When the Personal Shouldn't Be Political
By GARY HART
November 8, 2004
Kittredge, Colo. - If America has entered one of its periodic eras of religious revival and if that revival is having the profound impact on politics that is now presumed, to participate in a discussion of "faith" one must qualify oneself.
I was raised in the Church of the Nazarene, an evangelical denomination founded a century ago as an offshoot of American Methodism, which, the church founders believed, had become too liberal. I graduated from Bethany Nazarene College, where I met and married my wife, who was also brought up in the church. I then graduated from the Yale Divinity School as preparation for a life of teaching religion and philosophy.
The Nazarene Church abhorred drinking, smoking, dancing, movies and female adornment, believed in salvation through being "born again" and in sanctification as a second act of grace, and resisted most popular culture as the devil's work. In doctrine and practice, it was much more evangelical than fundamentalist.
A neglected thread of church doctrine was the social gospel of John and Charles Wesley, the great reformers of late 18th-century Methodism. The Wesley brothers preached salvation through grace but also preached the duty of Christians, based solidly on Jesus' teachings, to minister to those less fortunate. My political philosophy springs directly from Jesus' teachings and is the reason I became active in the Democratic Party. Finally, in the qualification-to-speak category, I will seek to pre-empt the ad hominem disqualifiers. I am a sinner. I only ask for the same degree of forgiveness from my many critics that they were willing to grant George W. Bush for his transgressions.
As a candidate for public office, I chose not to place my beliefs in the center of my appeal for support because I am also a Jeffersonian; that is to say, I believe that one's religious beliefs - though they will and should affect one's outlook on public policy and life - are personal and that America is a secular, not a theocratic, republic. Because of this, it should concern us that declarations of "faith" are quickly becoming a condition for seeking public office.
Declarations of "faith" are abstractions that permit both voters and candidates to fill in the blanks with their own religious beliefs. There are two dangers here. One is the merging of church and state. The other is rank hypocrisy. Having claimed moral authority to achieve political victory, religious conservatives should be very careful, in their administration of the public trust, to live up to the standards they have claimed for themselves. They should also be called upon to address the teachings of Jesus and the prophets concerning care for the poor, the barriers that wealth presents to entering heaven, the blessings on the peacemakers, and the belief that no person should be left behind.
If we are to insert "faith" into the public dialogue more directly and assertively, let's not be selective. Let's go all the way. Let's not just define "faith" in terms of the law and judgment; let's define it also in terms of love, caring, forgiveness. Compassionate conservatives can believe social ills should be addressed by charity and the private sector; liberals can believe that the government has a role to play in correcting social injustice. But both can agree that human need, poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and sickness must be addressed. Liberals are not against religion. They are against hypocrisy, exclusion and judgmentalism. They resist the notion that one side or the other possesses "the truth" to the exclusion of others. There is a great difference between Cotton Mather and John Wesley.
There is also the disturbing tendency to insert theocratic principles into the vision of America's role in the world. There is evil in the world. Nowhere in our Constitution or founding documents is there support for the proposition that the United States was given a special dispensation to eliminate it. Surely Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. But there are quite a few of those still around and no one is advocating eliminating them. Neither Washington, Adams, Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world's avenging angel. Any notion of going abroad seeking demons to destroy concerned them above all else. Mr. Bush's venture into crusaderism frightened not only Muslims, it also frightened a very large number of Americans with a sense of their own history.
The religions of Abraham all teach a sense of personal and collective humility. It was a note briefly struck very early by Mr. Bush and largely abandoned thereafter. It would be well for those in the second Bush term to ponder that attribute. Whether Bush supporters care or not, people around the world now see America as arrogant, self-righteous and superior. These are not qualities of any traditional faith I am aware of.
If faith now drives our politics, at the very least let's make it a faith of inclusion, genuine compassion, humility, justice and accountability. In the words of the prophet Micah: "He hath shown thee, O man, what is good. What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" And, instead of "O man," let's insert "O America."
Gary Hart, the former Democratic senator from Colorado, is the author, most recently, of "The Fourth Power: A Grand Strategy for the United States in the 21st Century.''
Posted by Maria at November 9, 2004 03:19 PM | TrackBackNot even a week into the 2nd term and already those who are "faith based" already feel it is their "mandate" now to dictate their beliefs upon your inconvenience.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill
welp, it didn't take very long to say it: I TOLD YOU SO!
Posted by: nunya at November 9, 2004 04:29 PMWhy should they be forced to do something that's against their faith?
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 9, 2004 04:44 PMThey should not be working at the counter of a pharmacy if they are going to regulate their faith onto others. Birth control is legal. What is illegal is refusing to dispense medicine to someone who has a valid prescription and has posed no reason for which to deny them that prescription. If someone said "it is against my religion to dispense heart medication because I am a scientologist" would you say that was okay?
Posted by: Maria at November 9, 2004 04:51 PMThey should not be working at the counter of a pharmacy if they are going to regulate their faith onto others.
They aren't regulating their faith on others. Does that mean vegan restaurants should be required to serve veal? That temples should be required to serve communion? That all businesses should be required to be open on Christmas?
What is illegal is refusing to dispense medicine to someone who has a valid prescription and has posed no reason for which to deny them that prescription.
Which law does that violate?
If someone said "it is against my religion to dispense heart medication because I am a scientologist" would you say that was okay?
Yes. They'd probably have trouble finding a job, though.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 9, 2004 04:58 PMYou cannot compare a vegan restaurant, a temple, or any other business to the business of dispensing medicine. Those who dispense medicine do not have the luxury of deciding what is morally right and wrong when it comes to pills. That would create a crisis in our pharmaceutical industry.
I think you'd also have trouble keeping your job dispensing prescriptions at a pharmacy if you refused to fill valid prescriptions. As these people will likely find out.
"Which law does that violate?"
Apparently, you are correct, it does not violate any law. I wrongly assumed that it does. There seems to be a hot debate though, about whether pharmacists are entitled to a "conscience clause." In cases of the dispensing of any standard medication, if a pharmacist feels it violates ethical or moral practices to dispense, in most states he or she has an obligation to refer the patient back to a physician. But it would seem that there would be some kind of set of standards and practices in place that prevent a pharmacist from refusing to prescribe heart medication or anything else that might be vital to the survival of the patient.
Obviously, I have to do a lot more research on this before I pose a difinative statement about what is and is not legal to avoid sticking my foot in my mouth again.
One thing I DO know for sure is that a person who has strong moral views about what others should do with their bodies should not be working in the medical profession at all, much less in the pharmaceutical business.
Posted by: Maria at November 9, 2004 05:22 PMYou cannot compare a vegan restaurant, a temple, or any other business to the business of dispensing medicine.
sure you can.
That would create a crisis in our pharmaceutical industry.
How?
I think you'd also have trouble keeping your job dispensing prescriptions at a pharmacy if you refused to fill valid prescriptions. As these people will likely find out.
I agree, and rightfully so, but that is a seperate issue.
Obviously, I have to do a lot more research on this before I pose a difinative statement about what is and is not legal to avoid sticking my foot in my mouth again.
One instance from that article was about a pharmacist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but refused to return it to the patient. That can be a life threatening act. While he should have the right to refuse service, if it isn't illegal to prevent the patient from taking it elsewhere, it certainly should be. He shouldn't just receive disciplinary action, he should receive prosecution.
One thing I DO know for sure is that a person who has strong moral views about what others should do with their bodies should not be working in the medical profession at all, much less in the pharmaceutical business.
Or at least make his restrictions well advertised. For example, I can't go to one of those holistic healers then cry when they prescribe bat wings, not antibiotics.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 9, 2004 05:29 PMExactly. Which is why it can't be compared to a vegan restaurant or a temple. Because when you go to a vegan restaurant, you know you're not going to get any meat, so it's comparable to going to a shoemaker to get your car fixed. People know that if they want meat, they shouldn't go to the hippie diner.
