As I mentioned in the Member's News thread yesterday, my Citizenship Issues class had a mini-debate yesterday on a recent and controversial issue. I thought that with so many wonderfully-opinionated people here, you would enjoy a similar discussion. Now I left my notes in my locker, but I can remember the bulk of the issue. * Basically in several states a law has been passed to allow pharmasists to refuse to give out perscribed drugs because the useage of those drugs conflicts with their religious beliefs. An example would be the morning-after pill or similar contraceptive pills that women have been prescribed by their doctors. Several Pharmacists quit their jobs over the issue, saying they did not want to advocate the prevention of human life, some going so far as to not even refer the women to other pharmacies where they could get the required prescripton. Now, I am a Catholic. Not a very conservative one but a Catholic none the less. And think that is just taking things too far. It's one thing to refuse to use the drugs yourself, but to prevent others from doing so? That's just not right. The Bill of Rights gives everyone the Freedom to express their religiouss beliefs, but even they put limits on how far a person can go. And what right does a pharmacist have to refuse to give an emergency contraceptive to someone who has already had it prescribed by a DOCTOR??? It's all well and good to not want to advocate the contraceptives, but refusing to give them out, to me that's almost as bad as forcing somone to adopt your religious viewpoint. And not everyone has that view. Many people have no issue with contraceptives, and have gotten them prescribed by doctors who are much more knowledgeable of these things (some of these pharmacists mistakenly believe that these pills are 'mini-abortions'. Not true at all). Sometimes they aren't even used for contraception! My dermatologist offered to perscribe me birth-control pills so I could regulate my hormones and get less acne!! But seriously, accidents happen, accidents young girls cannot afford to have. Sure, they were having pre-martial sex, sure they didn't know all the facts, but is that any reason to refuse them a pill that could get them out of trouble? I mean, if they miss the 72 hour mark, they will then be faced with the choice of getting the (possible) baby aborted, and wouldn't a religious person consider that a bigger sin than giving out a simple preventative? A pharmacist's job is to help the people. This does NOT help people. Everyone's got their rights. But the Right To Make Someone Else's Choice is not one of them. Okay, rant over. I open this discussion to the rest of you. As soon as I get my notes I can quote my sources for you.
When emergency contraception is used, it's not done to terminate a known pregnancy, but to prevent a possibly pregnancy. It is meant to prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg, and if that doesn't work, to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. It is taken within 72 hours of having sex, before you could possibly know you are pregnant. Emergency contraception is just a high dose of what is in normal birth control pills. In fact, if you are taking birth control pills and you miss a pill, the 'rules' are that you are supposed to double up on your pills the following day or days, depending on what you missed. Which is basically what emergency contraception is. edit: If these pharmacists don't want to advocate the prevention of a human life, then shouldn't they be discouraging abstinence and encouraging premarital sex?
I think it's ridiculous, you shouldn't be allowed to even be a pharmasist if you can't be impartial regarding people's personal life choices, just the same as being a doctor or a social worker or anyone who is involved in the way people run their lives. Health and religion are a seperate matter, they should fire the lot of them! Or at least give them a good talking to.
I had heard that these pharmacists were actually refusing to give out prescribed birth control pills for everyday use--in case they would be used as emergency contraception. But this was coming from 2nd hand sources, so might very well be incorrect info. One way that pharmacists might get around it is by simply not stocking the items, then saying that they didn't have them in stock. I had this problem a few times when buying medicine for my cats. (They use human medicine in very small doses.) Sometimes local pharmacies would not stock the items I needed simply because they weren't used on human patients very often; there was no moral objection to the use of the medicine, it just wasn't profitable for them to stock it.
The problem with this is even if they are forced to give out medicine they object to there are ways they can get around it. As Macia said they can just say they are not in stock and then recomend them to another pharmacy which will state the same. They could even find a way to stop stockign them I'm sure. Either way it's not their decision. It's not their body, it's not their life and it's not their choice.
