Pharmacist Denies Anti-Bleeding Medication Because Woman Might Have Had an Abortion

I am not going to parse the law in an attempt to defend the alleged actions of the pharmacist, I will simply point out that anyone who supports the right of a person to be a conscientious objector in time of war yet opposes the right of anyone in the medical field to always opt out of any procedures they have a similar moral objection to is a hypocrite.

You brought this up more than once, but I think it is a flawed analogy.

My reason is that a soldier who is a CO would not retain a combat job. If a person in the medical field will not perform a procedure or dispense a drug as a matter of conscience, should they be either fired (discharged) or forced into other duties (given a non-combat role)? Your analogy seems to me to be saying that a CO equates to a doctor refusing to perform procedures but having no change in his work, and that just doesn't fit.

If I have mistaken the point of this analogy please correct my misinterpretation. And please do not take this to be a comment on any other point or posts you have made in the thread, I am not attempting any judgments on other arguments made. Thanks!
 
One of the major arguments of this thread seems to be whether prescription drugs should be treated differently than any other item being sold. I don't recall that being clearly stated.

Some people believe prescription drugs should be looked at as any other product, to be sold or not at the discretion of the private business involved.

Some people believe prescription drugs should have different rules and even private businesses should not be free to choose to not sell them at their discretion.

If you believe one of those to be true and you argue with someone who believes the other, you will never reach any sort of agreement. I'm not telling anyone I don't think they should argue the issue, I just think being clear about it could streamline the arguments and remove some unnecessary stuff. :)

I'm a bit torn about it myself; while I believe in private business owners having the right to do what they want in theory, that often can be tricky in practice. In theory I think a business owner should be allowed to discriminate if they want to, in practice that is not a good idea. That same sort of problem is at work here, although I think to a lesser extent.
 
I am not going to parse the law in an attempt to defend the alleged actions of the pharmacist, I will simply point out that anyone who supports the right of a person to be a conscientious objector in time of war yet opposes the right of anyone in the medical field to always opt out of any procedures they have a similar moral objection to is a hypocrite.

You brought this up more than once, but I think it is a flawed analogy.

My reason is that a soldier who is a CO would not retain a combat job. If a person in the medical field will not perform a procedure or dispense a drug as a matter of conscience, should they be either fired (discharged) or forced into other duties (given a non-combat role)? Your analogy seems to me to be saying that a CO equates to a doctor refusing to perform procedures but having no change in his work, and that just doesn't fit.

If I have mistaken the point of this analogy please correct my misinterpretation. And please do not take this to be a comment on any other point or posts you have made in the thread, I am not attempting any judgments on other arguments made. Thanks!

First, let me agree that my analogy is flawed.

Next, let me say I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Both of the people I am familiar with who claimed CO status did so in peace time, so the ultimate issue was not war. I also vaguely recall some stories about CO in war time becoming medics, and not directly taking lives. I have no idea it those are true, do please do not ask me to source them. My understanding is that it depends on the individual involved. Some would be willing to accept a support role, and some would object to even that.

I see no reason the same thing would not apply to medical professionals, which is why I chose the CO analogy in the first place. Some doctors might have no problem with assisting in an abortion as long as they were not doing it themselves, and others might object to working in a hospital that preformed them at all. It is up to each person as an individual what does, and does not, violate their conscious.

Like I said, I am not sure what are asking, but I hope I clarified my position for you.
 
First, let me agree that my analogy is flawed.

Next, let me say I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Both of the people I am familiar with who claimed CO status did so in peace time, so the ultimate issue was not war. I also vaguely recall some stories about CO in war time becoming medics, and not directly taking lives. I have no idea it those are true, do please do not ask me to source them. My understanding is that it depends on the individual involved. Some would be willing to accept a support role, and some would object to even that.

I see no reason the same thing would not apply to medical professionals, which is why I chose the CO analogy in the first place. Some doctors might have no problem with assisting in an abortion as long as they were not doing it themselves, and others might object to working in a hospital that preformed them at all. It is up to each person as an individual what does, and does not, violate their conscious.

