PDA

View Full Version : Not ~exactly~ gay marriage...


Frenzy
08-19-2008, 10:33 AM
CA Supreme Court rules gays can't be denied medical treatment (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26270747/)

"Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.” "

This is an interesting case by itself. You can see where it will lead, i'm sure.

John Snow
08-19-2008, 10:38 AM
the refused treatment was several years ago, and the physician says her objection was that she won't treat unmarried women regardless of sexual orientation. When asked if she would treat a legally married lesbian, however, she stammered, sputtered, and couldn't/wouldn't answer.

It's an interesting situation - I remember discussion groups back when I was teaching med students in Nebraska, along the lines of "would you do an abortion, and under what circumstances". Most of the anti-abortion students went into specialties where that would never arise.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-19-2008, 11:03 AM
I hope this will eventually fix that current rule where doctors and pharmacists can deny women RU 486 and birth control over MORAL objections.

Davian93
08-19-2008, 11:06 AM
~puts devil's advocate hat on~

Wouldn't forcing doctors to perform operations such as abortion when they are morally opposed be a violation of their rights as well?

tanaww
08-19-2008, 11:09 AM
~puts devil's advocate hat on~

Wouldn't forcing doctors to perform operations such as abortion when they are morally opposed be a violation of their rights as well?

I don't know Davian. Would forcing you to do your job be violating your rights? I'd suggest that those physicians of high moral standards do a thorough analysis of rightness of fit between their values and their job requirements before selecting an area of specialization. Like the esteemed Dr. Snow says, if you don't want to do abortions, do not select gynecology or obstetrics as your specialty. You might have to look hard at surgery as well I suppose.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-19-2008, 11:13 AM
Pharmacists shouldn't be pharmacists if they object to BIRTH CONTROL PILLS, either. Not every woman who takes them is a slut bent on sleeping her way through the barracks.

Brita
08-19-2008, 11:14 AM
There is also a difference between universally deciding not to do a procedure on all people, and selectively choosing to not do a procedure on some people.

I still agree that physicians opposed to abortions need to be very careful when choosing their specialty. But they cannot be accused of discrimination.

Davian93
08-19-2008, 11:31 AM
~tips hat to all 3 ladies~

Very good answers. I happen to agree with you BTW. I was just curious as to your reasoning. Mine was more of a gut thing.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-19-2008, 11:41 AM
Yep, but these same jackasses will fill a prescription for Viagra in a heartbeat.

Davian93
08-19-2008, 11:50 AM
~puts devil's advocate hat on~

Wouldn't forcing doctors to perform operations such as abortion when they are morally opposed be a violation of their rights as well?


To Clarify: This is not my opinion so please dont kill me.:(

Gilshalos Sedai
08-19-2008, 11:52 AM
Try not to douse yourself in gasoline first, then, Dav. ;) Even prefacing it with "devil's advocate" isn't a good fire retardant.

Davian93
08-19-2008, 11:53 AM
I was CLEARLY wearing the hat though!:( :confused:

Cary Sedai
08-19-2008, 12:01 PM
Poor Dav

In most situations that's probably enough. However, women get a lot excited and emotional where views on abortion are concerend. Any views: for, against, pro choice....it's very emotional.

tanaww
08-19-2008, 12:02 PM
Yep, but these same jackasses will fill a prescription for Viagra in a heartbeat.

It's because they're men and it's probably part of the bro code, right? If a bro needs viagra and another bro doesn't fiill it for him, he's literally stripping his bro of the ability to think.

Sinistrum
08-19-2008, 12:27 PM
"Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.” "

Now see, I have a problem with the ruling for two reasons. First, it seems, just by the quoted statement above, that the Judge who wrote the opinion is implying that the state law in question is trumping the 1st Amendment, which is pure legal garbage. The only time a state law may directly infringe upon either 1st Amendment right in question is when a law is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. Legalese aside, in practice, it is a rare instance in which that test is meet and a "compelling interest" exists or that a law is sufficiently narrow in it's scope. It is usually the case that a situation where the test is met involves the protection of some other fundamental right. And sorry to say it, but the right to artificial insimination, if it even exists at all, is not one that can be classified as fundamental.