Problem is, when you go to a pharmacy you expect to get your prescription filled. When some wackjob tells you it's against their religion to dispense that kind of medicine, it's more than a little unsettling. When I got into the business of being an administrative assistant, I knew it would require a lot of typing and filing. If I one day just refused to do those things that are considered a part of my duties, I would no doubt lose my job. When a person gets into the business of dispensing pharmaceuticals, they are aware that they will be dispensing many different prescriptions to treat an array of illnesses and conditions and also preventive medicines. It should be a requirement that a person not impose their personal beliefs on customers of that pharmacy.
Can you imagine going to get a prescription for Viagra and the lady says "that's disgusting! I'm not giving you that!" or prescription for treatment of a venereal disease "shouldn't have been sleeping around in the first place! Sorry, it would be against my moral and religious observances to give you medicine for that. It's the result of a sin." Or heart medication "I'm sorry, I'm a scientologist, if you can't heal yourself by praying then you'll just have to die." This is where the crisis comes in. There has to be standards and practices which pharmacists are required to follow, or else it all goes willy nilly with people using their own discretion about whether to dispense medicine based on their religious beliefs.
When some wackjob tells you it's against their religion to dispense that kind of medicine, it's more than a little unsettling.
While I don't share their beliefs, I wouldn't call them "whackjobs". That's as intolerant as you accuse the religious right of being.
It should be a requirement that a person not impose their personal beliefs on customers of that pharmacy.
That should be up to the business owner, in my opinion. I'm actually more of a libertarian than I am a Republican. I really hate gov't involvement in most things. I think businesses should conduct themselves as they choose and let supply and demand sort it out. How long do you think a pharmacy that doesn't fill contraceptive prescriptions would be in business? Not long where I live.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 9, 2004 05:59 PMMy father is a pharmacist..he fills a prescription that a DOCTOR has prescribed..if he refuses to do that duty than he should be terminated from that position. You can't haggle these things...when someone wants or needs their drugs it comes off of a physicians' tablet..pharmacist gets drug..puts in bottle..gives to patient...than it's bye bye..no room for personal feelings.
Posted by: Sandy at November 9, 2004 06:33 PMno room for personal feelings.
That's your personal feeling.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 9, 2004 06:35 PMGeoff, I hope you realize that doctors and nurses are bound by the Hypocritical Oath. They can lose thier license to practice if a jury of their peers deems it so.
To give you an example, a doctor/nurse can lose their license to practice medicine for refusing to treat patient who may have raped or murdered someone. Their sole purpose to to save whatever life may lay before their hands, regardless of their personal, moral or whichever, beliefs. If they refuse, they can and probably will lose their license.
Pharmacists are made to take that oath as well, but unfortunately are not judged by their peers in an everyday setting (primarility because most pharmacists work for a private business). Nonetheless, they took the same oath and should be bound by the same non-objective reasoning when practicing their trade. When we allow them to be objective in what they do (whether it is based on faith or whatever) than we allow the first cracks in the foundation of healthcare in this country.
You allow them to deny filling a script based on their beliefs, then where does it stop?
The bottom line is this - if they feel so strong in their moral convitions so much that they cannot fill scripts, then they should be stripped of their license to practice.
To allow anything otherwise is ludicrous and taking a step back into the 15th century when the Holy Church made the laws of the lands in Europe.
Posted by: nunya at November 9, 2004 07:12 PMGary Hart doesn't really have a foot to stand upon considering his past relationships with 'Puffed Rice'....
Posted by: Mad Mikey at November 9, 2004 07:22 PMand this conversation got dumbed down to 3rd grade. thanks mikey
Posted by: nunya at November 9, 2004 07:23 PMGeoff, I hope you realize that doctors and nurses are bound by the Hypocritical Oath.
HAHAHAHA! I assume you are referring to the "Hippocratic Oath" as in Hippocrates, founder of modern medicine.
Pharmacists are neither doctors nor nurses, and do not take the Hippocratic Oath.
Pharmacists are made to take that oath as well
Wrong.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 9, 2004 07:24 PMnd this conversation got dumbed down to 3rd grade. thanks mikey
You're welcome NEOspork - anything I can do to help you 'get it'....
Posted by: Mad Mikey at November 9, 2004 08:03 PMreally? pharmacists take the Hippocratic Oath? news to me. probably because you're wrong.
while I do believe that refusing to fill a customer's prescription based on moral value is wrong (and a pretty shitty way to represent the company by which you are employed), as Geoffrey stated earlier, it is not illegal, nor are they bound by any "oath." it is up to the company that signs their paychecks to decide whether they want to continue to employ them. the pharmacy for which I work says that all employees are to make the customers happy as long as it is not "immoral, illegal, or unethical." but who is to say what's immoral and what's not? it's a pretty blurry line to a lot of people and not exactly outlined in the "employee handbook."
Posted by: girl at November 9, 2004 08:34 PMactually, there were calls from the educational institutions for them to take the oath. other "oaths" have been talked about while some other schools have made them take personal otahs - for this very reason we are discussing.
girl, you made a statement "whose to say what is immoral and what is not" - I can comment on that on so many levels. First of all, it is one of the main reasons I didn't vote for Bush "whose to say" is exactly right. Who knows? But it certainly should not be the US Government. As for this particular discussion, that statement should not even be an issue. Pharmacists should be amoral in their practice. Period. As long as it isn't illegal. Like sandy said "fill the script" nothing more, nothing less. Answer questions, make sure there are no interactions with anything else the customer may be taking. But leave your personal moral and ethical beliefs at home and church. Don't bring it into a place of business and especially in a place of healthcare.
Posted by: nunya at November 9, 2004 08:56 PMactually, there were calls from the educational institutions for them to take the oath. other "oaths" have been talked about while some other schools have made them take personal otahs - for this very reason we are discussing.
"talked about" isn't a binding oath. You said they had to take them. You were wrong.
But leave your personal moral and ethical beliefs at home and church. Don't bring it into a place of business and especially in a place of healthcare.
That's up to the employer and the consumer.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 9, 2004 09:06 PMat any rate - if this starts to get to be a problem, "talked about" will be more than just that. These provosts, deans and presidents at these schools will not want to graduate pharmacists who refuse to do their jobs based on their own zealot beliefs.
Posted by: nunya at November 9, 2004 09:23 PMI disagree. I think they'll continue to educate pharmacists and allow the employers to conduct their business.
As it should be.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 9, 2004 09:33 PMand employer will never deny a script to be filled or not filled.
and what we are talkimg about isn't employers per se' but individual pharmacists. and to say the government stays out of their business is silly. pharmacists are already regulated as it is, as they should be.
Posted by: nunya at November 9, 2004 09:36 PMand employer will never deny a script to be filled or not filled.
Most likely you are correct. But they are the decision makers.
and to say the government stays out of their business is silly. pharmacists are already regulated as it is, as they should be.
I never said that. They are regulated for safety, not the circumstances we are discussing.
There is, however, a pharmacists association that can, and is considering, disciplinary action against pharmacists. I'm not sure what their jurisdiction is or what guidelines they must follow.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 9, 2004 09:45 PMi certainly would like to see that happen.
Posted by: nunya at November 9, 2004 09:53 PMWhy should they be forced to do something that's against their faith?
Because faith is not trump...law is. You can't kill someone because to let them live is against your faith.
There are many occupation that require licencing not simply because the work can constitute a danger to the public, but also because the work implies a certain degree of public trust...as in "in public law, permission by legal authority to engage in certain acts and also the document showing such permission. Some licenses are required for the protection of the public; they assure professional competence".
Quite simply it both unprofessional and unethical for a pharmacist to refuse someone a prescibed medication based on their personal faith. A person cannot act in the public realm without the bias of their personal belief system affecting their duties to the public legally requiring their assistance is breaching the public trust and should have their licence revoked.
This is nation of secular laws, not a nation of ecclesiastical canons.
Posted by: cul at November 9, 2004 10:59 PMBecause faith is not trump...law is. You can't kill someone because to let them live is against your faith.