Like I said, I am not sure what are asking, but I hope I clarified my position for you.


Thank you.

However it did have certain interesting aspects which in our attempts to both be "right" seemed to have slid past each other.

In this issue social liberals and social conservatives are the opposite side of the same coin, each wanting to use government to override private will. In the case of the liberals, they want to mandate the actions of the individual. In the case of conservatives, they want to mandate the employer. The liberals cry "but think of the patient" we should be able to tell the employee what to do. The conservatives cry "think of the employee" and have no problem telling the business what they can do. (Don't think so, go back and read post #335 where I posted the law. It tells employers they cannot require job duties that offend a health care professionals conscience, it says that they must accommodate such employees, and it mandates the employer cannot discriminate against someone not doing their job if they claim it was because of conscience.)

The point being, in my opinion (which was expressed prior to the whole CO side trip) both are using the government to enforce what they want when in fact the performance of job duties is between the EMPLOYER and the EMPLOYEE. If the employer says "these are the medicines we stock, if a prescription comes in you mist fill it" - then that is the performance of the job. If the employer says "these are the medicines we stock, if a prescription comes and you don't want to fill it" - then that is the performance of the job, with the rules set by the employer.


Now how does this relate to the CO status in the Military? Because it's basically the same thing. If you join the military and then request to become a CO, no problem - THE EMPLOYER gets to set the rules for future action. The employee (i.e. soldier, sailor, marine, or airman) does not get to dictate the terms. The military will decide what happens and the process is neither hassle free or easy. It is a long process involving an investigation and multiple interviews by members both inside and outside the chain of command. Then the request is reviewed and the military gets to decide to accept or reject the application. DoD Directive 1300.6 (Conscientious Objector) clearly states "8.3. Persons who are assigned to non-combatant duties, and persons who are assigned to normal military duties by reason of disapproval of their application, will be expected to conform to the normal requirements of military service and to perform satisfactorily such duties to which he or she is assigned. Violations of Reference (g) by these members will be treated as in any other situation." [Reference (g) being the Uniform Code of Military Justice.] As such CO status is not a defense for the commission of crimes in the military. If you are designated a CO (Class 1-O) the military will discharge you, but it's the military's choice. If you are designated a CO (Class 1-A-O) they may opt to keep you in a non-combatant role, but again it's their choice.


The ultimate point, IMHO, is that duties performed should be between the employer and the employee. Those big government individuals that say "hey it's OK to demand that businesses do this..." are just as bad as those individuals that say "hey it's OK to demand that an individual do this...".


But that's just MHO of course.
 
First, let me agree that my analogy is flawed.

Next, let me say I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Both of the people I am familiar with who claimed CO status did so in peace time, so the ultimate issue was not war. I also vaguely recall some stories about CO in war time becoming medics, and not directly taking lives. I have no idea it those are true, do please do not ask me to source them. My understanding is that it depends on the individual involved. Some would be willing to accept a support role, and some would object to even that.

I see no reason the same thing would not apply to medical professionals, which is why I chose the CO analogy in the first place. Some doctors might have no problem with assisting in an abortion as long as they were not doing it themselves, and others might object to working in a hospital that preformed them at all. It is up to each person as an individual what does, and does not, violate their conscious.

Like I said, I am not sure what are asking, but I hope I clarified my position for you.


Thank you.

However it did have certain interesting aspects which in our attempts to both be "right" seemed to have slid past each other.

In this issue social liberals and social conservatives are the opposite side of the same coin, each wanting to use government to override private will. In the case of the liberals, they want to mandate the actions of the individual. In the case of conservatives, they want to mandate the employer. The liberals cry "but think of the patient" we should be able to tell the employee what to do. The conservatives cry "think of the employee" and have no problem telling the business what they can do. (Don't think so, go back and read post #335 where I posted the law. It tells employers they cannot require job duties that offend a health care professionals conscience, it says that they must accommodate such employees, and it mandates the employer cannot discriminate against someone not doing their job if they claim it was because of conscience.)