My second problem is that you have a state government attempting to regulate the conduct of private actors without a compelling justification existing, who have no tie to the government that is evident from the information presented, and in light of the two legally compelling defenses. This is a purely optional procedure we are talking about here, not a matter of life and death. In light of all that, it seems clear to me that the scales should tip toward the allowance of the doctors to practice both their profession and their religion free from restraint (no matter how personally abhorrent their views may be to me personally) without government interference.

Cary Sedai
08-19-2008, 12:38 PM
The doctors although refusing to artificially inseminate her, did refer her to a doctor that would. She has since had 3 children. She may have been hurt by the doctors not being understanding of her lifestyle -- but thems the breaks, no matter who you are. Not everyone is going to approve of you or like you.

Jennifer Pizer, Benitez’s attorney, said that the ruling was “a victory for public health” and that she expected it to have nationwide influence.

I don't know, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't... but I don't think that deep down, that's what either the lawyer or her client really had in mind when proceeding with the lawsuit.

Cary Sedai
08-19-2008, 01:08 PM
I've actually never heard about woman being refused birth control pills. It seems very strange to me, because, all the doctors I've gone to, have asked if I need/or am on birth control. So I found this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4425603.stm

It makes me go :eek:

Gilshalos Sedai
08-19-2008, 01:11 PM
"More and more pharmacists do not want to hand over the birth control package and feel that it is within their rights to lecture women about their morals," said Judy Waxman of the National Women's Law Centre in Washington DC.

"There are many incidences of pharmacists not giving back the prescription so that the women can fill it somewhere else."

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about.

Brita
08-19-2008, 01:21 PM
That's crazy! I've never heard of such a thing...

If the patient's physician- who actually knows them and has assessed them has written the prescription- then how can a pharmacist trump that. That's insane! And to keep the prescription....I'm at a loss for words. And this is allowed?

Gilshalos Sedai
08-19-2008, 01:31 PM
Yes, Brita, they are.

Just to give y'all an example. My father is a 100% disabled Vietnam Vet. Back when I was 19, I was under my dad's VA insurance. (This was '93 or so.)

I went to a government subsidized clinic. The doctor I went to was a Hindu. A devout one. She almost refused to give me a prescription for birth control, but at the last minute relented because I was taking it for more than pregnancy prevention. It was also a Catholic hospital and I tried to complain, but their response was that the US government was only acting as an insurance company in this instance, and they weren't obligated to provide me with that prescription if it wasn't "medically necessary." And if ONE doctor said it wasn't....

As a matter of fact, I was later denied that same prescription (different doctor who didn't accept that there were legitmate medical reasons to be on The Pill, or at least that I wasn't on it for legimate medical reasons). I soon found a new doctor.

Most women cannot fight this. Most women don't have the resources or the education to fight this. Something as simple as a bloody sign in the doctor's waiting room or on the pharmacist's counter could save a great deal of suffering and time wasted in these instances.

And even worse, there have been some reports of RU486 being denied to rape victims in ERs.

Cary Sedai
08-19-2008, 01:38 PM
Most women cannot fight this. Most women don't have the resources or the education to fight this.

Now, that I wont agree with because I feel it belittles women, especially the "most" part. We can go to planned parenthood, we can go to as many different doctors as we need to, to find the care we need. Once that care is found, we can go to as many pharmacies as we can. There are online pharmacies, too. Women can fight this, have the resources and the education.

If there is not a planned parenthood nearby, they can be contacted by phone or email, and they will offer suggested courses of action.

I am appalled that this has been happening, but lets not say that women are not capable of fighting this. I don't think we should have been put in the position to fight it. But we are certainly capable.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-19-2008, 01:45 PM
The women of that article didn't fight it. They whined to a reporter.

That's the course of action most women will follow. Or like that woman in the article, don't even bother getting that prescription filled.

