Posted on 10/29/2007 1:23:27 PM PDT by ConorMacNessa
True, but now they are employed by companies that make money off of and pay their salaries with the profits earned from the sale of medicine they object to. That's like being a security guard at an abortion clinic. They may not perform the abortions but they are profiting from it. Wouldn't it make more sense to quit rather than accept a salary from a company who practices what you condemn?
And the great thing about freedom and capitalism is that I, as a customer, am then free to boycott your pharmacy and encourage my co-religionists to do the same. And if you don't like the hit to your bottom line, you can change your policies. Or not.
However, what's happening in more than one locale is the government is stepping in and making what should be a set of private economic decisions between the pharmacy owner, the pharmacist, and the customer into a point of public policy. If all pharmacists are required to dispense, e.g., Plan B, then I no longer have the freedom to patronize one who does not, to say nothing of no longer having the freedom to be one who does not.
If we had a free market and business owners had the choice so a health care employee had a choice, it would make sense. But when governments force this choice on all businesses, it gets to the point where pro-lifers can't work in the profession. Is that what you want?
If you want to work at a job that involves certain tasks, you should either perform those tasks, or find another job. I think most people here would consider that a conservative approach. So, if you own a pharmacy, do what you want, otherwise do what you’re told. Or perhaps you think it’s reasonable for Muslim taxi drivers to refuse to carry alcohol (or dogs), or for Muslims working in a grocery store check-out to refuse to handle port (or alcohol)?
An excellent example.
Do the entire job, or don't take the job.
Yep, if you don't want to kill babies, stay out of health care!!!! Great example.
You're mixing apples and oranges here. I think most Freepers disagree with a law that requires every phamacist to dispense drugs in violation of deeply held religious belief. It's another thing entirely to say a private pharmacy owner can't hire only those people who will dispense any lawful RX so as to maximize his income. Just as the same pharmacy owner should be able to instruct all his phamacists not to dispense the drug if it violates his conscience. That's the whole concept of private property.
I am not mixing anything, that is what is happening. And when the Democrats get in charge and start playing with health care, it will happen nationally.
When the hypocrites in the church take the log out of their eye, then I’ll get the splinter out of mine. Facts aren’t bigoted, by the way. And the fact was the high officials in the Catholic Church knew about the problem and did nothing for years.
Plenty of ways to be in health care and not contribute to something you find distasteful or offensive. Having to dispense medicine that some faiths oppose is nothing new to the profession.
This is like somebody enlisting in the Marines and then deciding that he's a pacifist and doesn't want to kill anybody after all.
Not all I was just questioning the seriousness of one's conviction when it comes to supporting their religious beliefs. It strikes me as odd that a pharmacist would refuse to dispense a drug while accepting a salary that includes profits from its sale. There is also a slippery slope argument to be made. Some religions forbid any type of birth control, even over the counter devices. What's an employer supposed to do? Hire employees based on which products each particular religion allows them to sell?
We don’t deny your fact. We object to your use of it.
For now.
So I take it you don’t shop at Walgreen’s or CVS.
It's more like enlisting in the military and being ordered to bayonet tied up civilians, as an exercise to desensitize you to slaughter. Like the Japanese military did in WWII.
Or it's like a doctor who chose the profession to heal the sick and being forced to kill children or lose his medical license.
You people disgust me.
If you don't want to distribute birth control pills, don't be a pharmacist.
Some high officials knew about it and did nothing. You are indicting the entire Church for the actions of a few irresponsible bishops. Are you, like other Catholic-haters, going to now indict all priests as being pedophiles?
Do the entire job, or don't take the job.
No, it is a poor example and incorrect. Physicians and nurses have always had the ability to decline to administer care in certain situations. This is not a new debate. The individual is allowed, actually responsible, to refuse assignments which fall outside a person's area of expertise or conscience. Once the healthcare professional agrees to provide care, whether for a short period of time or extended as in private practice, he or she is ethically obligated to provide care or refer to another provider who can.
If I was a hospital nurse asked to assist with an abortion I could lawfully refuse and another nurse could be asked to assist. However if I applied to a Planned Parenthood to assist in abortions then refused, they could lawfully fire me as the terms of the employment were agreed upon at the outset.
There has never been an accepted policy of coercing healthcare workers to perform tasks outside their expertise or conscience. This includes pharmacists.
Except those pharmacists who work in California, Illinois, or Washington.
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.