You need a little better understanding of the law, then. What laws were they breaking?
Quite simply it both unprofessional and unethical for a pharmacist to refuse someone a prescibed medication based on their personal faith.
Quite simply, don't try to force your ethics on me.
A person cannot act in the public realm without the bias of their personal belief system affecting their duties to the public legally requiring their assistance is breaching the public trust and should have their licence revoked.
Again, wrong. A person definitely can, and people often do.
You need a little better understanding of the law, then. What laws were they breaking?
Can you not read? Your presmise, your question was: "Why should they be forced to do something that's against their faith?"
Because faith is not a superior critereon by which we judge social behavior...the pharmacist does not have to be breaking a law. He is being unethical...not by your standards by professional medical standards. Pharmacists are part of the medical services delivery system and if you think pharmacists cannot have their licences revoked for unethical reasons by state boards, you are sorely mistaken.
Quite simply, don't try to force your ethics on me.
They are not my ethics, but what gives your ethics priority? For that matter what gives the pharmacist the right to impose their ethics over those of the consumer who is breaking no law? There are some services and jobs in the culture that are consider essential serives and placed under heavier social constraints than others because of the potential for damage to society as a whole. The chain of businesses and services of the medical community are deemed essential. If the premise of faith based behaviors were tolerated in the medical community, the chain would rapidly fall apart. You could end up with a situation where an entire community of pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions that didn't suit their particular moral designs. Pharmacists are there to fill prescriptions from another member of the medical community of which they are a part. They are not there to proscribe patient behaviors. That would be going beyond their area of expertise and professional boundary.
A person cannot act in the public realm without the bias of their personal belief system affecting their duties to the public legally requiring their assistance is breaching the public trust and should have their licence revoked.
Again, wrong. A person definitely can, and people often do.
Sorry, that was supposed to read:
A person WHO cannot act in the public realm without the bias of their personal belief system affecting their duties to the public legally requiring their assistance is breaching the public trust and should have their licence revoked.
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 02:59 AM
Neil Noesen, a pharmacist in Wisconsin, faced a disciplinary hearing for refusing to fill or transfer a woman's prescription for birth control pills. Noesen was accused of unprofessional conduct by the states Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Get it? Probably not...
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 03:28 AMSorry - I am up, I had a dream the bush driver from a park and ride asked everyone if it was cold enough for them - this prompted me to wake up and realize I forgot to put my coat in the dryer after I washed it last night. So, the coat is drying, I am up and I am reading blogs.
Anyways, Geoff mentioned something that made me think of the time when that muslim lady was refused a drivers license because she did not want to take off hr Burqua (spelling?) because it was against her faith. Yet, I could not find a law saying you had to have you full face exposed for yhe picture.
I equate that with this discussion and where it breaks down Geoff's argument. It also makes us realize we are not just a land of laws, but a land of common sense. Just because something is not law does not give us the unequivical right to do or not do somehting. I remember something a great writer wrote about "where law ends common sense begins." Just like that muslim lady's faith could not rump the COMMON SENSE of needing to show your face for your drivers license, so shouldn't a pharmacists faith keep him or her from filling a prescription - the alternartive in both cases? No drivers license for the lady, no job/pharmecology license for the pharmacist. One can walk or take the bus. One can become a deacon or lay worker at a church.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 04:42 AMwow, freudian slip "bush" driver was supposed to be BUS driver.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 04:43 AMCan you not read? Your presmise, your question was: "Why should they be forced to do something that's against their faith?" Because faith is not a superior critereon by which we judge social behavior...the pharmacist does not have to be breaking a law. He is being unethical...not by your standards by professional medical standards.
Can YOU not read? He wasn't doing anything illegal. He wasn't doing anything unethical. Stop forcing your ethics on me. Stop making up the ethics of others. They don't hold water.
Your entire argument is based on what YOU think, not what IS fact. While that may lead to an entertaining conversation, it means absolutely nothing except you don't mind imposing YOUR ethics and morals on someone else when it fits YOUR purpose, but cry when it opposes you. As I've stated numerous times, you're a hypocrite. If you don't like the level of service you get at a pharmacy, go to another.
Sorry, that was supposed to read:
A person WHO cannot act in the public realm without the bias of their personal belief system affecting their duties to the public legally requiring their assistance is breaching the public trust and should have their licence revoked.
Then say what you mean. Don't try to slip lies through in hopes they aren't noticed. The fact is, what you think SHOULD happen isn't always what WILL happen. Stop imposing your ethics on me.
Get it? Probably not...
I already pointed that out. We agreed, then moved on to a topic we didn't agree on. Did you read it? Probably not. Why know what you're talking about, right?
I equate that with this discussion and where it breaks down Geoff's argument.
LOL, you can equate it to whatever you'd like. Equate it to a donkey if you feel so inclined. That doesn't make it so. A driver's license is an Identification Card, hence the picture. I'll see if I can find the requirements for DL pictures in Florida.
As I said before, the types of drugs carried should be up to the pharmacist or company. Are pharmacies even required to carry all drugs?
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 07:41 AMNow it wouldn't be much of a pharmacy without drugs. Nor would it be very fiscally prudent to get all of your DEAand other government licensing and then not carry drugs. Choose to not carry a drug based on cost. Choose to not carry a drugs based on its medical dangers - as a pharmacist, that is your duty. But do not choose to not carry a drug based on what you think is morally wrong or right. That is when you cross the bounds that faith is effecting people's health.
Did you know there are some women who take birth control pills to regulate or stop altogether extremely painful and lasting periods and not fir birht control itself? And you got these right wing religious zealots out there not wanting to fill a script because it is against their religion. If you cannot see the wrong in that, then I hope one of your zealots prays for you.
Again, this isn't a question of whether its law or not - it is a question of what is right or wrong in the profession itself. Like I already said - these pharmacists want to play that game where the are letting their faith play a role in what scripts to fill (notice I do not say prescribe - pharmacists do not prescribe anything, they fill prescriptions), then they shouldn't be in the profession at all. And just because they have a religious zealot in the whitehouse, does not give them a mandate to do what they want.
Now it wouldn't be much of a pharmacy without drugs. Nor would it be very fiscally prudent to get all of your DEAand other government licensing and then not carry drugs. Choose to not carry a drug based on cost. Choose to not carry a drugs based on its medical dangers - as a pharmacist, that is your duty. But do not choose to not carry a drug based on what you think is morally wrong or right. That is when you cross the bounds that faith is effecting people's health.
How is a person's health less effected when you chose not to carry a drug based on cost? Many pharmacies don't carry many drugs for any number of different reasons. They aren't required to. They shouldn't be required to.
Did you know there are some women who take birth control pills to regulate or stop altogether extremely painful and lasting periods and not fir birht control itself? And you got these right wing religious zealots out there not wanting to fill a script because it is against their religion. If you cannot see the wrong in that, then I hope one of your zealots prays for you.
Yes, I did know that. It's not uncommon. You want to force your beliefs on someone else. That's exactly what liberals cry the "right wing religious zealots" are doing. You're just as bad as they are. If you want something, go to a place that carries it. Don't require everyone to carry it.
Again, this isn't a question of whether its law or not - it is a question of what is right or wrong in the profession itself. Like I already said - these pharmacists want to play that game where the are letting their faith play a role in what scripts to fill (notice I do not say prescribe - pharmacists do not prescribe anything, they fill prescriptions), then they shouldn't be in the profession at all.
That's your opinion. That's you trying to force your beliefs on someone else. You're a left wing zealot.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 08:17 AMThe premise of your argument follows the same lines that if a christian doesn't like a tv show, and they are not allowed to force their beliefs onto us about it, then the tv show is sort of forcing its beliefs onto everyone else, so it shouldn't be shown?
How is making a pharmacist do his or her job "forcing a belief" onto them? What if they don't beleive in the DEA - is that then "forcing a belief" onto them?
