Controversy Over New 'Conscience' Rule (for health services)

Post Reply New Topic

Actually it wasn't. It was based on science I've read on the subject (which I mentioned before). I just didn't link any of the science. I can if you'd like. It's not hard to find though.

In other words, you are not interested in a rational debate. I notice that you still have failed to counter any of the examples I have posted - did you even bother to read any of them?

[/quote]

For one thing, a patient should not have to get into the details of her medical history with a strange pharmacist. The PHARMACIST'S JOB is to fill the MEDICALLY PRESCRIBED chemicals the DOCTOR ordered. This law was specifically created with the intent to allow pharmacists to deny medication such as birth control to anyone they consider to 'violate' their morals. Read the examples I have posted. A woman shouldn't have to be without her prescription all weekend because she can't reach the doctor for a new scrip, and a doctor shouldn't have to send out multiple copies of the same order to a moralistic pharmacy that is fronting as a medical establishment. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

You mean the examples you won't even bother to read? How do you know that they're wrong, if you don't bother to read them?

...Oh, yeah: you don't care about evidence.

I just lost another response due to an internet interruption.

the gist:

Women should not have to face some as*hole chewing them out when they get their prescriptions.
Going without a prescription, especially for EC, is significantly worse than the inconvenience of finding a different deli for one's roast beef sandwiches.
Pharmacists should not be able to violate their contracts with impunity, and a pharmacist who is limiting service to to squeamishness should not be able to advertise as a full-service part of the medical community.

I have provided copious evidence for all of these things; providing more evidence that will not be read is pointless.

fin.

Heya Ike, I thought the icon looked familiar from free-association.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.


"Imposed celibacy"? You have got to be kidding. Did condoms miraculously cease to exist while my back was turned? Did all the other pharmacists at the pharmacy have sudden, fatal heart attacks? And where did all the other pharmacies go?


The new rule doesn't protect people trying to evangelize in inappropriate situations.


This is just silly. No deception is involved.


No requirements are being imposed.


This wouldn't happen unless someone were rude, which isn't protected by the new rule.


1. That there may be Christian pharmacies is no answer. What if you don't want to work in a Christian pharmacy? What if you object because you are Jewish? Or Muslim? Or you're an atheist who objects for non-religious reasons? Ghettoizing pharmacies is not the answer.

2. Please stop with the ad-hominem arguments. "Fundie" is a pejorative term that you use for no reason. If you must refer to them, call them "Fundamentalists", which is what they are. Also, given Bush's extreme unpopularity, trying to tie him more closely to this rule than is warranted by the facts is simply an ad-hominem attack. Granted, this came from the Bush administration. We are all aware of that, and there is no reason to repeat it over and over again.

3. Nothing that I or anyone else on this thread have said, nor the new rule itself, authorize anyone to be rude to customers. IMHO, anyone who acts like a jerk to customers, barring exceptional circumstances, should be immediately fired.

4. Nothing that I've said or in the new rule implies that a single individual would be given new powers to fundamentally shift the nature or course of whatever institution they work at. They only have authority over themselves and their own decisions, not anybody else or their decisions.

You're trying to impose your interpretation of what is right -- your morals -- on pharmacists. Birth control isn't something that is undeniably right or wrong -- like theft or murder -- it's something that some people feel is right and others feel is wrong. Forcing a pharmacist to dispense a specific medication that that pharmacist has a strong moral objection to is stepping on that pharmacist's conscience. If anyone is being imposed on, it's in the opposite direction than you think.

If there is any danger of inaccesibility of medications, there are plenty of other ways to solve this problem without stepping on anyone's conscience on the way. Given the arguments so far, I can't see that as a particularly strong possibility.

It seems like the argument is going in circles.

Assume I have a prescription for the medicine. Also that I am willing and able to give the pharmacy my money for the medicine.

How in the world is their not doing their job (dispensing the medicine) now my imposing morals on them? If the pharmacy (not the employee, the store) has a problem with a medicine they can stop carrying it and have a written policy not to order it for anyone.

Can't do your job because of your morals? Work somewhere else where what you want to do not want to do is not a job requirement.

Banning stem cell research in public facilities has got the US precisely nowhere, whereas the UK and Spain collaborated to give a woman a new wind pipe in a ground breaking procedure.

Finally something we can agree on!


Sorry I wasn't clear -- I mean 'you' as in someone opposed to the idea of conscience rights, not 'you' as in someone just trying to fill a prescription.

I was more trying to describe my point of view in general, rather than respond to your post point-by-point.


Why should the organization get that privilege, but not the individual? I would think the organization having that right would be a bigger problem from your point of view, since that would tend to increase the difficulty of obtaining whatever you are trying to obtain.