I agree it belittles women, Cary, but let's face it, in the real world it takes energy and education most women (or men, for that matter) don't have or care to have to make sure their rights are upheld.

I went and found a more useful doctor. But guess what? That clinic and that hospital are still open and still treating patients.

Terez
08-19-2008, 01:56 PM
Now see, I have a problem with the ruling for two reasons. First, it seems, just by the quoted statement above, that the Judge who wrote the opinion is implying that the state law in question is trumping the 1st Amendment, which is pure legal garbage.
I got the impression that the judge decided the case didn't have anything to do with free speech or freedom to exercise religion, rather than that the state law trumped the 1st Amendment.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-19-2008, 01:58 PM
Well, frankly, religion shouldn't interfere with your job.

Cary Sedai
08-19-2008, 01:59 PM
I don't think that's true. I think most women will do what they need to find the right care.

A very small and very loud minority is trying to thwart women from getting their basic health care needs

This is not widespread, we are already fighting it. Aside from the traditional medicines, there are also herbal alternatives.

Woman have been taking care of thier reproductive health w/out help from doctors and authorities for a long time. Centuries, heck since the egyptians first figured out the signifcance of thier period and becoming pregnant.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-19-2008, 02:02 PM
Cary, the article itself proves you wrong.

At a Brooks pharmacy in Laconia, New Hampshire, Suzanne Richards, a 21-year-old single mother with a 3-year-old son, was denied the morning after pill because of the pharmacist's religious convictions.

He told Richards he would not fill her prescription because "it would end the fertilisation process of the egg in the embryo" and, based upon his religious beliefs, it was wrong.

It was Saturday night in this rural town - all other pharmacies were closed, leaving Richards without an option.

Richards says she felt "humiliated and traumatised", and was too frightened to approach another pharmacist the next day, allowing the 72-hour limit for taking the pill to pass.

Women, in general, are NOT FIGHTING any more. You and I might fight the good fight, still. But frankly, I'm beginning to think that we're the last of a dying breed.

Cary Sedai
08-19-2008, 02:04 PM
The story of ONE woman does not indicate that women in general are not fighting, or would not fight.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-19-2008, 02:06 PM
I think the State of Feminism In Our Time is a different thread. ;)

Brita
08-19-2008, 02:15 PM
So just to clarify, there are two issues here, right?

1. Birth Control prescriptions not being filled due to moral judgments being made by a pharmacist.

This is plain out wrong IMO. It just shouldn't be allowed, period. It is not the pharmacists place to pass moral judgement on their clients.

2. Abortion Pills being witheld, either by pharmacy or hospital staff.

This is where is becomes tricky. This isn't passing moral judgement on another person, but choosing a moral stance for oneself. This is the very freedom we treasure in our society. If the pharmacist believes aborting an embryo is murder, then it should be within their right refuse to aid in that process. However, this policy should be consistent and public. Like Gil said- simply posting signs indicating that particular Pharmacy Policy would save alot of heartache on both sides. And the prescription shouldn't be kept- this is a personal decision for the pharmacist and shouldn't be inferred on the client.

Rape victim- that is the patient's decision. The staff member need not participate, but should find other staff who do not have ethical objections. Then both people involved stay true to their own conscience- the patient and the staff member.

If the pharmacist or staff member cannot even abide working in a place that allows the Abortion Pill, then they should find another job.

Frenzy
08-19-2008, 08:05 PM
My take-home from the case was that a medical provider couldn't deny a patient a medical service based on a protected group, in this case sexual orientation. A fertility doctor can't deny a lesbian fertility treatments because she's a lesbian, a plastic surgeon can't deny a vietnamese woman breast implants because she's vietnamese, etc. The fact that it's "elective medical treatment" is entirely irrelevant.

Ozymandias
08-19-2008, 10:43 PM
I just don't understand the hypocritical morals of some of these people. Not even people. Anyone with that opinion doesn't deserve to be put on the level of a true person; they're mindless drones, animals, following orders given to them without stopping to think. If they showed consistency of action and opinion, its a different story, but not one of these men or women do. Fucking bastards.