Another question to ask is what if said pahrmacy is the only one around for 200 miles? or in one of the cases in the news article, the lady needed the script filled, the pharmacist reufes and then she couldn't get it filled until the next day, effectively missing her daily dose?
Again Goeff, I accuse you of looking at things in either black or white. There are too many gray areas here to allow the zealots to do whatever they want when it comes to affecting others.
Let a pharmacist refuse to fill my script because he doesn't believe in the medicine. I equate that to forcing his religion on me - the response - I force my fist down his throat.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 08:37 AMThe premise of your argument follows the same lines that if a christian doesn't like a tv show, and they are not allowed to force their beliefs onto us about it, then the tv show is sort of forcing its beliefs onto everyone else, so it shouldn't be shown?
nunya, if you are going to bolster your opinion, stick to relevant examples. Your tv show bit actually helps my argument. I think stations should be able to show what they want and let the consumer decide which station they want to watch. Same with pharmacies. Fill what you want and let the consumer decide which pharmacy they want to support.
How is making a pharmacist do his or her job "forcing a belief" onto them? What if they don't beleive in the DEA - is that then "forcing a belief" onto them?
You are forcing them to do something that is against their beliefs. They aren't required by law to "believe in" the DEA. They don't have to. They must, however, abide by certain laws. Filling birth control prescriptions isn't one of them.
Another question to ask is what if said pahrmacy is the only one around for 200 miles? or in one of the cases in the news article, the lady needed the script filled, the pharmacist reufes and then she couldn't get it filled until the next day, effectively missing her daily dose?
Then obviously the market is ripe for another pharmacy, one that meets the needs of the people. Time for a good entrepreneur to make his move.
Again Goeff, I accuse you of looking at things in either black or white. There are too many gray areas here to allow the zealots to do whatever they want when it comes to affecting others.
No, I'm looking at it constitutionally. You're trying to force your zealot views on others.
Let a pharmacist refuse to fill my script because he doesn't believe in the medicine. I equate that to forcing his religion on me - the response - I force my fist down his throat.
Here's where you go to the absurd and I end my participation. Tchau!
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 08:46 AMi love how I am a zealot for thinking pharmacists should be forced to do their jobs.
fact is, I know you better than this - you are only in this discussion for thr fight nto for the conext. you are as religious as I am.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 09:57 AMActually, the level at which I practice religion is irrelevant. I'm in this because I believe in someone else's right to be free of your persecution on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 10:00 AMand what about the people trying to get their prescritpiosn filled. It isn't as if they can just go to any okld place to get it - they have to rely on someone who is licensed to do it. Their rights are being violated by some fucking whackjob.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 10:12 AMand answer me this - do you fele the same way about a soldier in the army who doesn't want to go fight because it is against his religious beliefs?
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 10:14 AMNope.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 10:25 AMThen say what you mean.
It was a typo...something I'm sure you never do...but you still can't read...its not my ethics, its the medical community's ethics.
That why the Wisconsin paharmacist was sued by the state for breaching ethical conduct standards. Do you not understand the premise? A doctor or a lawyer doesn't have to break the law to be brought up before an ethics committee or even sued by the state. That's what you don't seem to take into account.
But what we are discussing is not a question of legal breach but rather ethical breach. Anyone with even a modicum of common sense can understand how a pharmacist imposing their personal morality based solely on their particular faith on a member of the public who does not share that morality is acting unethically. It simply is not the pharmacist's call, nor should it be. If the pharmacist cannot do their job without the collision between their personal faith and their duty to servicing the public as a member in the chain of the medical community, they should not pursue that job or should remove themselves from it. Doctors who write the prescriptions are dependent on a consistent response from pharmacies. A pharmacy isn't just a business. And you still didn't address the idea of an entire town or county of like minded pharmacists all decided to deny certain medications based on their moral perceptions. That logical extension reveals the flaw in the logic you are pursing and the damage that could result from running things from your position.
The reason there are not specific laws for this sort of thing is because the members of the association are supposed to police themselves. If a particular association fails to police such things then it becomes necessary for the state to legislate in lieu of such self-policing; such as when a police department fails to adequately follow through on internal investigations and a city opts to form a citizens committee to take over that roll, which has actually occured in some jurisdictions. Several states are in that position right now because of this issue we are discussing re pharmacists and their use of consciencious objection to providing medicines that are contrary to their personal belief systems.
What right does the pharmacist have to impose his or her value system on the client? It is not the pharmacist who is being persecuted, it is the client who is being persecuted for not being part of the pharmacists moral universe. The client is not denying the pharmacist anything, whereas the pharmacist is denying the client access to a completely legal and ethical process. Quite simply the pharamcist is failing to fulfill his or her professional expectations and therfore does not deserve the licence to practice pharmacy in a pluristic society.
its not my ethics, its the medical community's ethics.
That why the Wisconsin paharmacist was sued by the state for breaching ethical conduct standards.
It is YOUR ethics. Can't you read? The Wisconsin pharmacist was sued for KEEPING THE PRESCRIPTION. He didn't give the woman the option to take it elsewhere. He refused to give it back. Furthermore, some states not only have the absence of laws that restrict this, but have laws that specifically state the pharmacist doesn't have to go against his/her conscience. Not only are you arguing just to argue, you're tossing out blatant lies and misrepresentations to support your arguement.
Anyone with even a modicum of common sense can understand how a pharmacist imposing their personal morality based solely on their particular faith on a member of the public who does not share that morality is acting unethically.
Stop imposing your lack of ethics and morals on me.
That logical extension reveals the flaw in the logic you are pursing and the damage that could result from running things from your position.
Free enterprise. Start your own pharmacy.
What right does the pharmacist have to impose his or her value system on the client? It is not the pharmacist who is being persecuted, it is the client who is being persecuted for not being part of the pharmacists moral universe.
He's not. The client is free to go elsewhere.
The client is not denying the pharmacist anything, whereas the pharmacist is denying the client access to a completely legal and ethical process.
Stop imposing your lack of ethics and morals on me.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 10:41 AM"nope"
so your saying it is not ok for a soldier to back out of war based on his beliefs...
but why is it ok for a pharmacist?
and dont say one is a law and the other is not - we already established that law does not define common sense
both are bound by duties to their profession.
seems to me there are double standards here, and if that is the case, than I am therough discussing this with you.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 11:02 AMOf course it seems like double standards to you. That doesn't mean it is, though.
First, a soldier takes an oath and signs a contract. He agrees to go to battle. He knows in advance what the job entails, and agrees to it. The taxpayers spend a considerable amount of money to train him.
Not so with pharmacists. First, unlike the service, there is no rule or law that states they must fill all prescriptions. In fact, there are laws and rules that say they DON'T have to. They decide to be a pharmacist with the knowledge that they are not required to do things they find morally objectionable. That isn't the case with the military.
Secondly, unlike the service, they pay for their training. They don't sign a contract with the consumer that says they will provide X service if the public provides Y training.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 11:09 AMAgain, Geoff, I am not TALKING about LAWS. I am talking about common sense.
Just like that soldier, the pharmacists is expected to do a job. He/she is expected to be trusted to do that job. He/she knows in advance what that job entails. If it entails filling a script with a drug the pharmacist doesn't agree with, than a) they should not be a pharmacist b) paste on their storefront (we do not fill certain scripts based on our religious beliefs)
And how about a pharmacist who is educated via tax dollars (grants, gi bills, etc.)
Again, they should not be licensed to fill scripts if they nered to consult the bible first.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 11:14 AMAgain, they should not be licensed to fill scripts if they nered to consult the bible first.
Stop trying to force your beliefs on others. The pharmacists association doesn't agree with you. Neither do many states. Neither do I.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 11:22 AMwhat are my beliefs goeff? explain to me.
i know their beliefs, what of my beliefs am I imposing on them?
