 |
|
Zylka
|
|
Edited by MtG:
You know, Z, it's been a long time since I've busted you. 
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 05-02-2004 at 06:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
MtG:
Considering both of your examples. How can the libertarian be held personally responsible, by his own beliefs, by charging a tax on an item? He is not personally benefiting from the tax. As for the conservative opposed to welfare, would it be better to let that person starve, or to accept their payment with food stamps? I would think that their philosophy would give them a stark option of either charity, or accepting their food stamps. Since he cannot offer charity to compensate for all of these people, he has no option but to give the food stamps. |
In other words, you're reserving the right to determine what is and what is not acceptable as a "matter of conscience" which employers must accomodate in a private workplace when both religious and political views are subject to First Amendment protection? One's "conscience" is more requiring of accomodation than another's, depending on subjective evaluation of the gravity of the matter or whether you agree with the employee's position?
quote:
Now, compare this to our example. A Catholic, who dispenses the morning after pill, would consider themselves to be an accessory to murder. True, the pill may not cause an abortion, but the purpose of the pill is to prevent the implantation of the unborn child. There is no other purpose for the drug. That to me should seem considerably different grounds than even my own contraceptive example to allow for freedom of conscience.
|
And an Islamic fundamentalist might consider that women who walk into the store uncovered and without a male relative escorting them should be flogged to protect public morality and prevent vice. Should we accomodate that? Or him simply shouting to the uncovered whores that Allah condemns them and they should leave the store at once until they come back properly covered or escorted?
The law does not consider that any homicide has taken place, and regardless of the intent of the pill, the pharmacist does not know for a fact - he speculates. I don't see anything vaguely resembling a compelling reason the employer should be required to accommodate the employee's speculative exercise and refusal to serve a customer who has a lawful, properly issued prescription. The employee could certainly resign rather than do so, but IMO, that's the remedy.
Why not similarly speculate about any medication which can be abused in a manner that leads to death?
quote:
That's a seriously questionable analogy, MtG. Are you claiming that pregnancy is a medical condition like an STD? |
Where did I say it's an analogy? Pregnancy is a medical condition. So is exposure to a communicable disease. They are different, but in both cases, it is a medical issue to decide how to deal with them. In the case of the morning after pill, the intent is to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DaShi
Damn Christians. Their ****ing God hasn't spoken to them in 2 thousand years, and they're tellin' us what to do. |
Why don't you show some respect to people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
This is positively vile behavior on the part of pharmacist. There is no excuse.
As for Ben, well, I've come to expect this sort of nonsense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Ben:
I don't like killing people. Thusly, I can't work as the executioner at a prison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's not clear that even if one believes epilepsy is a curse by God, that one should not intervene to treat the epileptic. |
I'm not saying that you personally believe this, I'm saying its quite possible for someone to believe this and therefore refuse to treat the disease since that would be defying God's judgement and acting against his concience.
This sort of philosophy has been practiced in the past. For instance, as a Ken Burns documentry on Ben Franklin noted, when Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston and a house was hit by lightning, the fire department for the city would put out any fire that spread to a neighboring house, but would let the house hit by lighting burn because it was presumed to be God's judgement!
(A link to the documentry I'm refering to can be found here.)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...=D2Y5TUCCVJ7DGE
Obviously the firefighters knew that they were capable of putting out the fire of the house struck by lightning, but chose not to because they felt it was not the right thing to do as a result of their religious beliefs.
Last edited by Mordoch on 05-02-2004 at 08:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
MtG:
quote:
In other words, you're reserving the right to determine what is and what is not acceptable as a "matter of conscience"
|
I'm arguing from the perspective of each of your example's conscience to determine whether they would see such an irresolvable conflict. I don't think the libertarian or the conservative would stop doing either task based on their beliefs.
quote:
And an Islamic fundamentalist might consider that women who walk into the store uncovered and without a male relative escorting them should be flogged to protect public morality and prevent vice. Should we accomodate that? Or him simply shouting to the uncovered whores that Allah condemns them and they should leave the store at once until they come back properly covered or escorted?
|
According to your reasoning, if that were the law, then we should.
quote:
The law does not consider that any homicide has taken place, and regardless of the intent of the pill, the pharmacist does not know for a fact - he speculates.
|
That's not the issue here. The issue is that his religion strictly prohibits him from prescribing the morning after pill because they teach that human life begins at conception.
Now, you've admitted that the pill prevents implantation, therefore, by scientific evidence, dispensing the pill violates his beliefs.
quote:
I don't see anything vaguely resembling a compelling reason the employer should be required to accommodate the employee's speculative exercise
|
It's not just the employee's speculation. It's his faith and his beliefs. Would you consider all of his faith to be nothing more than speculation?
