Pope says that pharmacists should follow their morals when faced with

[zbdent]

prescriptions that contradict their religous beliefs ...

So, if we put up signs pointing out which pharmacies refuse to dispense legal prescriptions, will we get into trouble?

[toddaa]

1. Well, if that's the case, here's to more Rastafarian pharmacists

[Book Lover]

2. The pharmacist is not a priest, rabbi, minister, or counselor

S/he is a medical professional. If a pharmacist wishes to advise women on the morals of contraception, s/he should join a counseling profession.

[northernsoul]

29. more importantly, they belong to a publicly regulated and licensed profession

n/t

[Az]

3. Then they should be up front about the fact that they cannot perform the job

When they are applying for work as a pharmacist they should be up front and honest that they cannot fill all prescriptions due to their religious beliefs. This allows the employer to either avoid hiring them and placing them in a morally untenable position or they can take steps to avoid the conflict if they do choose to hire them such as having multiple pharmacists on hand.

If a person had a religious objection to putting out fires they should not be hired to work for the fire department.

[Blaze Diem]

5. My thoughts exactly. You'd think that any corporation out to make a buck

would have dispensers with varied viewpoints on this subject.
But maybe that was back in the days of true civil rights.

I am so sick of the GOP claims of holier-than-thou, & demanding they're beliefs as effing law.
Those people inspire hate.

[Zebedeo]

8. I agree with this completely

in the context of a pharmacist who is applying for a job as an employee. It would be like a Christian Scientist who objects to blood transfusions working in an ER, and refusing to provide blood transfusions. That would be grounds for firing the Christian Scientist, or never hiring her in the first place.

However, what if the pharmacist owns the drugstore? This is fairly common, still (although becoming less common every day).

Should a pharmacist who objects to prescribing an abortion pill be denied a license to operate a pharmacy? I don't see why. Why should all pharmacists be forced to carry every form of medication? If a customer wants a particular medication and it is not carried by a particular pharmacy, the customer can simply go to a different pharmacy and obtain the medication.

It seems to me that requiring every independent pharmacist to carry every form of prescription drug is akin to requiring every hardware store to carry every form of tool and fastener. Why is it any business of government to require the neighborhood hardware store to carry everything that Home Depot carries?

[Az]

9. There may be something of a licensing issue

Home Depot does not require a federal license to sell hammers. But a pharmacist is a regulated business and there may be some community requirements to receiving a license to sell. Just like a stores cannot sell alcohol to whoever they wish there may be some issue to a pharmacy being required to fill any legal prescription. I am not sure on the specifics of this but this is a reasonable guess in my opinion.

[trotsky]

10. You can't really make an argument unless you twist things around, can you?

the customer can simply go to a different pharmacy and obtain the medication

Unless they're in a small town and there is no other pharmacy. Or they live in a city without access to decent transportation and only one pharmacy within reasonable walking distance. Why would you deny comparable medical care to people who simply have the misfortune of living in geographical proximity to a religious asshole?

requiring every independent pharmacist to carry every form of prescription drug

But no one is saying that they must CARRY the drugs. Are you sure you aren't related to Chubby Checker with all that twisting you do? Pharmacists can always order drugs and have them shipped. It's absolutely crazy to think they would have to carry EVERY drug imaginable. But what is wrong with saying that pharmacists must DISPENSE all legal medication if requested by prescription?

[Zebedeo]

11. Auto parts can be ordered, as well

Would you require every independent auto mechanic to order all auto parts that are legally available?

Omaha Steaks are available via mail order. Are you going to require Joe's Butcher Shop to order Omaha Steaks for its customers.

Here's a better analogy: Cheeseburgers are legally available. Would you require the local Jewish delicatessen to serve cheeseburgers to customers who request them? What if the deli is the only food outlet within reasonable walking distance? Would you call the owner of the Jewish deli a "religious asshole" if she objected to serving cheeseburgers, on religious grounds?

[trotsky]

13. As was clearly pointed out to you by Az above,

the pharmaceutical business is a completely different situation than hardware. Or car repair. Or food. Tell me how someone who needs birth control medication to control anemia is in the same spot as someone craving a cheeseburger. What a pathetic comparison.

I'm sure you know all this, but again all you can do to argue is...

[Zebedeo]

16. Non-answer

You answered none of my questions. Here are some of them again:

Would you require the local Jewish delicatessen to serve cheeseburgers to customers who request them?

What if the deli is the only food outlet within reasonable walking distance?

