Medicine and Morality

Do you agree with this hogwash?

from JoeUser Forums
While away I saw a news report about pharmacists who are refusing to fill certain prescriptions because of their religious beliefs?!! OK, so I go to the pharmacy to fill my prescription for birth control pill or the morning after pill and I'm going to be refused because the pharmacist doesn't beleive in birth control or abortion? What is wrong with this picture? Actually, let me rephrase that. Doesn't anyone see something wrong with this?

My spin on this is that if you are a pharmacist, you're there to do a job, do it and stop preaching and pushing your idealism on others. You are not a priest nor or you God, so stop trying to let women feel as if something is wrong with them. The news report that I saw, the poor woman was crying because she felt that she had done something wrong! All she wanted to do, was to not have any more children for a while after giving birth to her first child. The doctor recommended that she go on birth control for health reasons. I think that this pharmacist was being very irresponsible and should be fired. Would he deny a man from filling Viagra tablets, I think not. So the lady had to go several miles out of her way to find a pharmacy that would fill her prescription.

This is so wrong and pharmacists who do that should not be allowed to practise their professions. Afterall, they are there to help the public not to hinder them.
3,597 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Welcome to the latest, greatest Faith Based America

If I remember correctly, there was a law that was just recently passed, in California maybe, maybe national, upheld by our Congress, that allows medical personnel of "moral convictions" to refuse to fill prescriptions, or do some procedures, and no longer be procecuted for their denial of service. Either we are in the Twilight Zone, or this is an early fascist state.

I just posted an article about Evangelicals' expectations, which should scare the crap outta everyone, because this is exactly how they are going to slowly and incidiously get thier way. Somehow, this is starting to seem more and more like a fascist state, and we're in for some really dark times.

I don't know what to tell you, foreverserenity, but stand up and fight. The only way this kind of crap is going to go away is if we make it go away. We need to get reasonable people into Congress in '06, and overturn this stuff.

Privatize Bush
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know. It's worrisome to think that some poor woman out there is going to be denied (or already has been denied) the help she needs by taking prescription meds. What about the woman who has been raped and to ensure that she doesn't carry some maniac's child, the morning after pill would help her. In a case like that, I say these people should be relieved of their posts.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey you,

Sorry I'm not commenting on your blog - which I will do when I wake up tomorrow and can make the letters stop dancing around. But thank you oh, so much for you comment on my blog! I hope you're doing OK. I know for me that the melt down doesn't actually take that long, but building yourself back up does.

I wish that I knew more about you than seeing your name about the place. But at the same time I tend to think that if you see someone on similar blogs to you, you must have something in common.

Please take care of you. I would love to have a chat soon. I hope that you don't have more than you can handle on your plate. If you ever need a chat find me on MSN - [email protected] Otherwise please email me!

I'm going to read your back log of blogs tomorrow and then maybe make a comment of some worth. Until then... Happy Friday night/Sat morn.

Take care,

Suz xxx
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
that allows medical personnel of "moral convictions" to refuse to fill prescriptions, or do some procedures, and no longer be procecuted for their denial of service. Either we are in the Twilight Zone, or this is an early fascist state.


Right, because far be it from someone in The United States of America to have the right to do what they believe is correct. As long as I bend my back to you, do what you think is right, obey your every whim and dictatorial command then we can keep the good old US of A from becoming a fascist state, huh? Oh, oh, I get it, the only people who should have rights are the liberals, is that it dabe? We should all just bow our knees to our great, enlightened liberal overseers, since they so obviously know what is best for us all. (I offer an apology upfront to all my level-headed, thinking, and compassionate liberal friends/contacts--I know you don't think this way)

See, it is all about freedom, isn't it? Even if I don't agree with a pharmacist not filling a prescription for birth control or emergency contraception because they don't believe that way, I will defend their right to make that choice. I believe in freedom. Dabe, you may want to try that sometime. You know, advocating freedom rather than fascism (go check the definition, forcing people to do things against their will seems a lot more like fascism to me than giving people the freedom to do what they do/don't want).

