Posted on 11/30/2005 7:18:46 PM PST by Tzimisce
Just one day, enough with the juvenile comments.
The truth burns you.
Aren't you forcing your own beliefs/opinions on the pharmacist who doesn't want to dispense a certain medication? How is a pharmacist who doesn't want to dispense morning after pills because it violates his personal beliefs any different from a doctor who refuses to do abortions because it violates HIS personal beliefs? Shall we force both to do something against their consciences?
You may go to another pharmacist or order the pills through the mail from the manufacturer. There is a way to respect everyone's choices in this situation.
If Walgreen doesn't want to dispense Premarin, that should be respected. Stores have the right to sell whatever they want - pharmacies should be no different.
I am speechless at your reply. It is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. I'm just glad I don't know or work for you. I will just ask once again- do you honestly believe a doctor should be forced to perform abortions against their will or conscience by an employer (after the doctor had previously been employed there with the understanding that they would not?) Please think about this seriously before replying again.
No doctor is forced to do abortions in this country. If an employer changes terms of employment, some states will grandfather in these conscience clauses. Some won't.
I don't know exactly how these kinds of things apply to doctors. He may have to consider affiliating with another provider.
But, why would a doctor who doesn't perform abortions remain employed at a clinic or hospital where they are now performed?
You jumped the shark here. If your AIDS-infected friend couldn't get his prescription from one pharmacy, he'd go to another.
Why are there so many people on FR who hate freedom?
Where's a conservative lawyer when you need one? Oh...I forgot they like to talk a lot instead walking the walk...
What would you say in this case: A doctor of 20 years has All of a sudden a new director comes along and says 'All MD's at this clinic must now perform abortions any time a patient requests one.' Are they now just supposed to 'do their job and shut up' as you so caringly feel the pharmacists should?
Sorry. I say tough.
What if you have been working somewhere for several years and the company gets taken over and you do not agree with the philosophy of the new owners? Do you demand that they accomodate you? Or do you start getting your resume in order?
Just my $0.02, but I think the root of much of the outcry on this particular situation is the fact that the issue of "abortion" is involved - which tends to send people on both sides into orbit.
They're like shoplifters: they want the merchandise, don't want the responsibility of paying for it when caught.
It should be up to the company whether to grandfather anyone on a change of policy.
Also, your simile presumes that these gents knew that this new rule from Blagoyovich (sp?) would be coming. Since there was an outcry when it happened, I submit that the rule could not have been anticipated.
I said aside from the rule. In fact the rule exists because of cases like this that were due to company policy.
In the end, the companies should be able to decide. Rules such as this and the personal beliefs of employees should not be allowed to trump the right of the company to set policy.
This has nothing to do with degrading women. It has everything to do with respecting a party's right to sell something or not to sell something. It's inappropriate to force your personal convictions on another, even if they are pharmacists. If a store doesn't want to sell a certain product for whatever reason, that should be their right. Walmart is not obligated to sell towels if it doesn't want to. The same should go for every other business.
I have no problem with doctors dispensing medication directly, or a customer ordering right from the drug manufacturer. I think we agree on that. This way everyone's convictions can be respected.
Just my $0.02, but I think the root of much of the outcry on this particular situation is the fact that the issue of "abortion" is involved - which tends to send people on both sides into orbit.
Hello? of course this is what this is about. Are you saying that coercing medical professionals into part-taking in procedures that they find harmful, immoral or unethical is no different than asking a factory worker to make widget A instead of Widget B? I mean, think about this for a minute. Whatever your views on abortion, surely you don't lump it in with all other tasks asked of any other employee say of a factory, retail store, restaurant, etc... Today it may be the morning after pill, tomorrow RU486 or euthanasia. Will you still be standing there saying 'too bad, everyone just has to shut up and do whatever their employer orders them to do?
EMERGENCY???? It's an EMERGENCY that these people have sex?
Yes, and it's funny how all of these 'emrgencies' seem to happen on the weekend! I'd say 90% (maybe more) of these prescriptions are presented on Sunday afternoon after the 'victim' rolls out of bed, sobers up and gets a hold of a doctor. A lot of the same people over and over, too. I guess they don't learn their lesson after the first 'emergency'. It's quite predictable, really.
Aside from the government involvement angle, I have a strange idea: If you don't want to dispense this stuff, then don't apply for a job at at a place that expects you to do it.
And what about the pharmacists that began practice or even just working for a certain company before this drug became available? Are they supposed to be driven out of a job or profession because a few abortion zealots want everyone in the country to have to follow their agenda? According to you, all medical professionals will now have to be pro-abortion and assume that at sometime in their career, someone may ask them to participate in one and they will have no choice but to participate or lose their job/license. Boy, that will really bring in the applicants to med, pharmacy and nursing school!
I did say it's up to the company on how to grandfather people. Otherwise, I treat it like smoking bans, let the businesses decide and keep the government out of it.
Are you saying that coercing medical professionals into part-taking in procedures that they find harmful, immoral or unethical is no different than asking a factory worker to make widget A instead of Widget B? I mean, think about this for a minute. Whatever your views on abortion, surely you don't lump it in with all other tasks asked of any other employee say of a factory, retail store, restaurant, etc...
Coercion? Who is being coerced? Are pharmacists indentured servants?
And yes, being a pharmacist is just like making Widget A v. Widget B. Pharmacists provide a service - the service of filling prescriptions. That the drug is one that some disapprove of is merely incidental to the service.
Coercion? Who is being coerced? Are pharmacists indentured servants?
Well, I'd have to say being ordered to do something that is against your better judgement or conscience or lose your job is about as close to coercion as you're going to get. Sure, you can off-handedly say that they can just get another job or go to another state (where they would have to get re-licensed- no small inconvenience), but that is not usually immediately practicle.
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.