Would you call the owner of the Jewish deli a "religious asshole" if she objected to serving cheeseburgers, on religious grounds?

In lieu of answering these questions, you have engaged in argument that the questions are not apposite. You are the one engaging in evasive "twisting." Please answer the questions.

[trotsky]

20. LOL your questions are red herrings.

Obviously you're beat and have nothing left. But I'll answer them anyway so you have no excuse!

No
Doesn't matter
No

Your turn! Explain how someone wanting to eat a cheeseburger is analogous to someone needing birth control pills to control anemia. Go.

[Zebedeo]

22. It is analogous

because either the cheeseburger-craver or the birth control pill shopper could easily obtain the product from another source. In the case of the birth control pills, they are available over the internet or through mail order. Mail service is so widespread that I think even you would have to admit that it is pretty much universal in these United States.

Since you wouldn't force a Jewish deli owner to sell cheeseburgers, why would you force anyone else to violate their religious beliefs?

More generally, why are you so concerned with the beliefs of other people? Why do you want to control other people's religious beliefs and practices? Are you self-aware enough to even ask yourself these questions? Are you courageous enough to answer them?

[trotsky]

23. One person's right to practice their religion ends...

where someone else's right to control their own life begins.

YOU are the one who wants to control other people, Zeb, by allowing the religious beliefs of one to override the health needs of others. You are the one flinging throwaway insults about me being "self-aware enough." Saying "they can buy them over the internet" is ridiculous. What about someone who doesn't have a computer? Not everyone does, you know! And of those who DO own a computer, not everyone can get online! And besides, what about questions you might have with the medicine? What about being able to get the medicine from a local source, so you can have some level of trust that you are getting the medicine you need at the right dose?

I am so glad you keep responding to me to further shine a light on just how horrible your conservative controlling Christian beliefs are and how you want them to override everyone else's rights.

So please, let's go on and on and on! Tell me some more about how ordering a cheeseburger is no different than obtaining life-saving medication!

[Zebedeo]

26. No computer? No problem!

The public library has them. And the library has that newfangled "information highway" thingie, too.

Really, trotsky - this argument is beneath you.

Oh, wait - - I sense another argument coming from you (it's so predictable): "But what about people who live in tiny towns that have no library? Or people that can't get to the library?"

Well, if they can't get to the library, how are they getting to the drugstore? And, as I stated in my previous post, there's always the mail. Mail goes everywhere, trotsky. Even to the tiniest town that you can invent as a rhetorical device when you have lost an argument.

And the dosage is set forth right on the label. Just as it would be if you got the pills from your local friendly pharmacist.

[trotsky]

31. Your sympathy for others who don't share your beliefs is noted.

Clearly you already know how weak the library example is, since you already tried to pre-address the flaws. You really don't understand what life is like for others, do you?

The bottom line is, Zeb, that you think the religious beliefs of one trump the rights of all others. You would force everyone else to go through hoops, and make their lives harder (and there will be some who really don't have any other option, Zeb, no matter how much you refuse to believe it), just to accommodate the theocratic desire for control in one individual.

Keep 'em coming. This is awesome. I love exposing your anti-liberal, anti-Democratic views for all to see.

[Zebedeo]

41. It's quite the opposite, trotsky

You are the one who is obsessed with controlling the religious beliefs and practices of others, even to the point of micromanaging what particular denomination and sub-denomination of Christianity to which they are permitted to adhere.

You're the only one "forcing" people to do anything. You seem to get off on making people do things that violate their religious convictions. That is a character trait you would expect to find in someone whose atheism is grounded in hatred of Christian people.

Your use of the word "theocratic" is illuminating. You brazenly equate freedom of religious practice with "theocracy." The issue we are discussing is whether a person should be forced by the government to violate their religious convictions. You say yes; I say no. You say that my position amounts to "theocracy," which is richly ironic, because you are the one advocating that the government adopt a particular religious viewpoint and force all its citizens to adhere to it. Now that's "theocracy."

[trotsky]

43. As I have made clear, but you continue to distort (as usual)...

I fully support freedom of religious practice... UNTIL said practice infringes on the rights or well-being of others.

Got it?

The case of a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription is one of these examples that I will not accept.

