 |
| |
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Nice try. How would that work? Of course, if you make that tiny change, it allows you to make the two morally equivalent. Even your example seems to treat all misfortune as coming from God, thus the pharmacist would not be able to intervene in any case. |
Admitedly I've selected a hypothetical example to make my point. The individual could come from some weird pseudo christian cult that believes this as one possibility. Another is that his parents believed quite strongly that epilepsy was a divine punishment, (epilepsy was extremely poorly understood well into the 20th century) so that belief rubbed off on him permenantly even though he eventually accepted that other diseases were not divine punishments. This could have been bolstered by the one epilepsy that he knew personally being a nasty heavily sinning individual. Since epilepsy is still less understood than many diseases, even today it remains more mysterious as less well understood for the general populace.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.
|
But his Job was unduly affected.
After all the Shop has Morning After Pills because the Company wants them to be sold.
And also they want (of course) that their costumers leave their Pharmacies satisfied and without complaint, so that they might continue to buy their Medications from Pharmacies of the same Company in the Future (and even tell friends about the good service) and not want to shift to any competing Company to fulfill their medical needs.
By his refusal to sell the pill the company probably has lost at least one Customer (i.e. the woman who got raped). Even more if you consider that she might tell her friends and Family about it.
And, as everything became public, the company could loose a lot more customers if they donīt punish the pharmacists for his behavior.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Such policy would bar all Catholics from working there. |
There is nothing wrong, IMO, with religious people wearing apparel, or any accessory that expresses their religious belief in non-demeaning ways at workplaces.
But when someone decides to play God and take such arrogant, inane, grossly insensitive, ignorant, hateful, sexist, extremely unfair action such as this dope did, he is LOOKING to get fired. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
DRose:
Your opinion is one held in Muslim countries, as a reason to stone women who have been raped, because they are defiled, and thus become outcasts to the community.
Should we adopt their same approach? |
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
DRose:
Your opinion is one held in Muslim countries, as a reason to stone women who have been raped, because they are defiled, and thus become outcasts to the community.
Should we adopt their same approach? |
Did you actually read my post? No one is suggesting the born-child be killed, nor the mother. I stated it would be better to prevent there being a child to ridicule in the first place FOR HIS/HER OWN SAKE. The woman has her own problems to deal with: the misguided opinions of others of her complicity in the act of rape, emotional distress, medical problems if the act was violent enough. Why does the child have to be forced to face additional problems to satisfy the victim's selfish need to feel good about herself? Threat-of-stoning generally isn't a problem in Western societies when it comes to victims of rape, but is the social pariahism of the child that much better?
My point is that any society today is likely going to treat the victim and her child with unfair judgement. There may be some compassion shown for both, but the child is the one who will unduly suffer the most regardless, mostly in the form of emotional distress. To me, this is a matter of fairness. Is it right to put someone in the position of having social and emotional distress likely for the rest of their natural life, stemming from the circumstances of their conception? So called test-tube babies might fall into a similar catagory, but unlike rape-conceived children, these children were conceived in love, not violence. The child was planned and wanted ever so much that the parents were willing to take extrodinary means to have that child. Rape babies have no such devotion. If the mother is gracious of heart, then the child will know love, but even a mother's love can be tainted by the past. And that is the most unfair part of this whole mess.
Perhaps a clarification is in order: A clump of cells, in my view, doesn't make a baby. I know little about fetal developement, but I'm fairly certain nothing identifiable as a Human fetus developes within a few days of conception. That takes a few weeks. I believe in the existance of souls and I do believe they wouldn't be *lacking proper terminology* "implanted" into the fetus until at least a certain level of developement has been achieved (A sentient clump of 8 cells? Methinks not...). Abortion is an option only for a short window early in the pregnancy and thus morning-after pills are a viable option. I'd rather the option not be taken in most cases if the child is viable (lacking life-threatening/shortening deformities and not a threat to the mother's health), but it isn't my place to decide nor is it your's Ben: it is the mother's and father's choice and no one else's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Just one point I want to make. A pharmacy is not supposed to be about selling pills. They are a part of the health care system. Remember, caring about patients and all that nonsense. |
Pharmacies are supposed to be places that people can reliably get medications after consulting and getting approval form their doctors. I feel quite strongly that when they depart from this principle they are going away from how they should be conducting business, and the pharmacist in this case did the woman in question a gross disservice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
As an ex-Catholic, this was one of the contributory issues over my leaving the Church (as an aside, Humanae Vitae is BAD theology, boiled down it essentially is the same argument that if God had meant man to fly, He would have given him wings. It only is defended because a Pope wrote it, and is held in contempt by many theologians, even in the Catholic Church).
