Posted on 04/19/2005 4:35:19 PM PDT by IleeneWright
These two pharmacists believe that they are being asked to sell death, which is not a "product." Products are tangible. Pills are tangible. But when a pill causes death, the end result, death, is not tangible. And it pushes the emotional buttons of both employee and customer. As I said, any wise business owner under these circumstances would be wise to defer to the wishes of his highly educated and highly paid professional.
I'm at a loss as to why you can't understand this, other than my supposition that you've never run a business. It's the old story; "If you have to have it explained to you in the first place, you will NEVER understand."
It is the law! Physicians can refuse to perform a service which may be deemed immoral to that physician, with no consequences.
Spoken like a true fascist.
Why? You and the good Governor will simply tell him to who and what he must deliver his newspapers.
Go back to endorsing the nazi arguments; it was more persuasive.
It's their choice.
Somehow, the pro-life issue completely erases all other conservative values in these discussions. They become completely irrelevant, and in fact, we willingly trample on them.
Would anyone EXPECT a pharmacist to fill a prescription in OREGON, knowing that the prescription was presribed for the purpose of EUTHANASIA, if the pharmacist felt that euthanasia is immoral and contradicts his/her FAITH??
"Oh good, nazi references. This is going to be a constructive thread."
We have a modern day Holocaust.
"Okay, I think Jewish doctors should be able to refuse to treat Germans in the emergency room at trauma centers."
Does that prevent murders?
"I think nurses should be able to refuse care to black patients if it offends their moral values."
Does taht prevent murders?
"I think 911 operators should hang up on Mexicans."
Does that prevent murders?
"Got a problem with any of that?"
You need a better straw man to rip up.
Does a couple of pharmacists refusing to sell legal prescriptions prevent murders?
A little lighter humor:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387029/posts
Grandma Stops Intruder With Garden Gnome
"If a pharmacy wants to be in the business of dispensing contraceptives, then it must fill prescriptions without making moral judgments," Blagojevich said on Wednesday, according to a CNS News report
His poaition appears to be very clear, the owner of the pharmacy will sell whatever the Governor tells him to sell. There is nothing conservative about that.
That's fine hire and fire who you like, the question is "Does the government have the right to make these pharmicists fill this prescription?" The answer is no they don't. If you own the pharmacy fire them, but the government better keep their nose out of it.
"Does a couple of pharmacists refusing to sell legal prescriptions prevent murders?"
Ok, I could pull the same Ace argument, causing a circular impasse. But I really do want to help you with this. I'm not trying to be unfair.
Suppose you are paid to go hunting for someone. He doesn't want to shoot. He wants you to do the shooting for him. You and he see movement in the bushes. He says, "That's a deer, shoot it."
"Do you see it?" you ask.
"No but I'm sure it's a deer."
"What if it's a person?"
"What are the odds of that? Shoot it."
Do you shoot?
You'll get the hang of this before you pass the bar.
Of course not, but if he hires me to shoot a deer, I see the deer, and I decide it's immoral to shoot what clearly is a deer and not a person, then he should fire me and demand his money back.
Most independent pharmacists own and work in their stores. They answer to no one, and no one can fire them. They set the rules for that store. If it's a retail chain pharmacy, then you have to do what the chain wants you to do. Are the pharmacists refusing to do this independant or work for a chain?
No, this is not about an employer setting the terms of employment. This is about a governor dictating what a person can do, and ignoring state law that gives a health care worker the right of conscience.
The suit alleges that they work for the same chain of pharmacies, but doesn't mention which one.
April 19, 2005
By MONICA DAVEY and PAM BELLUCK
CHICAGO, April 18 - As a fourth-generation pharmacist whose drugstore still sits on the courthouse square of his conservative small town downstate, State Senator Frank Watson knew exactly what side to take when Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich ordered pharmacies to fill prescriptions for women wanting the new "morning after" pill, even if it meant putting aside their employees' personal views.
"The governor is trying to make a decision that must be left to the pharmacy," said Senator Watson, whose family business, Watson's Drug Store in Greenville, Ill., does not stock the pill. "It's an infringement on a business decision and also on the pharmacist's right of conscience."
Of course you wouldn't shoot in the bushes, not being sure what this there. Abortionists claim they are sure the baby isn't a human being. How can they be sure?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.