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 11:29 AMCul and Nunya blew your argument out of the water Geoffrey. If all pharmacists were permitted to deny filling any prescription they choose on the basis of their religious beliefs against it, where the hell are Americans going to get their medicine? You tell me. It would cause a breakdown in the entire system and result in severe public mistrust. The pharmacist has an obligation to fill the damn prescription and abstain from forcing others to adhere to his or her "moral code." At this point, you can say what you want, but you don't have a leg to stand on.
Posted by: Maria at November 10, 2004 11:33 AMi am done with him now because he is arguing for the sake of arguing. he is thinking inside of a vaccume - a black and white vaccume.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 11:39 AMhe has gone over to his blog to cry about it. in his usual style.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 11:42 AMCul and Nunya blew your argument out of the water Geoffrey. If all pharmacists were permitted to deny filling any prescription they choose on the basis of their religious beliefs against it, where the hell are Americans going to get their medicine?
Blew my argument out of the water? Have you been reading the thread? First, that will never happen. Never. Why? Because we live in a free market society. It revolves around the dollar. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. You're talking about "what ifs", when in fact it's "right now". Pharmacists are not required to fill prescriptions if that violates their beliefs. What drugs can people not get? The fact that your example is the current reality "blows their argument out of the water". Your worst case scenario occurred years ago, but the prescriptions are still getting filled.
The pharmacist has an obligation to fill the damn prescription and abstain from forcing others to adhere to his or her "moral code."
Actually, no, the pharmacist does not, unless he works for a pharmacy that requires it.
At this point, you can say what you want, but you don't have a leg to stand on.
The facts are on my side. You haven't even presented an argument yet except for "because I think so".
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 11:43 AMhe has gone over to his blog to cry about it. in his usual style.
Way to add substance to the discussion. As usual, when you're verbally beaten you leave the discussion and just talk smack.
You're wrong, accept it. Or provide facts that prove otherwise.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 11:44 AMjust like you left the discussion, posted on your blog (verbally abusive content about the discussion) in hopes to bait us over there so you can play by your rules.
like i said the other day, I ain't biting. So go surround yourself with people who agree with you.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 12:08 PMjust like you left the discussion, posted on your blog (verbally abusive content about the discussion) in hopes to bait us over there so you can play by your rules.
I never left the discussion. I posted on my blog to continue the discussion with my readers, should they choose. I'm still here. Continue.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 12:16 PMwhy continue? it's your "with me or with the terrorists" attitude I cannot deal with. There is never any "in-betweens" with you, so why even bother?
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 12:33 PMDon't then. I've made my case and factually supported it.
If you ever decide to do the same, I'll respond then.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 12:42 PMno, I just had a thought, so lets discuss this in the direction you want it to go.
I remember some time back on your blog you and gordon were bitching about christmas decorations in a school that were ordered to be taken down. It was along the lines of religious monuments in public places.
Do these things constitute as being "beliefs that are forced upon" a person? Prayer in public school? You cannot pick and choose what YOU think are situations in which you think beliefs are forced upon anyone, from any stand point.
The overall picture we are looking at is what is good for the whole. You say I and others are forcing a system of belief onto a pharmacists who doesn't want to fill a script based on his beliefs. I say he is forcing his beliefs onto others. There are two schools of thought here. The pharmacist is refusing to fill a script based on his beliefe - thereofre his beliefe is forced upon his customer. The customer, coming in to get a script filled is doing just that, getting a script filled - they are not forcing a belief onto anyone. They are not saying "I want you to condone birth control so fill this script" where as the pharmacist is saying "I do not condone birth control based on my beliefs, so I wont serve you." That is the same thing as saying "I don't like blacks, so I won't serve you."
If you still don't even have an inkling of agreement with any of thatm well than I am sorry your arrogance and ignorance to what it is I and others are trying to point out to you has you that blinded.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 12:47 PMAGAIN, I am not talkimg about what the LAW says. GET IT?
I am talking about common fucking sense. There is no law that says you can't walk backwards on your hands wearing a clown outfit while eating a corndog, but common sense says it really shouldn't be done. So just because there is no law saying a pharmacist can deny to fill a script based on his or her religious beliefs, doesn't mean they should be do just that.
They are pharmacists, it is their job to serve the public health. If they don't want to do that, then don't be a pharmacist.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 12:52 PMDo these things constitute as being "beliefs that are forced upon" a person? Prayer in public school? You cannot pick and choose what YOU think are situations in which you think beliefs are forced upon anyone, from any stand point.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Is someone being forced to pray in school?
I say he is forcing his beliefs onto others. There are two schools of thought here. The pharmacist is refusing to fill a script based on his beliefe - thereofre his beliefe is forced upon his customer.
No he isn't and no there isn't. You are free to go to any pharmacy you choose.
If you still don't even have an inkling of agreement with any of thatm well than I am sorry your arrogance and ignorance to what it is I and others are trying to point out to you has you that blinded.
I'm right, you're wrong. Label it what you will, but you've yet to prove your case.
There is no law that says you can't walk backwards on your hands wearing a clown outfit while eating a corndog, but common sense says it really shouldn't be done.
You want to restrict people from eating corndogs now? Stop forcing your beliefs on everyone else.
What about folks who have perscription drug insuarnace that only certain pharmacies accept? What if they don't have a choice and they walk up into a pharmacy who decides not to fill their script? Then what do they do? They are at the mercy of someone elses "morals."
I have proven my argument. If pharmacists don't want to fill certain scripts based on their beliefs then they are better suited to be pastors. Let someone else with common sense come and do their job for them if they don't believe in medicine.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 01:14 PMIt is YOUR ethics. Can't you read? The Wisconsin pharmacist was sued for KEEPING THE PRESCRIPTION.
For a breach of ethics, yes. The fact that there was no legislation by which he could be sued for the original refusal to fill the prescription is a matter of degree. As I mentioned several states are in fact in the process of generating that legislation against that sort of behavior because it is widely recognized as unethical. Why don't you bother to research what the medical community stance on this is?
You are asserting an opinion and so am I. Don't pretend differently.
What is the central is issue here is the breaching of expected ethical behavior by his profession. THAT is the point. Again, he wasn't called up for breaching my ethics, he was called for breaching the ethics of his profession. A profession is not simply about the free market wages a person earns, there are also social responsibilities and community ethical standards that are assumed when a medical professional is licenced as well as expectations of performance when that profession interacts in a public manner.
A pharmacist is not just an individual entrepreneur in a free market...he or she is a person in a position of power and that makes him or her subject to a higher set of expected standards than the guy who runs a hamburger stand.
What about folks who have perscription drug insuarnace that only certain pharmacies accept?
Such as? Provide an example.
If pharmacists don't want to fill certain scripts based on their beliefs then they are better suited to be pastors. Let someone else with common sense come and do their job for them if they don't believe in medicine.
Yeah. Let's persecute them for their religious beliefs.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 01:15 PMor, open up their pharmacy and call it "Pharmacy of the Holy Father" motto - we fill scripts authorized by a higher authority. That way people who want to get their medicine filled don't have to worry about wondering if what they need filled will be denied based on a right wing whacked off zealot pharmacist.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 01:17 PMFor a breach of ethics, yes. The fact that there was no legislation by which he could be sued for the original refusal to fill the prescription is a matter of degree. As I mentioned several states are in fact in the process of generating that legislation against that sort of behavior because it is widely recognized as unethical. Why don't you bother to research what the medical community stance on this is?
Because he KEPT THE SCRIPT. You keep leaving out that KEY bit of information. I realize you can delete posts on your blog to keep the truth down, but it hasn't happened here yet. Why don't YOU research the LAW instead of trying to force your lack of ethics on others?
You are asserting an opinion and so am I. Don't pretend differently.
Actually, as I've shown, I am asserting fact.
What is the central is issue here is the breaching of expected ethical behavior by his profession.
YOUR expected ethical behavior. Stop forcing your lack of ethics on me.
A profession is not simply about the free market wages a person earns, there are also social responsibilities and community ethical standards that are assumed when a medical professional is licenced as well as expectations of performance when that profession interacts in a public manner.
