Posted on 05/03/2005 5:33:17 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Rebecca Polzin walked into a drugstore in Glencoe, Minn., last month to fill a prescription for birth control. A routine request. Or so she thought.
Minutes later, Polzin left furious and empty-handed. She said the pharmacist on duty refused to help her. "She kept repeating the same line: 'I won't fill it for moral reasons,' " Polzin said.
Earlier this year, Adriane Gilbert called a pharmacy in Richfield to ask if her birth-control prescription was ready. She said the person who answered told her to go elsewhere because he was opposed to contraception. "I was shocked," Gilbert said. "I had no idea what to do."
The two women have become part of an emotional debate emerging across the country: Should a pharmacist's moral views trump a woman's reproductive rights?
No one knows how many pharmacists in Minnesota or nationwide are declining to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But both sides in the debate say they are hearing more reports of such incidents -- and they predict that conflicts at drugstore counters are bound to increase.
"Five years ago, we didn't have evidence of this, and we would have been dumbfounded to see it," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "We're not dumbfounded now. We're very concerned about what's happening."
But M. Casey Mattox of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom said it is far more disturbing to see pharmacists under fire for their religious beliefs than it is to have women inconvenienced by taking their prescription to another drugstore. He also said that laws have long shielded doctors opposed to abortion from having to take part in the procedure.
"The principle here is precisely the same," Mattox said.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Medical care is highly regulated by government and there is no doubt that those issuing licenses have the power to regulate the licensees' duties as it does drug legality, purity and availability.
Lol, what happened to my k and w?
We are not discussing robots but the actual duties of a specific position. If Ms Morality is the only one there will she refuse to hand over a prescript filled by another? Can she touch? Or touch the money in the register handled by THE IMMORAL paying for it? How close could she get to IT? An inch, a foot, a yard?
As long as governments regulate these professions they can set standards for care.
And no pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription (though checking with the doctor is ok) he suspects will be used for immoral purposes or "improper" purposes. THAT is not part of their jobs either. Where does THAT "right" come from?
You are exactly talking about reducing the position to that of an automaton. By gov't force.
If Ms Morality is the only one there will she refuse to hand over a prescript filled by another? Can she touch? Or touch the money in the register handled by THE IMMORAL paying for it? How close could she get to IT? An inch, a foot, a yard?
Don't be ridiculous. What is so hard about understanding that some people do not want to be a party to murder? And why are you so insistent that they be forced to be?
As long as governments regulate these professions they can set standards for care.
Sure they can. And they can write laws forcing Catholic hospitals to give out pills and do abortions as well.
That doesn't make it right to refuse others consciences.
And no pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription (though checking with the doctor is ok) he suspects will be used for immoral purposes or "improper" purposes. THAT is not part of their jobs either. Where does THAT "right" come from?
The pharmacist is not a robot. Do you understand this point? If he has suspicions that you are up to no good, he can refuse to fill your script.
Why must everyone approve of the actions of others?
SD
Acting like a professional and doing your job is not being a robot that is an absurd irrelevancy.
No my examples are EXACTLY on the mark and NO we are NOT talking about murder even if it is the M.A. pill since 1) a zygote is NOT a person and 2) there is no indication that anyone is pregnant in any case.
I don't like to see fanaticism grow since it will destroy the conservative movement if not checked.
Forcing doctors to perform abortions is not likely to occur for several reasons.
Since when are pharmacists to be consulted in matters of morality? Do you consult mechanics too? Or accountants? Do you ask ministers their opinions about medical procedures? Or acting techniques?
Kurt Vonnegut could create some funny shiite with this idiocy.
Then why not let the professional use his own judgment and conscience?
NO we are NOT talking about murder even if it is the M.A. pill since 1) a zygote is NOT a person
Who defines "person"? The Supreme Court?
and 2) there is no indication that anyone is pregnant in any case.
So what? If the action of the pill is such as to kill a unique human being in some circumstances, why would any moral person dispense it?
I don't like to see fanaticism grow since it will destroy the conservative movement if not checked.
There is no hope for either society or the conservative movement if we do not stand for freedom of conscience against those who would make all complicit in the culture of death.
Forcing doctors to perform abortions is not likely to occur for several reasons.
I guess you don't pay attention. Many are agitating for all doctors or all OBs to be trained in abortion before they are allowed to graduate.
And Catholic hospitals are already having their consciences run over.
Since when are pharmacists to be consulted in matters of morality?
If the pharmacist has something that you want, then you need to go to him. Since there are millions of other pharmacists to go to, this is a huge non-issue.
Do you consult mechanics too?
I suppose if you want to run over your children, rather than kill them in the womb, you might need to.
Do you ask ministers their opinions about medical procedures?
If there are ethical dimensions, yes. Religion isn't just something you do for an hour on Sunday.
SD
Because we do not pay him for his conscience but for pharmacological expertise.
Legally the courts DO define "person" using the laws passed by the legislatures. Unless you live in a muslim country where the "religious" authorities control all.
If no one is pregnant there is nothing to "kill" by ANY definition.
The surest means of removing all moral considerations in law is to adopt fanatic positions which are supported by tiny minorities of the people. Few things are more tiresome than the sanctimonious. Jesus was never like that. Labeling those who disagree with you as advocates of the "Culture of Death" is an example of an excellent means of undermining support.
You are unaware of what I "pay attention" to or not. My statement still stands.
In many places there are NOT "millions" of pharmacists to go to. In the little town I was raised in there were exactly two. The last thing I want is a self-righteous pharmacist who believes he should be able to affect my decisions by refusing to serve me.
