I am Truly Disturbed

[esskreemr]

Why?

Because if you decide to wear a tin foil hat, it doesn't affect me.


[quote]
Again, why?
[quote]

It is closer because you analogy only affected you. The analogy I gave involved your personal convictions affecting your performance as a licensed professional.

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

That could be argued (probably has) in another thread that will take months or years to die in bitter unresolved angst...

[achilleus]

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.

Acne isn't always 'purely cosmetic.' It can lead to serious skin problems, be painful, and make it difficult to succeed in certain lines of work (business, sales, etc...)

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

In some cases, there is no alternative, and in other cases there are, but the pill is the most effective way to treat the problem. Thus, even if there are alternative methods, does not make the pill superfluous.

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.

None of the prescriptions I've seen written detail why the medication is needed. Merely that it's been prescribed by a doctor.

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

And it's not up to a pharmacist to not allow the patient access to neccessary meds.

[Inquartata]

Yes.

Well, at least you're consistent.

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).

I'm not talking about "findings", whatever that means. I'm talking about refusing to participate directly and personally in a physician-assisted suicide. Should doctors---all of them---be required, forced or pressured into assisting suicides, where lawful, despite their personal moral objections to the practice?

And again, should they also be required, forced or pressured to conduct executions by lethal injection when asked by their "client", the state? Despite moral objections to providing poisons to healthy patients? Or could they demur without incurring umbrage?

[Inquartata]

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.

Yes, that bears all of the hallmarks of the Love Generation. Ohhhh waow, man....like, heavy....yer beautiful, Hippocrates, I mean it man...

[Inquartata]

A doctor has a right to refuse medical procedures with which he has moral problems.

Ah. Why is he different?

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,

So you feel comfortable letting your judgement of the situation override his? Why are we to accept your opinion that it's not an "immoral problem", and reject his? How do you force your view onto another?

[Inquartata]

Because if you decide to wear a tin foil hat, it doesn't affect me.

How do you know? Perhaps I am the only thing standing between Earth ( including you ) and alien enslavement!

It is closer because you analogy only affected you. The analogy I gave involved your personal convictions affecting your performance as a licensed professional.

OK.

I'm a painter. Tom come to me to commission a mural for his living room, consisting of a depiction of a pedophiliac orgy. I refuse out of moral repugnance. Am I reprehensible, and will you argue that I have an obligation to give the paying customer anything he wants whatever my own scruples?

That could be argued (probably has) in another thread that will take months or years to die in bitter unresolved angst...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[dunastor]

Ah. Why is he different?

One could argue that there is no difference, but I see a difference between a doctor performing a procedure and a pharmacist selling drugs.

So you feel comfortable letting your judgement of the situation override his? Why are we to accept your opinion that it's not an "immoral problem", and reject his? How do you force your view onto another?

The pharmacist started it....

[Philistine]

Well, at least you're consistent.

The hobgoblin of small minds, and all that....

I'm not talking about "findings", whatever that means. I'm talking about refusing to participate directly and personally in a physician-assisted suicide. Should doctors---all of them---be required, forced or pressured into assisting suicides, where lawful, despite their personal moral objections to the practice?

Well, not all doctors. A dermotologist, for instance.... But to the extent the law is changed and a class of doctors have the ability to allow it, yes, I think the doctor should be subject to firing by his employer if he refuses to comply with the patient's wishes. It is something that should be made clear at the start of the employment relation if the doctor has strong feelings on the matter (or when the law or his morality changes, as the case may be).

And again, should they also be required, forced or pressured to conduct executions by lethal injection when asked by their "client", the state? Despite moral objections to providing poisons to healthy patients? Or could they demur without incurring umbrage?

Again, yes. I think the prison doctor should be subject to firing if he refuses to be involved in an execution. Of course, I also think that his potential to be involved in execution should be communicated to him when he is hired.

In all these cases, I'm not arguing that the doctor (or pharmacist) SHOULD be fired. In most cases, particularly where the refusal does not result in an inability or delay of the patient getting the service, I think the better practice is to not fire them. However, I don't think that the law should protect their moral stand.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

The hobgoblin of small minds, and all that....

But that's a foolish consistency...

I think the doctor should be subject to firing by his employer if he refuses to comply with the patient's wishes. It is something that should be made clear at the start of the employment relation if the doctor has strong feelings on the matter (or when the law or his morality changes, as the case may be).