Exactly. And refusing to fill a script for reasons of personal ethics is within those standards.
A pharmacist is not just an individual entrepreneur in a free market...he or she is a person in a position of power and that makes him or her subject to a higher set of expected standards than the guy who runs a hamburger stand.
Not true. The power is with the consumer. Take your script to someone that will fill it.
The facts just aren't on your side. You can cry. You can stomp your feet. You can't, however, force your lack of ethics onto pharmacists at this time.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 01:22 PM"Such as? Provide an example"
Such as back when my wife was still in school, and i was fully self employeed, I had to provide us with some type of insurance. It was cheap, but it covered us. Some local pharmacies and even wal-greens did not accept our perscription drug plan. Many local pharmacies only accept certain national plans because that is all they can afford to accept.
"Yeah. Let's persecute them for their religious beliefs."
Nobody is persecuting anyones religious beliefs. But with that, your argument also holds a light to the gay marriage issue. Are gays beign persecuted for thier beliefs? Are the states and even Bush forcing their beliefs upon them?
Your whole argument is a house of cards geoff. It is littered with double standards that contradict what you really believe. You cannot pick and choose these thing to custom taylor fit each argument you have.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 01:25 PMtailor
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 01:26 PMsorry maria - geoff, hearing you talk about the "lack of ethics" we have is hilarious.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 01:28 PMSome local pharmacies and even wal-greens did not accept our perscription drug plan. Many local pharmacies only accept certain national plans because that is all they can afford to accept.
What drug plan was it?
Nobody is persecuting anyones religious beliefs.
You certainly are. You're specifically stating that they should have to go against their religious beliefs or not work in that profession.
Your whole argument is a house of cards geoff. It is littered with double standards that contradict what you really believe. You cannot pick and choose these thing to custom taylor fit each argument you have.
You keep saying that, but you've yet to provide evidence of it. Saying it doesn't make it true.
Here are the facts:
If a pharmacist doesn't want to fill a prescription, he doesn't have to.
If a company chooses not to hire him because that belief puts him outside the job description, they are free to do so.
If you as a consumer prefer to take your business elsewhere as a result of a businesses policy, you may.
There you go. No one's rights being stepped on.
sorry maria - geoff, hearing you talk about the "lack of ethics" we have is hilarious.
This is me, laughing once again at maria's "friends" inablity to respect her wishes.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 01:34 PMhere:
Professional Pharmacists must function professionally when fulfilling their
responsibilities. Professionalism is defined as altruism, accountability, excellence, duty, integrity and respect for others, thereby
incorporating the concepts of ethics, self-directed learning and professional identity [12].
Pharmacists must:
consistently accept responsibility for actions and decisions.
consistently demonstrate respect for others.
consistently provide professional pharmacy care to individual
patients that complies with the ethical guidelines governing the
profession.
maintain appropriate inter-professional relationships required to
provide quality pharmacy care to individual patients.
consistently provide care and services that place the best interest of
patients before their own self-interest.
continuously strive to improve professional competence through
the use of appropriate learning to address areas identified for
professional improvement / growth.
consistently demonstrate personal and professional integrity.
undertake non-pharmacy practice-related activities that are
consistent with, and do not take advantage of the influence of,
their status as a health professional.
those are not MY standards, they are the professional standards.
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 01:43 PMNo where in there does it say you must compromise your OWN beliefs. It DOES however, say this:
The American Pharmacists Association maintains a two-part policy. "The pharmacist has the right to conscience, and the patient has the right to legally prescribed medication," says spokesman Michael Stewart. A pharmacist who objects to dispensing a particular medication must tell an employer. If one pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription on grounds of conscience, another pharmacist must do it. Some customers may be referred to another pharmacy. Other prescriptions may be delivered by mail.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 01:46 PMTHOSE are the professional standards. Keep your own for your own pharmacy.
Stop trying to force your lack of ethics on me.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 01:48 PMthere you go.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 01:48 PMin case you prefer to miss it:
consistently provide care and services that place the best interest of patients before their own self-interest.
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 01:49 PMexactly.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 01:49 PMIn case you prefer to miss it:
The American Pharmacists Association maintains a two-part policy. "The pharmacist has the right to conscience, and the patient has the right to legally prescribed medication," says spokesman Michael Stewart. A pharmacist who objects to dispensing a particular medication must tell an employer. If one pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription on grounds of conscience, another pharmacist must do it. Some customers may be referred to another pharmacy. Other prescriptions may be delivered by mail.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 01:50 PMDo pharmacists have a right to refuse to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs?
Weinstein BD.
PIP: Some pharmacists opposed to abortion on moral ground are concerned by having to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs like mifepristone (RU-486). The issue of the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill such prescriptions depends on the model of the physician-pharmacist-patient relationship. The libertarian model of pharmacy practice holds that physicians, pharmacists, and patients are bound only by the contract that they freely negotiate with one another, thus the pharmacist has no moral obligation to fill a prescription for mifepristone unless he or she has expressly contracted to do so. The American Pharmaceutical Association's 1981 Code of Ethics does not specify what a pharmacist ought to do in particular circumstances. The right to refuse is strongly supported by the principles of nonmaleficence and respect for autonomy. These are principles of the libertarian model of the pharmacist-patient relationship but are also present in the guild or societal models stressing the duty to avoid harming others. Justification for pharmacists right of refusal appeals to their autonomy rights as members of the moral community rather than the profession of pharmacy. Since the professional right to autonomy is not absolute, moral consideration circumscribe it: it is difficult to argue that a pharmacist who believes that homosexuality is immoral has the right to refuse to fill a prescription for AZT. Even if a person who presents such a prescription is homosexual there is no causal relationship between filling a prescription for AZT and participating in a homosexual act. At the opposite end the libertarians reject the notion of even a basic right to health care. A woman in the above situation would not have a right to the abortifacient drug, so a pharmacist has no duty to dispense it. According to the technician model of professionalism, the pharmacist's personal values do not matter, so a pharmacist has a duty to provide the service.
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 01:55 PMNow I know why you didn't post a link. Who cares what Canada does? That was out of the NAPRA guidelines. Not only is it completely irrelevant, but laughable.
Exactly my point when I said you misrepresent information and blatantly lie in an attempt to bolster your failed argument.
Nothing like showing your intellectual dishonesty. It makes it easier to categorically disregard your information without further research.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 01:56 PMYour document, which you conveniently left out, also states they must be proficient in both English and French.
Time to start firing some pharmacists!
HAHAHAHAHA
Why is it irrelevant? Because its Canadian? What possible difference does make in a discussion of ethics? You think Americans have a different set of ethics?
The last post was from The National Library of Medicine.
Its not my argument that has failed, its yours and everyone can plainly see that.
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 02:01 PM
interesting - that article is up in an NIH website.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1434764&dopt=Abstract
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:02 PMWhy is it irrelevant? Because its Canadian? What possible difference does make in a discussion of ethics? You think Americans have a different set of ethics?
Nope. I think Americans believe differently in whether or not they can force those ethics onto someone else.
Its not my argument that has failed, its yours and everyone can plainly see that.
You have no argument because your argument is hypocritical and founded in emotion. Mine is based on fact.
I don't expect any of you liberals to see that, though. You've already proven your hypocrisy.
Stop trying to force your ethics onto me. It's bad enough I have to deal with your intellectual dishonesty.
Oh wait.
i don't.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:06 PMOf course it is, nunya.
It's an opinion.
Just like yours and michael's posts.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:06 PMOn April 26 , 2004, the governor of Wisconsin vetoed a bill that was an attempt to absolve doctors and pharmacists from the dispensing care based on religious and moral grounds. Why do you suppose he vetoed it?