I also thought what Frenzy thought upon initially reading the article; it wasn't a case of selective distribution of birth control in the sense that some people did and some people didn't, but there was specific discrimination going on in refusing to treat a certain type of patient. Mind you, the case in question there wasn't a religious motive about taking life, in fact, you could even say the fertility clinic doctor WAS taking a life by refusing to allow one to come into being.

Whatever. Christians are the worst people on the planet, and have been for 2000 years. These kinds of shenanigans shouldn't surprise anyone.

EDIT: There was a little footnote at the bottom which I thought wasn't given enough play; morning after pill without prescription. I think this is the perfect solution. We'll see how long the pharmacists who DON'T offer the pill stay in business. Lets see how well Christian morals hold up in the face of falling profits.

John Snow
08-20-2008, 12:10 AM
EDIT: There was a little footnote at the bottom which I thought wasn't given enough play; morning after pill without prescription. I think this is the perfect solution. We'll see how long the pharmacists who DON'T offer the pill stay in business. Lets see how well Christian morals hold up in the face of falling profits.

and what makes this even funnier is that the morning after pill is not an abortificant.

The Immortal One
08-20-2008, 03:13 AM
So just to clarify, there are two issues here, right?

1. Birth Control prescriptions not being filled due to moral judgments being made by a pharmacist.


2. Abortion Pills being witheld, either by pharmacy or hospital staff.


There's also the doctors refusing to write the prescriptions, and the issue of artificial insemination.

GonzoTheGreat
08-20-2008, 05:15 AM
Rape victim- that is the patient's decision. The staff member need not participate, but should find other staff who do not have ethical objections. Then both people involved stay true to their own conscience- the patient and the staff member.
How do you implement that? I find it rather difficult to imagine the following scenario being standard:
Woman goes to an apothecary and shows a recipe for the morning after pill.
The pharmacist refuses to give out the medicine because of religious convictions.
The woman says (in a store, with other customers waiting behind her in a line) "I was raped by five different guys, one of them my uncle".
The pharmacist asks (politely, of course, he's a Christian) "do you have proof of that, miss?".
The woman shows the police report.
The pharmacist says "all right, I'll call a collegue".

Then there's the extra question: is this religious approach only valid in the case of Christian objections to birth control, or does it have more general validity?
A specific (but, as far as I know, hypothetical) example: could a Scientologist who, based on the tenets of his faith, does not believe in psychiatry, refuse to sell anti-psychosis medicines to someone who needs them, according to professional psychiatrists?

Then there's the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are opposed to blood transfusions. Various types of believers are against vaccination. And of course New Agers can have just about any strange believe you can imagine, together with a couple you can't.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-20-2008, 05:27 AM
If you're not on The Pill, you risk getting pregnant (unless you always, ALWAYS use condoms, but let's face it: it's extremely uncomfortable for a woman to buy condoms. Much bigger brand of "slut" than quietly buying your perscription pills)

If you are on The Pill and it doesn't work - because no method of contraception is 100% good - you and the baby have an enormous health risk because most probably the pregnancy will not be in the uterus and you'll kind of HAVE to have an abortion. which is the main reason women take pills - they don't want to have children but they most definitely don't want to have abortions either.

And if you are on the pill and don't have any side-effects - yet - you're lucky. Hormonal treatment has repeatedly been shown to have a higher influence on developing cancer, particularly breast cancer, even AFTER you've stopped taking the pill. And even though there might be some positive side-effects like less cramps, more regular cycle etc., you never REALLY know what this is doing to your body in the long term. Aside from the weight gain, I mean.

And it might not only influence you personally. There has been a loud cry against infant vaccination, implicating that as a cause for autism. But what if it's not? what if you, with the help of the madical corporations have done this to your own child? And wasn't there a recent study about the chemicals eventually filtering through the soil and back into other people's drinking water?