As of 20 years ago, roughly 80% of parrish priests recommended birth control for at least some of their parishoners (happened with my late mother, in fact) and 90% of Catholics practiced some form of birth control banned by Humanae Vitae. Hardline Catholics would be out of luck, as observed by a previous poster. They are under 10% of the U.S. Church, which by the standards of previous centuries could be considered schismatic, at least on the local level.
Nobody took the individual off the street and held a gun to his head stating "Dispense this pill." It was a condition of his employment, and probably licensure. If he had a problem with it, and the new regulation took affect after his employment, if CVS could reasonably accomodate him, and he requested to only work when another pharmacist was on duty, that would be fine. However, he may find himself transferred to a large, metropolitan store or only on certain shifts he didn't want to work. REASONABLE accomodation.
Unfortunately, he should just move to Kentucky. I know they tried to pass a law permitting exactly what this man did, and I thought it passed but I'm not sure. I couldn't tell with a quick google seach. In small rural Kentucky communities this has become a real issue for women, because you cannot get the prescription for birth control pills once they are prescribed. I believe there have already been specific cases of this.
I don't quite agree with Imran's solution. If the man opens a "Pharmacy" then he should be required to fulfill the prescription. Unless he can make it patently clear to any woman contacting the pharmacy that they don't fill certain kinds of prescriptions. In the yellow pages, and on the front sign, in letters the same size as the largest there, stating something to the affect that only some prescriptions are filled. I could deal with that compromise, the problem is that they want to keep using the name "Pharmacy" instead of "Conservative Christian Pharmacy".
Even then there is the problem with small communities, and in this case I have to support the states that require a pharmacist to dispense lawfully prescribed drugs. His morals do not trump the local community, and if the community can only support one pharmacy economically (usually the case in small towns) then it's his problem. As with most real world applications, it's these messy grey areas the **** around with principles.
I have to give Ben credit, instead of posting a case with an unmarried woman who was denied emergency contraception after being drunk, he posted a good real world example of how messy "moral principles" can be. Even a few posters here indicated if it had just been emergency contraception as a kind of birth control they might have a different opinion. Of course Ben and I inevitably draw the opposite conclusions from these examples, mine for the wall between Church and state (because of people like Ben who mean well...) while he tries to show how we have to stay true to these moral imperatives (I hope I'm not unfairly parsing you Ben).
For those of you who posted here who think it would be different in the case of the drunken slut (language to make a deliberate point) being refused the pill, you are halfway to Ben's side of the divide already. Be careful, because unfortunately, as Justice Oconner has discovered, a middle ground without a principle behind often has sand as a foundation - look at her vote for the hideous 1986 desicion upholding state laws targeting gays, and her recent vote against them. Evolving standards my *** (to make a bad pun). She was egregiously wrong in one case or the other, and either did harm to hundreds if not more individuals (gays scared to come out of the closet in that type community, knowing the local constabulary can target the dirty fags) or had done harm to the nation (if the anti-gay people are right). Think about that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.
|
Ben is on to a good thing here.
It is my religious belief that I only work four days a week. My employer should accommodate my belief and give me a paid holiday every Friday. Anything else would be religious persecution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
Well, he may bow to the idea that there is no right to employment, and so if your concience get's in the way of doing the job you wish, one of them has to give. Either you act how you perceive to be immorally, or supporting immorality, or you quit the job.
The fact that he believes the morning after pill is an abomination, and the fact that I don't, we'll have to agree to disagree on. However the question of whether the employer should bend to the religious morals of the employee, or whether the employee should quit, is a point worth discussing, IMHO.
|
|
| |
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 10:07
|