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 02:07 PMand since goeff wants to play black and white with the laws - it is LAW for those under the contientious objection laws who refuse to fill perscriptions, MUST provide an alternative for the patient. Be it another pharmacist, another pharmacy. and if the need to have it immediatley, arises, than those alternatives must be provided.
i.e. a pharmacists cannot flat out deny to fill it and be done with it.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:08 PMOn April 26 , 2004, the governor of Wisconsin vetoed a bill that was an attempt to absolve doctors and pharmacists from the dispensing care based on religious and moral grounds. Why do you suppose he vetoed it?
Beats me. Post a link to the verbage and I'll make a guess.
a pharmacists cannot flat out deny to fill it and be done with it.
Nope, but they can give you the url for the company and tell you to order it online.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:10 PMand what if that person doesn't have access to a computer?
what if it is a medication that needs to be taken within the next hour or so?
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:11 PMand what if that person doesn't have access to a computer?
what if it is a medication that needs to be taken within the next hour or so?
That isn't the problem of the pharmacist. They just have to provide an alternative whether it's through the mail or a pharmacy 3 towns over.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:13 PMno, they have to provide an immediate alternative...go read some of these clauses
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:13 PMno, they have to provide an immediate alternative...go read some of these clauses
Post a link so I can read them myself, then.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:14 PMprecisely and the only reason the Wisconsin pharmacist was called up before the State Ethics board was as G noted for that breach. The reason he wasn't brought up on the original ethical breach of imposing his moral values at the expense of the woman he denied service to was because there was no specific legislation covering it. But that is being dealt with in several states at present because although G claims to speak for the American public across the board, he obviously does not speak for them all. It is typical of the right wing to blame the left wing for doing things that the right wing is expert at, such as claiming we are trying to lay our ethics on him...when in fact it is he who is demanding we accept his set of libertarian ethics even when it can clearly be shown that they can cause harm to people who don't ascribe to them. Pot/kettle.
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 02:17 PMgo look for yourself, I am not here to baby you and provide you with links when you have yet to provide me with a link of your self proclaimed "facts"
so, why did that governer veto that bill, as cul has asked?
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:18 PMThe reason he wasn't brought up on the original ethical breach of imposing his moral values at the expense of the woman he denied service to was because there was no specific legislation covering it.
I'll bring it up again, since in your intellectual dishonesty you keep omitting it, HE KEPT THE SCRIPT. If you'd like to discuss that I'll be more than happy to but it will be a short discussion.
Or we can continue the original discussion that you seem to be having a hard time following.
It is typical of the right wing to blame the left wing for doing things that the right wing is expert at, such as claiming we are trying to lay our ethics on him...when in fact it is he who is demanding we accept his set of libertarian ethics even when it can clearly be shown that they can cause harm to people who don't ascribe to them. Pot/kettle.
I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. You are free to patronize any pharmacy you'd like, and I'm free to conduct my business as I see fit within the confines of the law. Yet again, you're being intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting the facts. That's getting to be a habit with you.
Stop trying to force your ethics on me.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:21 PMlet me ask you this, geoff.
should a doctor have the right to "obecjt" to provide health care to a man dying of a gun shot wound who was shit by a cop because he was raping a woman?
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:22 PMgo look for yourself, I am not here to baby you and provide you with links when you have yet to provide me with a link of your self proclaimed "facts"
Translation: "I made up those facts, therefore can't link to them".
You made the claim. Back it up. I'm saying you're full of shit. Prove me wrong.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:22 PMshould a doctor have the right to "obecjt" to provide health care to a man dying of a gun shot wound who was shit by a cop because he was raping a woman?
A doctor has taken the Hippocratic Oath.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:23 PMi dont have to prove shit, its out on the web...go look it up - there are some states with those laws for obecjtion clauses. It isn't MY job to provide you with facts, GET OVER IT.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:24 PMbut he is not bound by law....the hippocratic oath is an ethical oath made up by doctors over time.
you didn't answer my question, SHOULD he have that right?
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:25 PMAnd pray tell, what is the problem with the ethical standard that a pharmacist should put the interest of the patient above his own? You think that's a Canadian idea?
I see your ethical position as completely based in selfishness. You seem to be more concerned with the pharmacists right to deny service than the patients right to acquire an already prescribed medication. I question why your ethics are weighted in that direction. Who exactly does that serve? And you haven't dealt at all with the concept that a pharmacist is not just a private citizen and business person, but a person in a position of power who is publically licenced to be allowed that power. As a medical technician in the chain of medical service they are abrogating their professional duty by exercising their power in a negative way on the needs of the patient. To my mind, he needs of the patient should be the paramount consideration.
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 02:26 PMIt isn't MY job to provide you with facts, GET OVER IT.
Of course it isn't. It isn't my job to accept what you say just because you've said it. You've proven you have a tendency to lie. If you want to enter facts into the discussion, be prepared to back them up. That all.
but he is not bound by law....the hippocratic oath is an ethical oath made up by doctors over time.
you didn't answer my question, SHOULD he have that right?
He's bound ethically by the Hippocratic Oath. In my view if you promise to do something, you should follow through with it.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:28 PMeven if it is in a private practice? i.e. that being the docotrs business?
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:29 PMsee your ethical position as completely based in selfishness. You seem to be more concerned with the pharmacists right to deny service than the patients right to acquire an already prescribed medication.
Of course you do. I see your position as completely based in ignorance. You seem to feel you can impose your ethics and morals on me, requiring me to betray my beliefs to fulfill your needs.
To my mind
Fortunately, your mind is the minority. I would weep for the condition of our nation if NeoComs held the majority view.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:31 PMeven if it is in a private practice? i.e. that being the docotrs business?
Doctors take the HC regardless. What point are you trying to get to?
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:31 PM"In my view if you promise to do something, you should follow through with it."
The Pharmacists DO HAVE an oath.
http://www.uspharmd.com/oathofpharmacist.htm
so you just said, if they made a promise, they should follow through with it.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:32 PMIn my view if you promise to do something, you should follow through with it.
Precisely and no pharmacist takes an oath or enters the field intending to restrict dispensation of medication based on moral constraints. Its a secondary and invented consideration beyond their primary repsonsibilities and duties as a professional.
But its not only unethical for a pharmacists to act in that way, its also just plainly rude.
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 02:32 PMAND they have a code of ethics...just like doctors do...
http://www.uspharmd.com/rxcode.htm
if they cannot adhere to that code and their oath, just like a dcotor who cannot adhere to the HC, then they should NOT be allowed to practice their profession.
THAT has nothing to do with anyone forcing their ethics on them. That has to do with upheolding the oath and the code of ethics they agreed to when they were given their diploma from the their respective schools.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:36 PMso you just said, if they made a promise, they should follow through with it.
I agree. That promise, however, doesn't say they have to violate their own beliefs. In fact, the AACP specifically states they don't.
Precisely and no pharmacist takes an oath or enters the field intending to restrict dispensation of medication based on moral constraints. Its a secondary and invented consideration beyond their primary repsonsibilities and duties as a professional.
No, not only are you wrong, but you're passing your ASSUMPTIONS onto the group in questions. Pharmacists aren't required to dispense medication that violates their beliefs. They enter the profession willingly, and secure in that knowledge.
But its not only unethical for a pharmacists to act in that way, its also just plainly rude.
Speaking of rude, stop forcing your hypocritical lack of ethics onto me.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:37 PMmight as well make it explicit:
Pharmacist's Oath:
PREAMBLE
At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.
I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.
I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.
AI will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.
I will embrace and advocate change in the professional of pharmacy that improves patient care.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of responsiblity with which I am entrusted by the public.
reference: American Association of College of Pharmacy (aacp)
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 02:38 PMactually cul, they do take an oath. but nowhere in that oath does it state they will dispense medicines based on their own beliefs. its actually the opposite - the oath's general conesus is that the pharmacists is a trusted medical member of society and he/she should put patient needs first when practicing his/her profession.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:38 PMok, sorry cul, you beat me to the post ;-)
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:40 PMif they cannot adhere to that code and their oath, just like a dcotor who cannot adhere to the HC, then they should NOT be allowed to practice their profession.
Just what part of that code aren't they adhering to?