You are insisting that religious beliefs trump the rights of others, and even of existing laws. You may not like the label, but "theocracy" applies. Once we go down your road, beliefs become de facto laws even if not formally codified. Especially since Christians are the majority.

because you are the one advocating that the government adopt a particular religious viewpoint

Distorting again. Believing that people should have easy access to the medication their doctor deems necessary is not in any way a religious viewpoint, Zeb. Again you prove you can argue only by being dishonest and creating strawmen.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. Forcing someone else to sell you things is controlling their life, not yours.

Don't conflate not assisting someone form aquiring something with hindering their doing so.

A pharmacist who said "not merely will I not sell you a birth control pill, I will stop anyone else doing to" would be doing something that should be illegal.
There are cases of this - pharmacists who take the prescription, refuse to fill it and refuse to give it back - but not many.

A pharmacist who says "I am going to sell some medical products, but not others; I will not interfere with your aquiring those products elsewhere" is not; all they're doing is controlling their own life.

[skepticscott]

66. Yes of course

And a hotel owner who says "I'm going to rent rooms to whites, but not to blacks, but I won't stop blacks from renting rooms elsewhere" is just controlling their own life.

[Zebedeo]

42. Here are two health care analogies for you:

Since you didn't like my cheeseburger analogy.

1. Should all gynecologists be required to perform abortions, even if it violates their religious beliefs?

2. Should all plastic surgeons be required to perform breast enlargments on teenage girls, even if they have a conscientious objection to the procedure? Take, for example, a feminist plastic surgeon whose medical practice consists of facial reconstruction, and breast enhancement for women who have undergone a mastectomy, but who believes that elective breast enlargement is morally wrong, especially for minors? Would you force this doctor to perform an elective, cosmetic breast enlargement procedure on a 15-year-old girl who comes in, wiht her parents' permission, asking for one?

After all, abortion and breast enlargement are legal medical procedures, and it could be that the procedure is not obtainable anywhere else within walking distance (to use your reasoning) :snort:

[trotsky]

44. Easy peasy.

1. Only if they have taken a job in an office or environment that provides them. Not all gynecologists, even those who support abortion rights, do. But abortion is worthy of its own thread, Zeb. We can talk about how theocratic attitudes like yours have essentially made abortion inaccessible to millions of American women simply by threatening doctors and firebombing clinics.

2. Patently absurd. You're talking about an elective cosmetic procedure vs. prescribed medication. This is barely any better than the laughable cheeseburger analogy.

Keep digging, Zeb!

[Zebedeo]

45. Thanks for that honest response

(minus the name-calling and hateful smearing, of course)

Since you would not force a gynecologist to perform an abortion to which she has a religious objection, how do you justify forcing a pharmacist to dispense medication to which he has a religious objection?

What distinction are you drawing between the two cases?

[trotsky]

46. LOL

Point out the "name-calling and hateful smearing" in my post, Zeb. Tell me exactly what name I called you. I'll wait.

Anyway on to demolishing your latest flawed analogy: Not every gynecologist performs abortions. Not every one is trained to. Not every one needs to. (Though we have a definite shortage thanks to the terroristic tactics of abortion opponents around the country.)

But people DO need every pharmacist to dispense the drugs their doctor deems necessary for their treatment.

I'm glad you at least appear to understand the ridiculousness of the cosmetic surgery analogy and wisely dropped it. Keep 'em coming, Zeb!

[Zebedeo]

47. I'll be glad to

identify your name calling and hateful smearing: theocratic attitudes like yours have essentially made abortion inaccessible to millions of American women simply by threatening doctors and firebombing clinics.

That's highly offensive of you to smear me as an abortion-clinic firebomber, or a fellow-traveller with such. That's a sick and disgusting smear that is probably the lowest blow you've thrown to date in our various discussions. Nevertheless, I was willing to dismiss it and address the substance of our discussion, but since you have called on me to identify your hateful comment, I am doing so. Frankly, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself at this point.

Now, on to the substance:

Not every gynecologist performs abortions. Not every one is trained to. Not every one needs to. (Though we have a definite shortage thanks to the terroristic tactics of abortion opponents around the country.)

But people DO need every pharmacist to dispense the drugs their doctor deems necessary for their treatment.

If we have a "definite shortage" of abortion providers, then why not force every gynecologist who is trained to perform abortions to perform them? Why not, in fact, require all gynecologists to obtain such training, so that women are not deprived of their constitutional right to have an abortion? Are you saying that pharmacists are rarer than abortion providers? That's simply not true, as you know. So please explain why you would have the government force a pharmacist to violate her conscientious objection to dispensing certain medicines?

