 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002 time: 05:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, I mean your first example and not the second. I'm not an ogre after all.
Is such a requirement constitutional, because it effectively bars Catholics in particular from working as pharmacists without a violation to their conscience. |
It absolutely is since you have no constitutional right to employment. To take this to absured lengths, could planned parenthood not require doctors it hires to perform abortions and you'd end up with doctors that refuse to perform abortions at all due to their concience working at abortion clinics?
Clearly "your personal concience" is no always an acceptable reason to deny medical care. Should the pharmacist deny pain killers to someone with a prescription after making the personal decision that the customer did something stupid and deserves to suffer some pain? Should someone who believes that epilepsy is God's punishment for sinners refuse to dispense medication to treat someone suffering from it? (This actually was a fairly common belief some time ago in the US.)
In rural areas, there may be only one pharmacy for a large distance, putting enourmous inconvenience on an individual if denied medication at one. If all the pharmacists in a rural area got together and agreed to not provide a medications, this could effectively deny people in the area acess to this medication at all.
Finally, its the DOCTOR who is expected to make any ethical judgement before writting a prescription. The Pharmacists job is simply after double checking to make sure the patient doesn't have any allergies or is taking other medications that will interact in a harmful way with the new one, the pharmacists simply makes sure the customer receives the right medication in the right dosage. A pharmacist is stepping well outside the bounds of his jobs by making moral judgements of his customers and therefore to whom he will dispense medication to.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:33
|
|
Mordoch:
quote:
could planned parenthood not require doctors it hires to perform abortions and you'd end up with doctors that refuse to perform abortions at all due to their concience working at abortion clinics?
|
First off, no doctor can be required to perform an abortion. Before they are hired, they would be specifically informed that they would be performing abortions. This may not be the case for this pharmacist. Was he hired specifically to dispense the morning after pill? No. His employment is as a pharmacist, which has many other duties than just dispensing one pill.
quote:
Clearly "your personal concience" is no always an acceptable reason to deny medical care.
|
Assumes that the morning after pill is indeed 'medical care.' What condition does the pill treat?
quote:
Should the pharmacist deny pain killers to someone with a prescription after making the personal decision that the customer did something stupid and deserves to suffer some pain?
|
No, and irrelevant to this example.
quote:
Should someone who believes that epilepsy is God's punishment for sinners refuse to dispense medication to treat someone suffering from it? (This actually was a fairly common belief some time ago in the US.)
|
I would challenge that assertion that this was a common belief. Would there have been pharmacists then?
But this, is of course, a dodge. The general case is the same as a Christian scientist example given earlier. The Christian scientist would leave his occupation on his own accord.
quote:
If all the pharmacists in a rural area got together and agreed to not provide a medications, this could effectively deny people in the area acess to this medication at all.
|
And why not? What would be the negative consequences of such an action?
quote:
A pharmacist is stepping well outside the bounds of his jobs by making moral judgements of his customers and therefore to whom he will dispense medication to.
|
Moral judgments of his customers? Hardly. The issue is not with the customer, but with the pill.
Secondly, since when are the people who go to the pharmacy, 'customers?' They are patients, unless these pharmacies no longer dispense medication.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002 time: 05:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But this, is of course, a dodge. The general case is the same as a Christian scientist example given earlier. The Christian scientist would leave his occupation on his own accord.
Secondly, since when are the people who go to the pharmacy, 'customers?' They are patients, unless these pharmacies no longer dispense medication. |
On point one, so are you aknowledging that this pharmacist should have left his occupation on his own accord? Otherwise I don't see the distinction between the hypothetical case involving someone with epilepsy and the actual one talked about in this thread other than the fact you pesonally agree with the stance of the first one, and apparently would disagree with a pharmacist's decision in this hypothetical case. Its perfectly possible for a pharmacist to be happy to distributed prescriptions in general, but refuse to do so in the case of people with epilepsy since god's judgement should not be interfered with by man.
On the second case, I would argue that at least in the case of simply filling a doctor's prescription the relationships is closer to that of a customer than a patient. The diagnoses and treatment have already been agreed on, the pharmacist is just making sure the customer gets the right dosage of medication as well as the right type.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First off, no doctor can be required to perform an abortion. Before they are hired, they would be specifically informed that they would be performing abortions. This may not be the case for this pharmacist. Was he hired specifically to dispense the morning after pill? No. His employment is as a pharmacist, which has many other duties than just dispensing one pill.
|
But as he is a pharmacist I wouldn´t doubt, that he knew that they had the Morning-After-Pill in Stock.
And therefore he would know that he would some day have to sell them.
It´s the same if you are a Biologist and also an animal Right Activist and the Laboratory you work for someday begins to perform Animal Experiments.
Either you accept that you too could someday be forced to perform animal Experiments for yourself or you quit because of your conscience.
You would also have to accept the consequences if your Employer tells you to perform Animal Experiments and you refuse to do it (and you therefore for example get fired)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zylka
|
|
yeah.. like how when I was assistant manager at the grocery store - we wouldn't sell tampons past 6pm under my watch
*ing evil, evil bleeding women
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|