... What if the pharmacist suddenly joins a religion that allows contraception but forbids, say, blood transfusion? Or bans all sorts of medicine altogether, save for prayer? How does the government decide which religious beliefs to condone, and which to say "Tough noogies, leave religion at home before you go to work" to? ...
A bit off topic but: The US Supreme Court recently ruled that the prizons had to respect the relgions of the prisoners. This sounds good, but almost immediatly afterword, people began to claim that: narcotics were part of their religion, eating a steak dinner every night is part of their religion, or that being in the same room as black people is against their religion. (If i ever get sent to prison, I am going to say that i am part of the church of Ba, and must eat a pie evey day). Where do you draw the line?
Are you talking about Rastafarians who smoke marijuana as part of their religion? (I don't think marijuana is considered a narcotic, though.)
I think if their religion conflicts with their job as a pharmacists they should just stop being a pharmacist; you shouldn't have half measures in a job that involves people's lives, you can't say, 'I'm a pharmacist, apart from I don't give out certain drugs.' because you are not a proper pharmacist then. Just like you wouldn't expect someone to be a surgeon and a Johova's Witness at the same time, only one or the other - you'd expect someone who's a surgeon to quite their job if they realised the 'truths' of the Johova's Witness lifestyle, just the same as lap dancer may give up her trade if she decided to become a nun. It should be the same for a pharmacist, I think anyway.
A pharmacist's job is to give out drugs that are either prescribed by a doctor or (if they are over the counter) to give appropriate advice on which drugs to take for a specific condition. Only if it appears the customer is trying to harm themselves (take an overdose or are addicted to a certain drug) then they are allowed to refuse to give the drug. Their opinions and beliefs do not come into it. The thing they must realise is that just because that one drug store pharmacist refuses to give the drug, there are always others. So unless you find a town/city in which every pharmacy in the area has a strongly opinionated, catholic pharmacist; refusing the drug will have little effect.
Something to consider, Doctors have a oath that say's they cannot refuse someones medical needs (the patient can of course). I would be surprised pharmacists don't have similar oath.
I hadn't thought about that. What i ment was some junkie in withdrawl starting his own religion in which you are required to take [insert drug of choice] every day. Also, Narcotics has two meanings: any illegal drug, or and drug that dulls pain. In this case, I ment the first one.
I more apt to side with the pharmacists. The main gist of the confrontation starts with what hex said, "Everyone's got their rights. But the Right To Make Someone Else's Choice is not one of them." The pharmacist may see it that the child, which they may believe begins at conception, has as much to a choice as the mother does about keeping the child/baby/embryo/fetus. From what I understand, most of these drugs are more for convenience than for strict medical health. So, a pharmacist to feel it against his moral beliefs to give these particular meds. If there is another pharmacist available, and like most places there will be around thirty on the block, the subject is more than welcome to go to another pharmacy to get their meds. They can even choose to have the new pharmacy as their primary med needs supplier. They were going to pay someone for them anyway, why not pay someone that they agree with? Sorry fairyliquid, I just realized that you made this point earlier. Mal, religion will not, in most cases anyway, make someone a bad physician or pharmacist. In many cases it makes them a better one. Most religions require or request a following of moral ideas and beliefs. If a pharmacist or doctor has no belief system, other than the power of money, there are many things s/he might do to make money that would be dangerous to the subjects. Organ harvestation is a lucrative business, but most doctors don't do it becuase of either moral beliefs or fear of retribution, sometimes both. I'll stop here and see what comes of this. It appears I am one of the few so far on the pharmacists side to choose, so please forgive me if it takes a while to get back to you. My internet time has been a little sparse as of late. If you will give me time to reply, I will try to answer any questions or comments.