How about this one: Would you force all doctors to perform euthanasia, even if they have a religious objection to it? If not, why not?

[trotsky]

49. You need to work on your reading comprehension, Zeb.

Saying "theocratic attitudes like yours ... (threaten) doctors and (firebomb) clinics" is NOT the same as saying you, personally are a firebomber or even associate with such. But the same attitude, that a person's right to "practice" their religion trumps everyone else's rights, yields those results. I'm sure you were willing to dismiss it, because it is obviously not the personal attack you THOUGHT it was. But I'm glad to help illustrate the comparison to all who are reading this. I am in no way ashamed despite your desperation to gain some kind of moral high ground over me!

If we have a "definite shortage" of abortion providers, then why not force every gynecologist who is trained to perform abortions to perform them?

Because that's not a required job function of a gynecologist, Zeb. Dispensing medication - ALL medication - *is* a required job function of a pharmacist. I don't know how much plainer I can state this. Please let me know how else I can help explain it to you.

Would you force all doctors to perform euthanasia, even if they have a religious objection to it?

If euthanasia were legal, and there was only one qualified doctor within reasonable distance of a person requesting it, then yes, I would require them to perform the procedure. Would you force someone to endure unbelievable pain just to accommodate someone else's religious beliefs? How positively brutal, Zeb.

[Az]

18. After some brief research

The laws governing pharmacies vary from state to state. As the idea of refusal to fill prescriptions based on religious context is a recent phenomena there are not a lot of laws on the books at this time. Most laws governing refusal stem from medical reasons.

CA, IL, ME, MA, NV, and WA have laws on the books ensuring that prescriptions must be filled.

DE, NY, NC, OR, and TX have pharmacy boards that have issued policy requiring valid prescriptions be filled.

AZ, MO, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, TX, VA, WI, and WV have introduced bills that would prevent pharmacists from rejecting prescriptions based on personal beliefs.

AR, GA, MS, and SD have laws on the books that allow pharmacists to refuse based on their beliefs.

IN, MI, MO, NJ, NC, RI, SC, TX, VT, and WV have introduced bills that would allow pharmacists to refuse prescriptions based on their personal beliefs.

There is overlap as seen above.

[varkam]

14. Here's the thing.

As trotsky and Az have pointed out, an analogy only works when the aspects of the analogy are similar in nature to the original situation. Your proposed situation of a Jewish delicatessen to serve Cheeseburgers as an analogy to pharmacists dispensing medication is not a very good one, and here's why.

Cheeseburgers and medicine are apples and oranges. People can reasonably choose to eat something other than cheeseburgers, whereas if they have been prescribed a medication by a physician they cannot choose to take any other medication.

Moreover, if a Jewish delicatessen did not serve burgers then a person could also reasonably choose to eat elsewhere - that is not always the case with pharmacies (especially in rural areas). Sometimes, especially here in my home-state of KY, you're only going to find a few pharmacies serving an entire region. So, at least in some instances, it is not as though a woman seeking pills can go elsewhere.

Finally, I've never seen or heard of Jews trying to prevent other people from eating Cheeseburgers. Rather, they simply choose not to eat them to be in accord with their own religious tradition. If female pharmacists have strong personal opinions on birth control as a result of their personal faith, then I have no problem if they choose to eschew various forms of medication for themselves - but that doesn't give them the right to make those personal choices for other people, certainly not when those choices can be of paramount importance and hours can make the difference.

[Zebedeo]

17. You are forgetting one thing

Medications can be obtained over the internet (or through mail order) quite easily. This minor point completely negates your argument, because your argument is based on the assumption that medication is only available through one local pharmacy that is run by a pharmacist who refuses to dispense certain medications.

Even in small towns, mail service is widely available. So, there is no real reason to force a pharmacist to do anything that is against her religious beliefs, now is there?

[varkam]

27. That doesn't really negate my argument at all.

Even if that refuted one of the points that I made (which I do not think it does - see below), there are still several other objections to your analogy. Feel free to go back and re-read my post.

One of the things that I mentioned previously is that, in certain circumstances, hours make the difference. With the Plan B pill, it is most effective if administered within the 72 hours after intercourse.