The point being, in my opinion (which was expressed prior to the whole CO side trip) both are using the government to enforce what they want when in fact the performance of job duties is between the EMPLOYER and the EMPLOYEE. If the employer says "these are the medicines we stock, if a prescription comes in you mist fill it" - then that is the performance of the job. If the employer says "these are the medicines we stock, if a prescription comes and you don't want to fill it" - then that is the performance of the job, with the rules set by the employer.


Now how does this relate to the CO status in the Military? Because it's basically the same thing. If you join the military and then request to become a CO, no problem - THE EMPLOYER gets to set the rules for future action. The employee (i.e. soldier, sailor, marine, or airman) does not get to dictate the terms. The military will decide what happens and the process is neither hassle free or easy. It is a long process involving an investigation and multiple interviews by members both inside and outside the chain of command. Then the request is reviewed and the military gets to decide to accept or reject the application. DoD Directive 1300.6 (Conscientious Objector) clearly states "8.3. Persons who are assigned to non-combatant duties, and persons who are assigned to normal military duties by reason of disapproval of their application, will be expected to conform to the normal requirements of military service and to perform satisfactorily such duties to which he or she is assigned. Violations of Reference (g) by these members will be treated as in any other situation." [Reference (g) being the Uniform Code of Military Justice.] As such CO status is not a defense for the commission of crimes in the military. If you are designated a CO (Class 1-O) the military will discharge you, but it's the military's choice. If you are designated a CO (Class 1-A-O) they may opt to keep you in a non-combatant role, but again it's their choice.


The ultimate point, IMHO, is that duties performed should be between the employer and the employee. Those big government individuals that say "hey it's OK to demand that businesses do this..." are just as bad as those individuals that say "hey it's OK to demand that an individual do this...".


But that's just MHO of course.

Personally, I have no problem with an employer telling someone that refuses to preform his duties he is fired. That applies even if the employee is attempting to claim that it violates their religion or conscious. If the employer is willing to work with the employee, fine, but they should not be required to.

It works differently with society though. Society does not have the right to force individuals to participate in anything they find objectionable simply because most people think it is perfectly legitimate. Society does not have the right to force individuals, or businesses, to dispense medications simply because someone might be inconvenienced.
 
Personally, I have no problem with an employer telling someone that refuses to preform his duties he is fired. That applies even if the employee is attempting to claim that it violates their religion or conscious. If the employer is willing to work with the employee, fine, but they should not be required to.

It works differently with society though. Society does not have the right to force individuals to participate in anything they find objectionable simply because most people think it is perfectly legitimate. Society does not have the right to force individuals, or businesses, to dispense medications simply because someone might be inconvenienced.


I have no disagreement with any of the above as a statement of what should be, we both know however that reality is somewhat different.

Let me ask you one question since I couldn't determine your position from the above. On the other side of the coin, are you for the Conscience Law where the State is telling employers that they must accommodate employees and that they cannot use their position in hiring/firing determinations?


>>>>
 
Last edited:
Personally, I have no problem with an employer telling someone that refuses to preform his duties he is fired. That applies even if the employee is attempting to claim that it violates their religion or conscious. If the employer is willing to work with the employee, fine, but they should not be required to.

It works differently with society though. Society does not have the right to force individuals to participate in anything they find objectionable simply because most people think it is perfectly legitimate. Society does not have the right to force individuals, or businesses, to dispense medications simply because someone might be inconvenienced.


I have no disagreement with any of the above as a statement of what should be, we both know however that reality is somewhat different.

Let me ask you one question since I couldn't determine your position from the above. On the other side of the coin, are you for the Conscience Law where the State is telling employers that they must accommodate employees and that they cannot use their position in hiring/firing determinations?


>>>>

Nope.
 

Forum List

Back
Top