To be quite frank, I have avoided any run-ins with you so far dabe, but no more. Your comments disgust me. To say that medical personnel should be forced to act against their beliefs is sick. And to call this a fascist state is beyond stupid.

foreverserenity--We have had pleasant interactions so far, so I hope this reply doesn't damage that. But let me say this (as someone in the medical profession), I simply cannot see how it should be considered wrong for people to have the freedom to not participate in things they believe are wrong. If a woman needs birth control or emergency contraception, what do you really think the odds are that they are going to be affected. See, neither of those are "life-threatening" needs. A woman has plenty of time to get her birth control from someone who will sell it to her (which would be by far the majority in the US), and emergency contraception has a pretty good window of time to get on board as well and plenty of available sources (any Planed Parenthood or Health Department would gladly supply these). A pharmacist who won't sell these things is probably not going to be far from one who will. Let's not blow this out of proportion.

When it comes to life-threatening conditions, then I do agree that medical personnel should have to step in. But in these elective cases I see no constitutional basis for forcing them to act against their will. Would you advocate other professionals being forced to do things they didn't believe were correct? I don't think you would, you seem far too levelheaded for that. So why should medical professionals be any different (with the exception of life-threatening cases). And I don't think there are medical professionals who would ignore the need of life-threatening cases. Why should the protection of personal freedoms be selective based on your profession?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
To say that medical personnel should be forced to act against their beliefs is sick. And to call this a fascist state is beyond stupid.


The problem with this and with your other statements is that no one is forcing the pharmacists to do something they don't want to. They can quit. I think what Dabe was trying to say is that it's fine for them to advocate against the drugs, but not to force it on other people, who don't have a choice, whereas the pharmacists do have a choice. If all the pharmacists did this, there would be a problem.

Actually, my view on this issue is that pharmacists should be able to reject prescriptions if they want to, and they will get less business. Then it comes down to which they see as more important.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think what Dabe was trying to say is that it's fine for them to advocate against the drugs, but not to force it on other people, who don't have a choice, whereas the pharmacists do have a choice. If all the pharmacists did this, there would be a problem.


Oh my crap. Few times in my life have I read something so inane and insipid. Yes, if all pharmacists in the world did this there would be a problem. And the likelihood of that happening is nill.

What dabe is saying is that certain professionals should not be allowed to have moral standards to which they adhere because she doesn't agree with them. And that is fascism. Yes, they can quit. And so in that case they have been forced to do something they didn't want to do, throw away all their education and find another job. I mean really, go read what you wrote. Let me paste it and see if you can find the bullshit in the statement.

no one is forcing the pharmacists to do something they don't want to. They can quit.


So, um, let me get this straight. No one is forcing them to do something they don't want to. Obviously they want to discard all their efforts, internships, schooling, and additional training in favor of, oh, flipping burgers. Right? Because they must want to quit if you say that is their option. Hmm, go against your morals or be forced to quit. Sounds like utopia to me. Now, I see nothing wrong with the individual pharmacy making the call here. If they say to their employees "you will dispense these medications or be fired" then fine. That is part of a free-market economy if you ask me. But to insist that the government make it mandatory is just the most insulting, asinine, and idiotic thing I have read here in a long time.

Good grief, when did people become so stupid?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think what Dabe was trying to say is that it's fine for them to advocate against the drugs, but not to force it on other people, who don't have a choice, whereas the pharmacists do have a choice. If all the pharmacists did this, there would be a problem.


Oh my crap. Few times in my life have I read something so inane and insipid. Yes, if all pharmacists in the world did this there would be a problem. And the likelihood of that happening is nill.

What dabe is saying is that certain professionals should not be allowed to have moral standards to which they adhere because she doesn't agree with them. And that is fascism. Yes, they can quit. And so in that case they have been forced to do something they didn't want to do, throw away all their education and find another job. I mean really, go read what you wrote. Let me paste it and see if you can find the bullshit in the statement.

no one is forcing the pharmacists to do something they don't want to. They can quit.


So, um, let me get this straight. No one is forcing them to do something they don't want to. Obviously they want to discard all their efforts, internships, schooling, and additional training in favor of, oh, flipping burgers. Right? Because they must want to quit if you say that is their option. Hmm, go against your morals or be forced to quit. Sounds like utopia to me. Now, I see nothing wrong with the individual pharmacy making the call here. If they say to their employees "you will dispense these medications or be fired" then fine. That is part of a free-market economy if you ask me. But to insist that the government make it mandatory is just the most insulting, asinine, and idiotic thing I have read here in a long time.

