 |
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I started the thread. The real issue is freedom of conscience and religion. |
Vs the rights of the customer not to be refused goods because of the personal beliefs of the person behind the till, as opposed to the company, the doctor prescribing it, the government, or the patient themselves.
You have freedom of religion, in that you can practice whatever religion you wish. You have freedom of concience, in that you cannot be forced into doing things. However you cannot choose to do something and then not do it. You say it would be absurd to not allow catholics to be pharmacists because of the pill, but would it be absurd to now allow catholics to be porn stars because they're have to have sex out of wedlock? Dispensing medication is the fundemantal part of being a pharmacist. if you can't do that part, isn't it absurd to still be a pharmacist? You are free to practise your religion, but religion should not be a way to get out of secular laws. You say it;s the freedom of the pharmacist to be catholic, but what about the freedom of the customer to be an atheist? She didn't want to go against her beliefs that the morning after pill wasn't wrong, but she had her freedom quashed.
Bottom line, if you can't do your job, do a different job. You have no right to employment at all, let alone employment in a specific field. Regardless of whether or not you think he was right, are you saying it should be illegal to fire this guy, for not doing his job, or should the company be allowed to choose whether they keep him on?
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Rape is just a sensationalistic sideshow, which BTW, is precisely the same headline the newspapers used. |
No, rape is a crucial issue when it comes to abortion. The fact that someone has been impregnated against their will has many repurcussions for the treatment of the child, the psychological effect on the mother (especially compounding the trauma of rape with the trauma of birth) and the state of the women wanting treatment. A strong pro-lifer will disagree with rape abortions too, but there are many people who see it as an exception. Surely, even disagreeing with it, you can see that it is different to a normal conception, in that the woman had no say in it.
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Two wrongs do not make a right. The morning after pill will not cure rape, it will not magically 'un-rape' the woman. |
No, but the trauma of birth, the possible feeling of resentment towards the child of a man who committed such a heinous act and the physical reminder of it for at least 9 months, can all be stopped by the morning after pill. It's not going to make them better, but it will stop them getting worse, and stop some of the effects of the rape.
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So a child is just a product, to be bought when you want one, or thrown away and discarded when you don't? |
But they never wanted one. If they had wanted one, or had got one out of their own negligence, then you may have a point there.
Suppose you have a person who has decided not to have kids? My aunt is a severe diabetic, and because she believes that she doesn't want her offspring to go through that, she has decided never to have kids. Now, suppose she was raped and impregnated. I can understand you being against it still, but surely you can see the difference between that and someone who just forgot to use the protection.
I suppose it also depends on whether you consider the torture of having to carry that baby as worse than the loss of potential life. You say the baby shouldn't be punished for the sins of the father, but should the women be punished further than necessary to do so? I know you still believe murder to be worse than the torture of pregnancy after rape, but I'm trying to highlight why it's a different issue, partly, because it is a forced impregnation rather than consensual.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000 time: 22:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Sik,
Interesting,
To what extent is the employer liable, if any, for failure to dispense meds that are prescribed?
Og |
Retail pharmacists have very broad powers to not fill prescriptions, especially of course drugs that are "scheduled" like narcotics etc., even with a valid prescription. They are providing a service, and have a lot of legal and ethical limitations involving safety etc. It tends to be their call. There is no reason for them to carry any particular medication in fact for whatever reason they choose. In a clinical situation they can still refuse to fill a prescription, and they can cover themselves in most cases by claiming that in their judgement something was wrong with the prescription (ie the doctor who wrote it was mistaken or not in possession of all the relevant facts). In this case obviously it was a moral objection that caused this man to refuse the prescription, and not some perceived deviation from the standard of care or potential fraud.
In a clinical situation where obvious harm to the patient might occur were a drug withheld (a fairly rare situation actually) I do think that the hospital could get into trouble if they had reason to believe that one of their pharmacists was likely to refuse to fill such a prescription. If the pharmacist gave no previous indication that he was likely to behave in such a manner they would probably be able to pass most if not all of the liability off were they to immediately suspend the offending pharmacist and bring in another to fill the prescription expiditiously. In cases where no immediate harm was done (ie most cases), they would likely be off the hook entirely, as they provide those drugs as a service to their patients and the patient could always purchase them somewhere else. It then becomes simply poor service, which is bad for business but not malpractice. In these cases they are covered with the same broad standard as the retail pharmacist.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|