Moreover, the world of online pharmacies does not provide an acceptable resolution to the problem. Online pharmacies are wrought with fraud thereby placing the burden on the individual to essentially investigate who they are ordering from. Of course, this assume that the individual is at least somewhat technologically competent, has access to online resources, and has the basic intellectual wherewithal to discriminate between legitimate and fraudulent pharmacies. You are also assuming that individuals will be able to make payments online via a credit or a debit card. Here are some helpful hints from the FDA w/ respect to online pharmacies:

* Purchasing a medication from an illegal website puts you at risk for receiving a contaminated or counterfeit product, an incorrect dose, or no product at all.
* Taking an inappropriate medication puts you at risk for drug interactions and serious health consequences.
* Check with the NABP to see if an online pharmacy is in good standing.
* Don't buy from online pharmacies which will sell to you without a proper prescription or which sells drugs which are not FDA approved.
* Don't use online pharmacies which do not offer access to a registered pharmacist to answer your questions.
* Don't purchase drugs from foreign websites.
* Beware of websites offering quick cures or cure-alls, or that make outrageous claims.
* Always consult your healthcare professional prior to taking a drug for the first time.

But, again, this issue was only one of my objections (which, despite what you may think, does not resolve the issue). As I posted at the beginning, please feel free to address any (or none, if you prefer) of the reasons why your analogy is a poor one.

ETA Not to distract from these points, but I'm assuming that you would be fine with a Christian Science adherent that refuses to dispense any medication, given that he/she is letting his or her personal beliefs decide what is and is not appropriate for other people. Is that correct?

[Zebedeo]

28. Of course

Not to distract from these points, but I'm assuming that you would be fine with a Christian Science adherent that refuses to dispense any medication, given that he/she is letting his or her personal beliefs decide what is and is not appropriate for other people. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. Although it is a rather preposterous analogy, because it is inconceivable that a Christian Scientist would decide to become a pharmacist or operate a pharmacy that does not sell any medicine.

As for your objections to purchasing drugs over the internet, you make it seem so difficult and dangerous. It took me four seconds just now to find this

You think CVS is engaged in pharmaceutical fraud? Come on. That's a pretty thin reed you are clinging to.

[varkam]

30. You seem to be avoiding the rest of the points I made.

I never argued that CVS was engaged in potential fraud, but there are many online pharmacies that are. You still have not addressed the additional burdens that this places on patients, especially those without access to technology or who are technologically inept, those who cannot pay online, or the issue of emergencies.

Moreover, you still have not addressed any of the other objections that I raised in my original reply (with regard to your analogy being a poor one). Feel free to do so, if you wish.

[Zebedeo]

53. Do these hypothetical patients

have access to telephony? If so, (888) 607-4CVS. Doesn't cost a penny.

If they are too "inept," as you put it, to dial the phone, maybe someone can do it for them. But then they probably wouldn't be able to get themselves to a brick and mortar store either, so the question is moot.

[varkam]

55. I'm sure you'll get around to addressing all the issues in time...

There's still the issues of those who cannot pay online (or over the phone) as I do not believe they take cash over the phone, or the issue of emergencies (along with all the other points that I have made that you have yet to address).

That aside, this is really an issue of logistics and does not address the original reason for this ST (that being the issue of your rather poor analogy). Again, if you wish to address any of my original points, please feel free to do so in addition to the ones that I have mentioned here.

ETA: Also, a few posts back you said that you thought it silly that a Christian Scientist would become a pharmacist given their unwillingness to perform their duties because of their personal religious belief. I likewise find it silly that a Catholic with objections to dispensing birth control pills would become a pharmacist, as they are similarly unable to fulfill their duties because of their personal religious beliefs. Bottom line, I would think, is for them to find a new profession if they cannot (a) fulfill the duties of their profession (b) abide by the ethical guidelines of that profession (namely, honoring a valid script).

[Zebedeo]

58. The only reason this has devolved (sadly) into an argument

about logistics is that you are fighting the question.

What if the person has no credit card? Pay by check. You can even give the check numbers over the phone and it will work under modern banking law.

No checking account? Money orders.

No money order outlet? Wire the money.

No Western Union? Mail cash.

No cash? Well how the f was she going to pay the pharmacist at the brick and mortar store?

What if the patient has no ability to communicate, because she is deaf, dumb, blind and in a persistent vegetative state? Oh, brother. Do you see how ridiculous this can get when you are unwilling to actually address the real issue?

[varkam]

59. Uh, no. The only reason that this is focusing on logistics

is because that is where you chose to take it by continuing to ignore any other of my original points. On the issue of online pharmacies and drugs through the mail, though, there's still emergency situations to contend with.

As I've posted no fewer than three times in this ST, if you want to address any other points that I made in my original reply please feel free to do so.