I fail to see why the store cannot accomodate his beliefs, considering that he is a pharmacist, and his job is not unduly affected by the refusal to dispense the morning after pill.
quote:
The employee could certainly resign rather than do so, but IMO, that's the remedy.
|
So all Catholics, who up until now have practiced as pharmacists, should quit their job?
quote:
Why not similarly speculate about any medication which can be abused in a manner that leads to death?
|
Abused! It is the purpose of the morning after pill to prevent implantation. The problem is not with the medication being abused, but rather with the proper use of the medication.
quote:
quote:
Pregnancy is a medical condition.
|
I should hope not. If it were, we would have to justify partial birth abortions, on the grounds that they cure pregnancy. Pregnancy is a natural state for woman. Unless there is an underlying physical condition, or in the exception of ectopic pregnancy, it will greatly improve the health of the mother.
quote:
to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
|
Scientifically, pregnancy begins at conception, not implantation. Try again. The morning after pill is not a contraceptive, but an abortifacient.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
Lefty:
(I'll clean up your post.) 
quote:
Ethics and mandated standards connected with many state licensed regulated professions override freedom of conscience, with doctors and lawyers and others as well as pharmacists. If a client tells me about 150 girls he has raped and mutilated. I am prohibited from revealing that without his permission, and should I break the rule, the state would be barred from using the information. If tells about the least little crime he is GOING to commit, I can inform on him.
|
I thought about this post for a good while. Why are these regulations in place for lawyers? It stems from the concept of equal representation before the law. The only way for a person to get a fair trial, before the state, and the apparatus of the state, is to have a confidential advocate.
Now, can one properly say that the same conditions apply to this situation? Again, we come back to my point on what medical reason would one have to prescribe the morning after pill. Without the pill, there would be no negative consequences for the profession of pharmacy.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 05-02-2004 at 09:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
Ben, hopefully your GF will never be raped and impregnated by the rapist. If so, youll have the child out of wedlock (isnt that a sin?) and every day ill hope youll look down and love knowing the child has their daddies eyes and not yours. im sure your GF will consider it a blessing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi The person who believes that we should not intervene in the case of epilepsy finds himself in a hard position when intervening in some cases and not others. Therefore, the person would likely resign because the sole purpose of his work directly contradicts his beliefs.
This is different from the current example in that the pharmacist can fulfill his duties, without ever dispensing the morning after pill. |
I don't see how the situations differ at all. The pharmacist's duties are to fufill prescriptions, unless upon double checking they find that the drug will harmfully interact with another that the individual with the prescription is already taking. In both cases they are letting their moral beliefs dictate whether they allow an individual with a perfectly valid prescription to get a specific medication.
A person might have a moral problem trating epilepsy, but believe all other diseases are not direct divine punishments, so he don't have a problem treating any of them. Both pharmacists do apparently fufill their duties, with that one vital exception. The only real difference I see is whether you would approve or disaprove of their personal moral convictions and beliefs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What about my suggestion to simply allow another pharmacist to dispense the pill?
|
A lot of pharmacies have a single pharmacist on duty in a given shift. And/or they're busy. Again, you haven't given one compelling reason why a private, commercial business should be required to accomodate an employee's "moral objections" to something legal, and fundamental to the job.
quote:
No amish would be a nuclear physicist, for the same reason as we do not have Christian scientists as pharmacists. |
So, in other words, because Christian Science believers have moral objections to dispensing medications, they choose professions other than being pharmacists? 
Oh, and BTW, I know of several Catholic pharmacists, and there are tons of them in Mexico. They don't seem to have an issue with doing their jobs, which include dispensing oral contraceptives. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
so how about i stop by some time, give her the old in out in out, and you can take care of my baby?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
A lot of pharmacies have a single pharmacist on duty in a given shift. And/or they're busy. Again, you haven't given one compelling reason why a private, commercial business should be required to accomodate an employee's "moral objections" to something legal, and fundamental to the job.
|
Nice quote marks around moral objections. Is dispensing the morning after pill 'fundamental' to the job of a pharmacist?
If the pharmacy is short staffed already, why should they let a qualified pharmacist go and be even more short staffed?
quote:
So, in other words, because Christian Science believers have moral objections to dispensing medications, they choose professions other than being pharmacists?
|
They would be unable to prescribe any medications.
quote:
Oh, and BTW, I know of several Catholic pharmacists, and there are tons of them in Mexico. They don't seem to have an issue with doing their jobs, which include dispensing oral contraceptives.
|
And I know some that do. Your point?
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2004 05:59
|