And what of doctors in private practice or who are their own employers? Are they to fire themselves?

I think the prison doctor should be subject to firing if he refuses to be involved in an execution.

So if the State comes to a doctor---any doctor---and requests his services in this regard ( as the patient just walked into that pharmacy and requested the pharmacist's service ) he should be unable to refuse to follow his conscience?

I don't think that the law should protect their moral stand.

--Philistine

Well, I don't think it should, either. But the point is, neither should it preempt that choice, or sanction the "wrong" one...the "wrong" one being decided by those holding the contrary opinion.

I respect your position on this issue, I just don't see why it ought to be the default one...

[esskreemr]

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?

Let's follow that same logic. I'm a vegetarian, in addition, I believe that the overconsumption of sugar, processed flour, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, saturated fats, deep-fried foods and a plethora of other consumables is bad for you and could lead to your eventual demise. I get a job at "Buck's House O' Ribs and Wings". I refuse to sell the customers anything on the menu. Should the law protect my "right to refuse service based on moral grounds?"

[Inquartata]

Once again, I am not advocating that the law "protect" anything. We've had entirely too much of the law protecting certain moral choices over others. At the same time I don't think it should be forcing people to act in contravention of their consciences, either. Let the market sort things out, not the courts or the legislatures.

[dunastor]

I think the market can only sort things out within the boundaries given to it by the legislature.... It cannot create its own boundaries, that's what the legislature is for.

[esskreemr]

I'm a painter. Tom come to me to commission a mural for his living room, consisting of a depiction of a pedophiliac orgy. I refuse out of moral repugnance. Am I reprehensible, and will you argue that I have an obligation to give the paying customer anything he wants whatever my own scruples?

I wasn't aware that modern building codes require the painting of a depiction of a pedophiliac orgy under any circumstance regardless of rather or not the painter is licensed.

There have been studies linking high consumption of caffeine with increased chance of miscarriages.

When potatoes are exposed to light, their surfaces can turn green from the production of chlorophyll. This is accompanied by the formation of solanine which is toxic in high doses. The human body converts solanine into a poison called solanidine which has caused spontaneous abortions in lab animals.

Having an alcoholic drink twice weekly doubled the risk of losing normal babies in one study; drinking alcohol every day tripled the risk of such miscarriages.

Smoking increases the risk of losing a genetically normal baby. One study showed that women who smoked more than 14 cigarettes a day were about twice as likely to miscarry, regardless of their age or use of alcoholic beverages. The risk of losing a pregnancy increases with the number of cigarettes a woman smokes. On the other hand, giving up smoking at any time during the pregnancy will benefit the baby. Since passive smoke is also dangerous, it's wisest if no one in your household smokes during the pregnancy.

The list goes on and on. Should the pharmacist (and/or cashier) be allowed to refuse these substances to all women? Perhaps they should be allowed to require certified pregnancy test results before every sale.

[lochinvar]

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

Really? I thought it a well-worded explanation of the position, and not absurd at all. A bit overly wordy, perhaps, but not enough to render it difficult to follow.

Let's change the scenario and see where we get; if the model is universal, then it should fit no matter the situation.

You are a hardware store clerk, and a man comes in and asks you to sell him a box of ammunition. You know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this man is going to use it to kill someone. Are you morally and legally obligated to sell him the ammunition, or is it enough to say, "My conscience doesn't allow me to sell it to you, but I will give it to this other clerk who will."?

Here is the key point: In the minds of some, birth control = murder. (Agree with them or not, this is the fact. Facts can't be argued away, they can only be accommodated.) Immanuel Kant aside, we are all pretty much agreed that a person is morally obligated to obstruct any action that he/she knows will lead to a murder.

As Inquartata says, it's a sticky problem.

[Philistine]

Once again, I am not advocating that the law "protect" anything. We've had entirely too much of the law protecting certain moral choices over others. At the same time I don't think it should be forcing people to act in contravention of their consciences, either. Let the market sort things out, not the courts or the legislatures.

Then I'm not sure I understand your position here. What you said appears to be my position as well.

It seems that the reports are of laws which prevent a pharmacist from being fired if he refuses to fill a prescription on grounds of his own consciense. From your answer--you appear to oppose this type law??

I'm not aware of the contrary--the state punishing pharmacists who chose not to fill a prescription based on their conscience. And I would oppose any such law as well (so long as the refusal to serve is not based on race, religion, sex, etc.--which is currently illegal).