I have already stated my position in the Member's News thread, I'm only going to elaborate it. But first, a relevant article. Pharmacists who not only refuse to fill out a legal prescription but also withhold it are commiting a felony in both counts. They, at least in Greece, are sworn into following the prescriptions. They have the right though, to call up the doctor and say "you have written a prescription for Penicilline but the patient just told me that s/he had a rash the last time s/he took some". Other than that, they are our bitches. Second, I'm looking at you Redneck, contraceptive pills are NOT pills of convenience. They prevent unplanned pregnancies but they do didley squat when it comes to STDs. Condoms are much, much more convenient [i:94e09bb6ca]and[/i:94e09bb6ca] they come in a wonderful variety of colours, textures and tastes. And quite frankly, I believe it is much more convenient for the child not to be born to a family that doesn't want it. Less chance of neglect and abuse all around. But I digress. Contraception pills are used for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with pregnancies. Rabid acne, dysmenorrhoea, Polycystic Ovaries Syndrome, Dysfunctional Uterinal Bleeding...all these are prescribed daily without having reproduction in mind. Moreover, there are plenty of medically valid reasons why a woman cannot get the daily pill, but will need the morning after pill when their current contraceptive methods fail. A woman on retinoids, tetracycline, just after a C-section, on anti-diabetic tablets or on cumarin anticoagulants [b:94e09bb6ca]must not get pregnant[/b:94e09bb6ca] either because it will endager her life, or because the medicaments she is under will seriously deform or kill the fetus and these are examples from the top of my head. There is also rape. If the pharmacist believes a woman should bear the fruit of a horrible and humiliating experience... ...I'd better not finish this sentence. The reason a woman needs a prescription for contraceptives or NorLevo is between her and the doctor and is protected under the doctor-patient confidentiality. Women should not be forced to say to the pharmacist "I have four children already/POS/been raped". They should not be forced to reveal their conditions to people who have no business knowing about it, or at least it particulars. And they most definately should not have other people's beliefs forced upon them.
As Saccharissa has pointed out, when prescribing the pill or even the "pill after", there is not yet a pregnancy -thus, no child- whose rights could be taken into account - so this logic fails me completely. Both medicaments are being taken, if not taken for the variety of reasons mentioned by Saccharissa in her above post, to prevent a possible conception. Wether I want to get pregnant or not should be left entirely to me. Abortion is not even the issue here! I also get a little unnerved by stumbling, again and again, across the assumption that a person without religious beliefs would have only - in your example- money to believe in. I was raised without religion. I was not raised without values. I am an agnostic, not calling myself an atheist, because I am not of the firm -well- belief that there is no God, but because I simply lack any kind of belief. I consider myself neither more cynic nor less capable of moral thinking than any religious person, and I know quite a lot of people who are real philantrophs, and very moral people, who have been inspired by and inspiring due to their religion as well as without any religious background.
In this case, I think the ethics of abortion, contraception use etc are irrelevant. The issue is whether what you think about it should allow you not to do your job. I agree with Mal, if your religious or ethical beliefs mean you can't do what you're supposed to for your job, get a different job. Pharmacists who do this should not be pharmacists. I'd be pretty pissed off if I had a doctor who gave me inadequate medical care because he had a religious belief that women should not receive proper medical care, for example; this is the exact same issue but presented in a different way. Do not allow your agreement with the pharmacist's religious belief to cloud your vision over whether they should inflict that belief on others. It is just as immoral, in my mind, to prevent someone else from doing what their doctor told them (foisting your beliefs onto them, with possibly drastic consequences), as to go against your religious beliefs.