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:40 PMhere let me re-post that oath once again so our little friend doesn't miss it
Pharmacist's Oath:
PREAMBLE
At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.
I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.
I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.
AI will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.
I will embrace and advocate change in the professional of pharmacy that improves patient care.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of responsiblity with which I am entrusted by the public.
reference: American Association of College of Pharmacy (aacp)
"Just what part of that code aren't they adhering to?"
once again geoff, go read the link, if you are too fucking stupid to see past your own nose on that question, then I am sorry, it isn't my job to take you back to 2nd grade english comprehension and teach it to you.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:42 PMIts a secondary and invented consideration beyond their primary repsonsibilities and duties as a professional.
No, not only are you wrong, but you're passing your ASSUMPTIONS onto the group in questions.
No these are the primary considerations:
I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.
Stop laying your selfish ethical considerations on us as though they are universal or even the majority opinion of Americans. A majority of Americans do not hold your precepts true just as a major of Americans are not for overturning Rove vs Wade. Those are facts.
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 02:44 PMbut nowhere in that oath does it state they will dispense medicines based on their own beliefs. its actually the opposite - the oath's general conesus is that the pharmacists is a trusted medical member of society and he/she should put patient needs first when practicing his/her profession.
once again geoff, go read the link, if you are too fucking stupid to see past your own nose on that question, then I am sorry, it isn't my job to take you back to 2nd grade english comprehension and teach it to you.
Once again, when proven wrong, you stomp your feet and cry. I love watching you completely disregard Maria's request for civility. Heck, cul comes here specifically to comment in the only thread I'm involved in.
No where in the oath does it say they are required to go against their own beliefs.
The American Pharmacists Association mentions it, though. They say they aren't obligated to violate their beliefs.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:44 PMand i apologizs maria, for breaking the rules, but when one wants to argue that the sky isn't blue, it is obvious that person is either blind, color blind, retarded or being an asshole. in any case, he is wrong.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:45 PMcomprehension of the oath geoff.
most people don;t need every little fucking detail spelled out for them, unlike you.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 02:46 PMtop laying your selfish ethical considerations on us as though they are universal or even the majority opinion of Americans. A majority of Americans do not hold your precepts true just as a major of Americans are not for overturning Rove vs Wade. Those are facts.
What has this got to do with "Rove" vs Wade. Heh. Poor Rove.
A majority of Americans DO share my opinion, not that it has anything to do with the discussion. I guess you're just grasping at straws since you're faced with zero supporting evidence of your OPINION.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:46 PMcomprehension of the oath geoff.
most people don;t need every little fucking detail spelled out for them, unlike you.
I comprehend the oath. So doesn't the APA. That's why they established that policy.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:48 PMReign in the ego G, I'm here to argue the points, not to argue with you personally. I come here all the time and leave comments. Your presence is incidental. I've been completely civil during the course of this argument, whereas you have kept up the name calling and invective throughout.
Posted by: cul at November 10, 2004 02:48 PMReign in the ego G, I'm here to argue the points, not to argue with you personally. I come here all the time and leave comments. Your presence is incidental. I've been completely civil during the course of this argument, whereas you have kept up the name calling and invective throughout.
More lies. I've gone tit for tat at worst.
The fact is, you're wrong, I'm right. The facts are on my side. Your view is founded in opinion.
Stop trying to force your lack of ethics on me.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 02:57 PM"Stop trying to force your lack of ethics on me"
yeah cul, it may force him to him to come up a level or two from his current ethical standing!
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 03:35 PMwow. the civility lasted a whole day.
Posted by: girl at November 10, 2004 03:37 PMyeah cul, it may force him to him to come up a level or two from his current ethical standing!
This is me laughing at nunya disregarding the request of his "friend".
Girl, we don't necessarily have to be "civil" in our discussion, just not make stupid posts with zero content, mucho ad homs.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 03:39 PMthe civility went out the door with geoff's little comments like "Stop trying to force your lack of ethics on me" and basically, his whole argument.
even you have to admit girl, his argument has less strenght than a house of cards in a hurricane.
his whole argument is just that, a chance to argue.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 03:40 PMand his whole argument lacks one iota of common sense.
Posted by: nunya at November 10, 2004 03:42 PMNunya, I don't have to admit anything. and how is asking someone not to force their ethics on them a bad thing?
I see pieces in everyone's argument that makes sense. I think at the heart of this, everyone thinks it's wrong to deny a prescription to a paying customer, however, it isn't illegal and according to the APA, they have every right to do so. inevitably it will have to be left to the companies to decide whether or not they will continue to employ them. the laws of supply and demand will continue to provide customers will another place to go, but I think it would be in a large company's best interest to only keep the pharmacists that can keep the business, not send them away.
Posted by: girl at November 10, 2004 03:49 PMbut I think it would be in a large company's best interest to only keep the pharmacists that can keep the business, not send them away.
And that is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 03:50 PMI am so impressed. This is the longest thread ever where things have not gotten out of control. I applaud all of you.
Posted by: Maria at November 10, 2004 07:10 PMYes. It's nice to see such even-tempered dialogue.
Posted by: Richard at November 10, 2004 07:55 PMHey, I'm just an even tempered guy. Ask anyone: "Hey, you know that dog snot guy?" they'll answer: "yeah, man that's one even tempered cat."
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 08:40 PM"I see your ethical position as completely based in selfishness. You seem to be more concerned with the pharmacists right to deny service than the patients right to acquire an already prescribed medication. I question why your ethics are weighted in that direction. Who exactly does that serve? And you haven't dealt at all with the concept that a pharmacist is not just a private citizen and business person, but a person in a position of power who is publically licenced to be allowed that power. As a medical technician in the chain of medical service they are abrogating their professional duty by exercising their power in a negative way on the needs of the patient. To my mind, he needs of the patient should be the paramount consideration."
Cul, this is one of the best things that's been said here. You really nailed it down.
This is the exact same way that I feel about limiting pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice suits. The greed of insurance companies, and the pocketbooks of wealthy doctors are protected over the interests of the patients, who in many cases are the victims of severe negligence on the part of doctors. It is the "conservative" stance that the interests of the insurance company and the doctor trump that of the patient's. It seems that general viewpoint encompasses their entire world view and leaks over into these types of issues. That fundamental belief that if others encounter misfortune, it's somehow their own damn fault and they don't deserve assistance, but that those who are already doing well and generally in a position of power, should be consistently rewarded for the virtue of their "success." This is why it's so easy for Geoffrey to basically say "who cares if a person has to drive three towns over and they don't own a car and the other pharmacy won't accept their prescription health plan? What do I care? Not my problem." It is a fundamental "value" for republicans to believe that everyone should always be able to help their damn selves. And if they can't, too bad, not a republican's problem. (Until misfortune strikes where they live, then it's indignance all over the place).
The thing I find funny about Geoffrey's perspective is if you've ever heard him bitch about going anyplace and having the person helping him having english as a second language, and how pissed it makes him, you would wonder how it is so hard for him to understand why we feel it is wrong that pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions. He gets pissed at the inconvenience it causes him to have to deal with a person who doesn't speak english very well, and feels that if they are in this country working, they should damn well know how to speak good english, but people who get into the business of filling prescriptions shouldn't damn well fill the prescriptions. That's just someone else's inconvenience. Not his. So it doesn't matter to him.
It is not as if we are learning something new about him today...
Posted by: Maria at November 10, 2004 08:44 PMEven tempered! Ha! Until someone pushes your buttons. And then the eight headed hydra emerges.
Posted by: Maria at November 10, 2004 08:47 PMHey! Credit where credit is due! I've had my buttons pushed a few times in this thread.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 08:51 PMIf it's against someone's faith to learn English, I'd be supportive.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 09:08 PMHahaha! Ten lbs. of shit in a five lb. bag. That's what that is. You are full of it.
Posted by: Maria at November 10, 2004 09:25 PMThat was a good one, though.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 10, 2004 09:46 PM