dunastor]

I didn't think that pharmacists are a public servant in the common sense of the word, but I do still think that they are a little less free in chosing who to help or not than restaurant owners.

It would be really weird for an owner of a steak house to refuse very polite guests to serve a steak, because he doesn't condone killing cows.

And as for the Hippocratic oath, I know that one too, and I'm sorry to say it only applies to medical doctors, not pharmacists. Besides, the pessary part (together with some other parts) is outdated, and the oath MD's are taking these days is a modernized version...

[Philistine]

Sorry, but no. They are not public servants.
{snip}
If a restaurant owner can choose not to serve people without shirts, or an airline not to carry people on watchlists, why can other business people not set conditions on whom they will serve and how?

Because pharmacists are given a monopoly on dispensing drugs by the state. There is no alternative--and because of that, they are required to comply with the regulations of the state, and (at least in most states) can not decide who they will and won't serve without the potential of being fired by their employer.

The Oath

By Hippocrates
{snip}

Actually, the Pharmacist's oath (yes, they have one ):

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.

I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

I turned up this

The American Pharmacists Association maintains a two-part policy. "The pharmacist has the right to conscience, and the patient has the right to legally prescribed medication," says spokesman Michael Stewart. A pharmacist who objects to dispensing a particular medication must tell an employer. If one pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription on grounds of conscience, another pharmacist must do it. Some customers may be referred to another pharmacy. Other prescriptions may be delivered by mail.

"In the great majority of cases, the pharmacist's right to conscience is exercised appropriately and seamlessly, so the patient is not even aware that the pharmacist has exercised that right," Mr. Stewart says. "A pharmacist can say, 'Let me get Bob for you, ma'am,' and that's the end of that."

from here

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0426/p11s01-usju.html


The article makes another point of which I had not thought: would you find the pharmacist's action as objectionable if he had refused to fill a prescription for a drug intended to be used in euthanizing a terminal patient? How about the drugs used for lethal-injection capital punishment? Would a doctor who refused to assist in either euthanasia or a sanctioned-by-law execution be in breach of his duty to "serve the public"? Or is it only the hot button issue of "choice" which rings the alarums?

[Philistine]

would you find the pharmacist's action as objectionable if he had refused to fill a prescription for a drug intended to be used in euthanizing a terminal patient?

Yes.

How about the drugs used for lethal-injection capital punishment? Would a doctor who refused to assist in either euthanasia or a sanctioned-by-law execution be in breach of his duty to "serve the public"?

I don't think the "patient" in the execution case would complain.....

In the euthanasia case--to the extent it is illegal currently in most places in the US--I don't have a problem with complete refusal. To the extent it becomes legal--then potentially I see a problem if a person's physician refuses to make a finding which is warranted which would lead to euthanasia (e.g. the condition is terminal and would result in death in less than 6 months).

To the extent, as the article says, the process is seamless--I have no problem with it. To the extent, as the initial article discussed, patients are having an interruption in their medication or being met with abuse from the pharmacists--I do have a problem with it--and feel those pharmacists should be fired (if their employer feels they should be)--not because of their beliefs, but because of their abuse of their position in going beyond refusing to give out the medice to actually working to hinder a person getting medication.

Or is it only the hot button issue of "choice" which rings the alarums?

Pretty much any hot buttons will set off the alarms.

--Philistine

[esskreemr]

The Modern Hippocratic Oath:
Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

[dunastor]

would you find the pharmacist's action as objectionable if he had refused to fill a prescription for a drug intended to be used in euthanizing a terminal patient?

Yes I would.

How about the drugs used for lethal-injection capital punishment?

Idem.

Would a doctor who refused to assist in either euthanasia or a sanctioned-by-law execution be in breach of his duty to "serve the public"?

No he wouldn't. A doctor has a right to refuse medical procedures with which he has moral problems. But on the other hand, the doctor has a duty (as the pharmacist in the quotation by Inquartata in his post above) to refer the patient to a colleague.
More important is the point of view of the problem. It's not the patient coming to the healthcare professional with an immoral problem, from which the professional leaps away with an ancient "ward against evil" sign, but it's a legitimate problem of a patient, which a conscientious professional has personal problems with, and therefor refers the patient to his colleague of whom he knows that he has no moral dilemma with said problem.
This is a more civilized way than just blatantly say in the face of your patient "I don't feel like giving your meds, deal with it".