Okay, on the topic. Without getting quite as colorful as an earlier post, I'll have to agree that Pharmacists do exist to service the wishes of the Medical Doctor community. Pharms can't prescribe medicine, only dole it out while checking for possible reactions. They are powerful in that they can advise physicians, but ultimately need to aquiesce to the physician's wants. Now, moral quandries and outrage are all very well and good. Taking a stand for what you believe in is admirable, regardless of the position. However, you can't expect to have your pie and eat it too. If you can not find moral justification to do your job, then you should retire from it. And yes, many people find that putting food on the table can qualify as a moral justification. Now, slightly off the topic. Hsing, I don't see that that's what Redneck was saying at all (regarding lack of morality in the non religious). He was more countering a point that he saw about how being religious would make you a bad member of the medical community. He says that doctors et al need morals, and that religion provides morals. But he doesn't go so far as to say that it's the only supply of morals. And Redneck, I don't even think that was apoint that Mal was trying to make. What he said was that if your religion interfered with your performance of a health care related job, you should be removed. An extreme example (alluded to be Mal) would be of a surgeon who would be a Jehova's Witness. Witnesses believe that transfused blood is tainted with the donor's soul and as such find them immoral. But surgeons routinely need to use blood transfusions for their patients. A surgeon who could morally justify it by saying "It's their choice, okay then" is a lot different than one who would say "This is my belief, so no blood for you." And finally, looking at the extreme example above, this IS also an abortion issue. Since it does deal with the possibility of a fetilized egg (implanted in the uterus or not), there will be people who will argue that it is a child being aborted. But, the main issue (at least I hope that this doesn't devolve into an abortion argument) is the right of a health care provider who isn't even a physician (yes, being a physician is a huge thing) to deny a physician's orders with moral grounds as opposed to grounds of saftey.
Quickly on the abortion side of this- I don't think it is a case of abortion, from what I gather it's more a case of stoping an pregnancy from happening. Now, there may be a chance that they are already pregnant. But there is no way the Parmasist can possibly know this. So He is failing to do his job becuase it involves allowing someone to do something which might possibly be morally wrong (In his eyes). Also, on the moral attitude of care workers, they have to have a be morally good inso far as they won't allow anything that is illegal to happen. The moral attutude they should follow in work should be a professional one, not personal, therefore it should be guided only by what the laws surrounding that profession dictate. If they don't agree with these views, they shouldn't of signed a contract promising to live up to them.
I'm not sure if pharmacists are refusing to fulfill prescriptions for emergency contraception (after the fact), or regular contraception. If it's just regular contraception, a huge amount of women take birth control pills (which are really just female hormones) for medical conditions: endometriosis, polycystic ovaries, fibrocystic breast disease, extremely painful, long or heavy periods(which can cause severe anemia and make it impossible to live a normal life) etc. edit: Because I basically repeated what Sacharissa already said. edit2: Birth control pills are FREE in the UK!
To clear a few things first. Thank you Brad for clearing that up. And my apologies, Mal, for misunderstanding. I had forgotten about the JW's belief about that. Let me think on that for a bit. "From what I understand, most of these drugs are more for convenience than for strict medical health." Here, I was referring to mainly the morning after pills. My sister has endometriosis, so I do realise the importance of contraceptive pills. Saccharissa, thank you for the information about morning after pills and the article. As far as rape goes, I'm torn between the two. I think it's horrible that a sick bastard will rape a child. At the same time, I know several women who were raped, had the child, and the child had a relatively normal life. I know of several women that had abortions after a rape and were glad that they didn't have a living testament to the incident. I know of a few who had the abortion and then regretted it for years to come, feeling that they had killed the child that, though ill begotten, was still a human. Most, though, had the child and gave it up for adoption. There were mixed feelings about that as well. I do not agree with pharmacists not allowing patients to go to another pharmacy. In my opinion, it's like a concientious objector in a war. He has every right to try to stay out of the military, but he should not try pushing his beliefs on others. It's the same principle. As far as religious beliefs, I'm not a religious person. I know a lot about Christianity and some other beliefs, but do not claim any. I don't believe that this is necessarily a religious debate, but a moral one. Not that that really makes much of a difference. Right now, I've got to go. I'll try to look over this again this evening and see if I missed anything. If I missed something that was addressed to me, just bring it back up again and I'll try to find an answer for it. If I sound a little addled, I just got off work and my brain is sun-fried.