ETA: In case you've forgotten where it is, here is my original post - I'll put points that you have yet to address in bold so it will be easier for you.

As trotsky and Az have pointed out, an analogy only works when the aspects of the analogy are similar in nature to the original situation. Your proposed situation of a Jewish delicatessen to serve Cheeseburgers as an analogy to pharmacists dispensing medication is not a very good one, and here's why.

Cheeseburgers and medicine are apples and oranges. People can reasonably choose to eat something other than cheeseburgers, whereas if they have been prescribed a medication by a physician they cannot choose to take any other medication.

Moreover, if a Jewish delicatessen did not serve burgers then a person could also reasonably choose to eat elsewhere - that is not always the case with pharmacies (especially in rural areas). Sometimes, especially here in my home-state of KY, you're only going to find a few pharmacies serving an entire region. So, at least in some instances, it is not as though a woman seeking pills can go elsewhere. (Note: You still have the issue of time to contend with here, as far as logistics are concerned).

Finally, I've never seen or heard of Jews trying to prevent other people from eating Cheeseburgers. Rather, they simply choose not to eat them to be in accord with their own religious tradition. If female pharmacists have strong personal opinions on birth control as a result of their personal faith, then I have no problem if they choose to eschew various forms of medication for themselves - but that doesn't give them the right to make those personal choices for other people, certainly not when those choices can be of paramount importance and hours can make the difference.

[Zebedeo]

60. Let's use medical examples, then

since you are drawing a distinction between the cheeseburger example and the subject of the thread.

1. Should all gynecologists be required to perform abortions, even if it violates their religious beliefs?

2. Should all plastic surgeons be required to perform breast enlargments on teenage girls, even if they have a conscientious objection to the procedure? Take, for example, a feminist plastic surgeon whose medical practice consists of facial reconstruction, and breast enhancement for women who have undergone a mastectomy, but who believes that elective breast enlargement is morally wrong, especially for minors? Would you force this doctor to perform an elective, cosmetic breast enlargement procedure on a 15-year-old girl who comes in, wiht her parents' permission, asking for one?

3. Should all doctors be required to perform euthanasia on patients, even if the doctors have a religious objection to it?

[varkam]

61. More poor analogies.

You seem to be completely ignoring one very controversial point (in examples 1 and 3) - whether or not birth control pills, or even pills such as the "morning after pill" constitute abortion. While we can all agree that euthanasia (at least in certain circumstances) results in the death of a person, it is not so with the abortion debate. Your other example also goes awry for the same reason and and additional reason that is outlined below. There is no scientific basis for taking the position that human life begins at conception. But, just for the sake of this discussion I'll grant that. Even if that is the case, there is a difference between a purely cosmetic procedure (2) and a medical abortion, especially when carrying the child to term threatens the health of the mother. In other words, you are - yet again - comparing apples and oranges.

Also, it is somewhat of a non-sequitur because a pharmacist is not performing any procedure at all - in fact, they are filling a prescription. I'm assuming that you are sufficiently aware to recognize the difference between that and performing a medical abortion, the person-hood controversy notwithstanding.

Oh, and bear in mind that the cheeseburger example was yours. My points were simply illustrations of why the analogy was a poor fit for this situation.

[Zebedeo]

62. Why won't you answer the questions?

I asked you three questions. Are you afraid to answer them?

I didn't start an abortion debate. I listed three medical issues where a service provider might have a religious objection or a philosophical or moral objection to providing the services. The examples have nothing to do with my views on these particular issues. They could be any issues. These issues are being used as examples. Are you disputing that it is possible that a service provider might have a religious objection or a philosophical or moral objection to providing the services in each of these three examples?

Why don't you just answer the questions? I'm only asking for your opinion. Thus, there are no wrong answers. Don't let your heart be troubled.

[varkam]

63. Your questions have exactly nothing to do

with the entire purpose of this thread or your laughable cheeseburger analogy. Stop trying to change the subject. I illustrated in the previous post why those analogies are poor and unrelated to the issue at hand. If you wish to address any of the original issues, please feel free otherwise this discussion is essentially pointless.

[Book Lover]

64. Zebedo, I am still waiting for an answer to *my* questions

Post 15: "If my minister has counseled me and tells me that it's OK to take BC, or to take the morning-after pill, why should the pharmacist get between me and my minister?"

Post 39: "Can you think of any other medication a pharmacist might object to on moral grounds...?"