The only "force" being used on pharmacists, as I understand it--is the force of the market.

--Philistine

[CutLass]

Really? I thought it a well-worded explanation of the position, and not absurd at all. A bit overly wordy, perhaps, but not enough to render it difficult to follow.

Let's change the scenario and see where we get; if the model is universal, then it should fit no matter the situation.

You are a hardware store clerk, and a man comes in and asks you to sell him a box of ammunition. You know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this man is going to use it to kill someone. Are you morally and legally obligated to sell him the ammunition, or is it enough to say, "My conscience doesn't allow me to sell it to you, but I will give it to this other clerk who will."?

Here is the key point: In the minds of some, birth control = murder. (Agree with them or not, this is the fact. Facts can't be argued away, they can only be accommodated.) Immanuel Kant aside, we are all pretty much agreed that a person is morally obligated to obstruct any action that he/she knows will lead to a murder.

As Inquartata says, it's a sticky problem.

Back to the issue Locko.
The topic pharmacists and their employment obligation to provide LEGAL medication, as prescribed my a licensed medical professional, to treat a medical condition and whether the federal government should intervene to protect their jobs for them. IMO for these fellows to keep their professional positions, they better do what they are hired to do.

[esskreemr]

Once again, I am not advocating that the law "protect" anything. We've had entirely too much of the law protecting certain moral choices over others. At the same time I don't think it should be forcing people to act in contravention of their consciences, either. Let the market sort things out, not the courts or the legislatures.

I'll agree with that for the most part.

Should professional organizations be allowed to enforce standards amongst their members as a requirement for membership?

[lochinvar]

Back to the issue Locko.
The topic pharmacists and their employment obligation to provide LEGAL medication, as prescribed my a licensed medical professional, to treat a medical condition and whether the federal government should intervene to protect their jobs for them. IMO for these fellows to keep their professional positions, they better do what they are hired to do.

My analogy is squarely on topic, Cutlass.

Pharmacists have an employment obligation (your words, not mine) to sell legal medication.
Hardware clerks have an employment obligation to sell legal ammunition.

In both cases, the sale will result in a murder in the eyes of the person doing the selling; therefore, the seller refuses to sell.

In the first instance, many on this board decry the seller as miscreant for not selling the item. Would they still find the seller's action reprehensible in the second case?

So the real question is: Should the government intervene to protect the jobs of people who follow their conscience? This is, I believe, the question Inquartata has been arguing. I don't know what question some of the others have been arguing.

I agree the issue of the pharmacist is less straightforward, inasmuch as--as you point out--he/she is dispensing medication at the direction of another health-care professional, i.e., a doctor.

The pharmacist cannot know why the doctor is prescribing the medication in question--in this case, birth control pills--unless he/she actually contacts the physician and asks. However, Ockham's Razor dictates the overwhelming likelihood that the medication is being used to prevent or terminate conception. (There are other applications for these drugs, but they pale to insignificance in number when compared to the birth control application.)

And even if the drug is prescribed for some other reason, that doesn't thereby render the drug less fatal to any potential child involved. (And remember, fertilized egg = child in this person's mind.)

Again, most of us would baulk at condemning someone for refusing to sell a comodity that has a high likelihood of resulting in the death of others. A bartender refusing to serve a drunk is one obvious example.

No, the question is much broader than the narrow strictures you seem to want to confine it to.

[lochinvar]

(snip)For some absolutely crazy reason the raving right and Christian lunatic have never tolerated birth control or even sex education.

Potentially a Threadjack, but I wanted to comment on this.

The bottom line is that "the raving right and Christian lunatic[s]" are not really "pro-life", but rather "anti-sex". That's it in a nutshell.

They oppose condoms, birth control pills, "morning after" pills, family planning counseling and any other thing which might render sex possible without conception. This is because they fear that the reasonable assurance that one can have sex without the consequence of pregnancy will encourage promiscuity. Anything that even hints at being able to prevent conception is merely the first step on the slippery slope that leads to an indescriminant riot of copulation in the streets.

Sex=evil, and by extension birth control=evil because it encourages sex.

Why they think sex = evil is beyond me, but there it is.

[Soldier]

It isn't "sex = evil", it is that many (generally the religious and conservative) view sex outside of marriage as immoral.