Good grief, when did people become so stupid?


I'm sorry you think I'm stupid. Next time please read the whole post, including the things I said after that. I wasn't endorsing the view I was explaining. I was trying to show you how dabe might be viewing this, but I didn't say I agreed with it. Below that I said that pharmacists should be allowed to.

Actually, my view on this issue is that pharmacists should be able to reject prescriptions if they want to, and they will get less business. Then it comes down to which they see as more important.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very well, I will than retract those statements as they were aimed towards you.

However I will not change them as I still think they apply to what dabe originally posted. Because even if that was what she meant then she does think they should be forced to do something they don't want to: quit. And that is just wrong.

I apologize for directing those harsh comments towards you.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Guys didn't get to follow up but will tomorrow. I've got to go get the kids. tx for stopping by.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The piece that I watched, and I forgot the pharmacist's name, was about a pharmacist when questioned by the journalist doing the story, said that even in a situation of a woman needing the morning after pill due to an emergency, he wouldn't dispense it because it's against his moral beliefs. And the woman who needed the birth control medication, needed it because her doctor said she had to go on it for health reasons to stop her from having another child too soon, which would have jeapardized her health (they didnt' go into the reasons why). This woman lived in a rural area and had to drive to the next county, several miles from her town, you see, the pharmacy she went to was the closest one to her. She cried while being interviewed because she said she was so embarrassed and thought that she had done something wrong when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. No woman should be put through an experience like that.

I personally don't think our country is or is becoming a facist state either. No the government should not make it mandatory for anyone to do anything. I believe in each individual's right of freedom, this is still the United States of America. While I do not advocate that any medical personnel do something that is against their beliefs or moral judgement, they do have a responsibilty to the people they are there to serve. I think the pharmacy featured in that town, was owned by the pharmacist being interviewed, it was quite clear that his views were more important than his clients. That's what I took issue with and made me write that piece. Plus I was hearing other comments and views about other doctors and medical people taking the same stance. Which, like I said earlier is their right to do, but don't do it at the expense of the person who really, really, needs help.

Oh, Bluedev, I respect your opinions, and we're still in good standing!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh my god. Now that I have actually read this article, I am outraged! It is no one's business but my own if I want, or perhaps need to be on birth control. If you sign up to be a pharmicist, then there are certain things that go with the job and you need to accept it, or choose to do something else. It'd be like a vet saying 'I'm sorry, I won't put down animals as it's against my beliefs' (Yes, I know, a rather extreme example, it's late and I'm trying to think of a better one)

Pharmicists are there to dispense medication not morality. If they can't keep these two things separate, they are in the wrong field.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #11 By: Floozie - 12/8/2004 5:15:01 PM
Oh my god. Now that I have actually read this article, I am outraged! It is no one's business but my own if I want, or perhaps need to be on birth control. If you sign up to be a pharmicist, then there are certain things that go with the job and you need to accept it, or choose to do something else. It'd be like a vet saying 'I'm sorry, I won't put down animals as it's against my beliefs' (Yes, I know, a rather extreme example, it's late and I'm trying to think of a better one)

Pharmicists are there to dispense medication not morality. If they can't keep these two things separate, they are in the wrong field.


I'd have to disagree. I think that when moral obligations conflict with your job, you shouldn't be forced to quit. Perhaps the job obligations are immoral.

It all goes back to my favorite saying: capitalism solves!!!! OK, it isn't really my favorite, but it works. Anyway, if the pharmacists choose to act on their morals, those who disagree don't have to do business with them. This means that the pharmacy is making less money, creating an incentive not to act on those morals. This also makes it easier for competition to open in the area, so driving to the next county probably won't be a problem for long. Other pharmacies can open, where the pharmacists would fill any prescriptions. Then everyone would take their business there, and the original pharmacist may end up losing his job anyway. So you see, the market and the public provide a very nice check and government interference is really unnecessary!!! Yay free market!!!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Like I said, I don't agree with the idea of not dispensing those medications. But I also don't think the government should force people to comply. Let the employers do make those rules, let the health departments be open to all, as they already are.

As Molly said, if they want to alienate their own customers, more power to them.