Any thoughts?

[Az]

34. Ah and everyone has the interwebs of course

Even destitute and poverty stricken people. Oh and of course the delivery of items from the web is right up there on par with a brick and mortar store. Because you know those interweb places are just everywhere and have magical instant delivery.

When a Dr prescribes medication he has a reasonable expectation of the patient being able to get the meds within the hour. If it is vital that the meds be taken within a timely fashion then a pharmacist refusing to distribute based on personal reasons has interfered with the treatment of a patient. And in several states (as mentioned in my brief research post) that would be illegal.

[trotsky]

35. Oh you hush, Az.

It's just like wanting a cheeseburger at a kosher deli, dammit!!!

[Zebedeo]

54. I'll ask you what I asked trotsky

1. Should all gynecologists be required to perform abortions, even if it violates their religious beliefs?

2. Should all plastic surgeons be required to perform breast enlargments on teenage girls, even if they have a conscientious objection to the procedure? Take, for example, a feminist plastic surgeon whose medical practice consists of facial reconstruction, and breast enhancement for women who have undergone a mastectomy, but who believes that elective breast enlargement is morally wrong, especially for minors? Would you force this doctor to perform an elective, cosmetic breast enlargement procedure on a 15-year-old girl who comes in, wiht her parents' permission, asking for one?

3. Should all doctors be required to perform euthanasia on patients, even if the doctors have a religious objection to it?

After all, abortion and breast enlargement are legal medical procedures, and it could be that the procedure is not obtainable anywhere else within walking distance.

FWIW, trotsky's answers to these questions are (1) No; (2) and (3) Yes.

[Book Lover]

15. Why should a pharmacist practice counseling?

If my minister has counseled me and tells me that it's OK to take BC, or to take the morning-after pill, why should the pharmacist get between me and my minister?

[Book Lover]

19. Quick question to define terms

You use the words "abortion pill". Exactly which medications are you including under that umbrella?

[Zebedeo]

21. I dunno

I assume that this controversy is over RU-486 or some such pill that causes an abortion. But it could be any drug to which the pharmacist has a religious objection.

I think, as I said above, that an employer would have cause to discharge a pharmacist who refused to dispense a legal drug; however, I don't think the government should force a pharmacist to do something that violates her religious principles. Thus, if the pharmacist is self-employed, I think that she should be allowed to sell whatever drugs she wants, and not sell the drugs she doesn't want to sell. It's a free country, after all.

[Book Lover]

39. Well, I'm having trouble envisioning

such a medication, other than the well-known objections to the bc pill or the morning-after pill. (By the way, you can't get RU-486 from a pharmacy counter.) Can you think of any other medication a pharmacist might object to on moral grounds, Zebedeo? Anyone else?

[NMMNG]

25. Agreed

This moral grandstanding is going too far. If a person refuses to do the job for which they are being hired they should look for other work. This is nothing more than the Pro-Birther's advancing their agenda.

[JerseygirlCT]

48. Exactly

If it's a requirement of the job, they should be able to perform it. If they cannot, they need to be up front about that.

I think they need to find a different line of work, myself. But someone might still want to hire them. In which case, the store that hires them ought to also have to make full disclosure and alert their customers that they are no longer a full-service pharmacy.

The problem with this, of course, are those areas where there may only be one pharmacy. Without somewhere else to go, what are customers to do?

[asjr]

4. Religion can lead to one's death.

[Bitwit1234]

6. So I say they get another job.

If a person worked for say...the Motor Vehicles and someone came in and wanted a license for an SUV, now the person giving the license didn't believe people should drive SUV can they not give a license.

Now you have a barber and you don't like the type of haircut a person wants can you say no.

You are a cashier at a supermarket and you belived sweets made you fat, could you refuse to sell them.

These are the same things aren't they.
\

[Warpy]

7. Any pharmacist who is too religiously fastidious to do his JOB

needs to be fired and his license to practice stripped.

Period.

Pope Ratz can go fuck himself.

Pharmacists don't know if hormone pills are being prescribed for any of a number of conditions and not simply as birth control. They are not physicians, they are not diagnosticians and they are not permitted to practice medicine without a license by denying legally prescribed medication.

Fire the fuckers. Now.

Anyone who runs into one of these prigs needs to report him/her to the state pharmacy licensing board pronto and demand action.

[SidDithers]

12. !!...

don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel :hi:

Sid

[Random_Australian]

33. Actually, I would expect that a pharmacist who worked in a large enough store that there were

multiple pharmacists around, then they could work in some position were this did not affect things, no?