Your non-response to my legitimate question about consulting mechanics on morality is even more ludicrous than your others.
Ministers are NOT trained to give medical advice although it is not uncommon to hear of fanatics convincing their followers to ignore commonsense wrt medical treatment thereby killing their children. Not very pro-Life for sure.
It is his right not to. It is your right not to shop there too. You see, your rights don't trump other people's. Even if every catholic stopped dispensing birth control, you would have no trouble obtaining it. The dearth of Mormon pornographers hasn't made any dent in the supply, either.
A lot of catholics have abortions and get divorces. That doesn't make it mainstream catholicism.
No, fanaticism and "jamming religious concerns down the throats of others" is requiring one person to act against his conscience there is a plethora of other sources. Nobody needs to raid pentecostals and force them to produce porn, and they aren't shoving their beliefs down your throat by letting the hot chicks in their midst wear clothes.
You prefer a pharmacist without a conscience, or one who never lets his get in the way. It's nice that you admit such.
People who have morals really bother those who want to live in relativism. So they insist that all must accept their "lifestyles."
This is the quickest way to totalitarianism.
Legally the courts DO define "person" using the laws passed by the legislatures.
And you are fine with whatever the courts say. The idea of a higher authority is scary.
The surest means of removing all moral considerations in law is to adopt fanatic positions which are supported by tiny minorities of the people.
Your position is absurd. If it is a "tiny minority" then it is just good sense to leave them alone in their consciences. Instead, those who must be accepted must squash any who disagree.
Jesus was never like that.
Jesus said whoever harmed the smallest child would be better off being thrown into the sea with a stone around his neck.
Labeling those who disagree with you as advocates of the "Culture of Death" is an example of an excellent means of undermining support.
Support for what? If you are convinced that only babies who are wanted are "persons" and others can be killed by whatever method is most convenient, why am I to change to gain your "support"?
You are unaware of what I "pay attention" to or not. My statement still stands.
As a testament to your cleverness, sure. Since only those who "volunteer" to do abortions will be licensed as doctors, no "doctor" will ever be "forced" to permit abortions.
In many places there are NOT "millions" of pharmacists to go to. In the little town I was raised in there were exactly two.
It is the 21st Century. There are many outlets who will gladly sell these pills. Of course, one might have to be slightly inconvenienced, and that is what is intolerable.
The last thing I want is a self-righteous pharmacist who believes he should be able to affect my decisions by refusing to serve me.
Then go to a different pharmacist. These are the "pro-choice" people? Why can't we have a choice. Moral pharmacists or amoral ones.
Your non-response to my legitimate question about consulting mechanics on morality is even more ludicrous than your others.
I responded. If you want any type of service professional to assist you in killing another, you might expect some to disapprove. A mechanic should not help you kill people any more than any other professional.
Ministers are NOT trained to give medical advice
I can't speak for all ministers, of course, but priests generally do study medical ethics.
SD
So, should an OBGYN perform an abortion on demand not matter what their moral view is?
"The last thing I want is ..." But you are more than enthusiastic in seeking to force your secular religion upon those who do not bend to it.
Blah, blah, blah.
Obviously, you're yet another person who doesn't realize that there are millions of women who take BC for reasons other than birth control. Ever heard of endometriosis? How about the fact that you can't simply stop taking the pill one day once you've started?
Any pharmacist denying my fiancee her BC meds would get a punch in the face from me. It would be MUCH less pain that he is looking to inflict on her.
From the Pharmacist's Code of Ethics:
I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.
Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to the gift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.
III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.
A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.
VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.
When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation of colleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient.
There is NO reason to use birth control pills for medical reasons. Women survived thousands of years just fine without the pill to "regulate" menstruation. That is right up there with such famous lines as "I promise I won't get you pregnant".
Anyway, why must anyone be forced to sell something to someone else? Isn't that fascism?
If these ob/gyn's are morally opposed to perfoming an abortion, as per a physician's orders, they need to find a different line of work. It is not their place to hold moral judgement over what a specific mecdial procedures do.
Where is the difference in logic?
I'm a civil engineer. Should I be forced to take comissions from people who want to build abortuaries? How about being forced to take comissions to build pagan temples?
Logic would dictate that free people can choose what they wish to buy and sell on mutually agreeable terms.
Any use of the birth control pill is considered immoral by millions of Catholics and Evangelical Portestants and Jews and Muslims. Aside from it being an abortofacient, we also all agree that birth control itself is immoral (a "shocking" stance that was the law of the US until 1971).
For health reasons, a woman may not want to risk a pregnancy. Or a husband may use a condom because the couple wants to wait until the wife is done school, etc.
For morals reasons, many people don't wish to be associated with dispensing any variety of birth control devices and potions.
It isn't any of the pharmacist's business how a valid perscription is to be used. And it isn't up to a pharmacist to decisions for these people.
The Pharamacist is only making a decision for themselves - they are choosing not to do what they view as immoral.
If a pharmacists sincerely wishes to follow their beliefs, then it should be on a big sign outside the door to the store so customers know not to bring their perscription there. The only exception would be a small community served by a single pharmacy. Then the pharmacists has no right to hold the resodence hostage.
Is this really a conservative bulletin board? Whatver happened to the freedom of association, freedom to run ones business as one sees fit, etc.? Maybe the immoralists of the community should not be allowed to hold pharamacists hostage to their immorality. Let them go and find someone of a different moral persuasion who is willing to cater to their perversity.
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.