After all, part demand and part compromise is how society works.

[trotsky]

36. Oh but Pope Rat already nipped that in the bud, R_A.

skepticscott quotes the decree below. Popey says that good Catholics cannot collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes. To me that seems to say that he is ordering Catholics to even avoid shopping at a pharmacy that supplies condoms. After all, by purchasing their Viagra (which is a product designed to allow couples to have sex without the risk of having children) they could be enabling the use of condoms (a product designed to allow couples to have sex without the risk of having children).

See how wonderfully ethically consistent the whole package is?

[Random_Australian]

50. Ah. I do admit, for people to fit into society, effort needs to come from both sides. So,

with a decree worded like that, I suspect that this is going to be pretty problematic. You'd think a pope wouldn't decree such inconvenient stuff. It's almost like he's not in touch with regular life. :)

[Warpy]

40. Not in health care

While other pharmacists might agree to protect a religiously fastidious co worker who refused to do all of his job, it should never be policy.

Again, pharmacists are qualified to dispense drugs. They are not qualified to refuse legally prescribed drugs to any patient no matter what the reason is. The most they are permitted to do is call a physician for a clarification when the drug either appears on a person's allergy profile or when there is a conflict with another medication the patient is on.

If a pharmacist can't manage medication for half the human race, then he needs to find another line of work, one where he never comes into contact with other human beings. Or he can find a pulpit.

[Random_Australian]

51. Then again, with modern nulticulturalism, having people who are

unable to work due to religious issues (like holy days and so forth in a society that does not usually have them) has not been a problem (they work more at other times).

But then again, the wording of this decree makes it look like this might be pretty difficult to work around.

Wait a second - who's policy exactly?

[Warpy]

52. There's a difference between taking a day off here and there

for any reason whatsoever--religious holiday or sick child--and being unable to do one's job while one is at work.

Again, if religion is getting in the way of patient care, then quit that job and stay the hell away from patients!

[skepticscott]

24. Despicable hypocrisy

In a speech to participants at the 25th International Congress of Catholic Pharmacists, the Catholic pontiff said that conscientious objection was a right that must be recognized by the pharmaceutical profession.

Such objector status, he said, would "enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia."

Notice that his statement only explicitly mentions drugs used for abortion and euthanasia, but that it includes by implication (though he's too cowardly to come right out and say it) such things as birth control pills and condoms. According to Ratzy, any Catholic pharmacist who even works in a store that sells these items is acting immorally. What kind of a reception do you think his statement would have gotten if he'd said that out loud?

[moggie]

37. Cowardly indeed

Why doesn't he simply announce that good Catholics should not become pharmacists? Perhaps because he knows Catholics would ignore him on this, as on other things?

[Crunchy Frog]

32. I think I'll convert to Christian Scientist, then get a job as a pharmacist.

I'll be set for life then. :D

[Marrah_G]

38. First one to deny my daughter birth control gets a law suit up their ass.

She takes it to avoid ovarian cysts which have already cost her one fallopian tube and she really wants kids someday.

Fortunately I live in the land of sanity and this probably won't ever be an issue.

No one gets to judge my kid but ME.

[skepticscott]

56. And let's not forget

that the pope's edict from the mountaintop doesn't even come close to the way things would be if the Catholic church really got what they wanted. It's just the most he thinks he can get away with without losing all credibility and respect (what little he still has). If Ratzy REALLY had his way, not only would Catholic pharmacists not be dispensing these drugs, but nobody, of any religious persuasion, would be able to buy or sell them any time, anywhere. The sale or use of birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms or any other form of artificial contraception would also be illegal. Thankfully, decent people will fight to their dying day to keep this theocratic tyrant from getting anywhere close to that dream.

[TZ]

57. I have moral objections to the Catholic Church interfering in stem cell research....

Does that mean I can tell what the Pope should be preaching about?
Just sayin....

[Evoman]

67. Pharmacists should be fired, pope should be encapsulated in carbonite, put into a huge slingshot,

and shot into the sun.

[TZ]

68. don't equivocate..Evoman....

Tell us how you REALLY feel.....:rofl:

[mainegreen]

69. I think doctors who object to saving Christians lives shouldn't have to do so.

:sarcasm:

[cosmik debris]

70. follow their morals????

That is setting the bar pretty low. Don't you think we should hold them to a more civil standard?