Not that there are very many other good options for younger women who want to wait with having children. The spiral isn't appliccable until you've had at least one child already, counting days... er, well... not reliable at all. In Russia, the most common form of contraception is still the abortion. *shudder* It's like they never left the Soviet Union. The patch or ring? well, they are also hormonal... abstinence is obviously out of the question when we're talking about contraceptives:cool: even though it IS 100% effective. About the only thing that is.

anyway. I'm on the pill and here you just need the initial perscription to make sure you're not allergic to that particular pill but after that you're in the apothecary's database and just say your name, they type it in, hand over the box and you don't even have to pay - the health insurance does it for you. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't think about the possible risks though.

Ozymandias
08-20-2008, 07:08 AM
abstinence is obviously out of the question when we're talking about contraceptives:cool: even though it IS 100% effective. About the only thing that is.


See, but this just isn't true at all! Not having sex is 100% effective, but thats a personal choice, and lets say your raped... your abstinence does nothing for you then. I'm looking at a VERY old chart (about a decade) that puts national (USA) rape statistics are 34.4/100,000. So basically, a third of a percent. And its almost certainly a great deal higher than that, given that most rape victims don't report it. So in effect, your about as likely to get pregnant if abstinent as you are on the pill, moreso, since some versions have only a .2% failure rate.

So to call ANYTHING 100% effective is misleading. Abstinence works only so far as you have a choice in the matter. Its why I shudder a little when people say "you don't get pregnant if you don't have sex". Well, yeah, but you've got a pretty damn heavy chance (relatively) of being forced to it, so you've been deviously misled.

And yes... I know that raped women can take the pill and hope for an abortion, but we have to go on the assumption that a lot of people are abstinent for religious reasons and therefore will avoid the pill for the same reasons.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-20-2008, 07:12 AM
good point

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 08:41 AM
Whatever. Christians are the worst people on the planet, and have been for 2000 years. These kinds of shenanigans shouldn't surprise anyone.

Bite me, Ozy.


And by the way, there's at least one woman in history for which abstinence didn't work. ;)


And Yks, I've read more recent studies that make heart disease more likely than cancer on The Pill. The Pill doesn't raise your likelihood of cancer.

Ishara
08-20-2008, 09:10 AM
Well, forgive me if I don't believe the one study that says it isn't linked to cancer over the dozens that do...I'm just a little sceptical of things that are proven wrong with a snap of the finger.

Regardless of the long-term consequences health wise, the birth control pill has done more to allow the liberal freedoms of women than anything else in the last century (excepting maybe the vote).

Davian93
08-20-2008, 09:19 AM
Well, forgive me if I don't believe the one study that says it isn't linked to cancer over the dozens that do...I'm just a little sceptical of things that are proven wrong with a snap of the finger.

I wonder which birth control pill making company funded that study?

Regardless of the long-term consequences health wise, the birth control pill has done more to allow the liberal freedoms of women than anything else in the last century (excepting maybe the vote).

Interesting that those would be the 2 most important moments for Women's lib...speaks volumes for how messed up our society is.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 09:41 AM
I wonder which birth control pill making company funded that study?

I think heart disease is infinitely worse than cancer, since a heart attack is often fatal instantly and cancer often has a hope of being cured.


However, the efficacy and SAFETY of The Pill isn't the problem. It's the fact that some women are being denied it.

Frenzy
08-20-2008, 09:45 AM
There was a proposed law in South Dakota that would've barred all abortions, even in instances of rape or incest. (floated by a guy named Bill Napoli. i know this cuz i have an editorial cartoon about it on my comp at work.) South Dakota is so rural that there is only one Planned Parenthood clinic in the entire state. i don't know if the law passed (pretty sure it didn't), but i do remember that a leader of one of the native american nations there said that they'd open abortion clinics on their reservations for any woman to use if the law did pass. nice.

Brita
08-20-2008, 09:46 AM
How do you implement that? I find it rather difficult to imagine the following scenario being standard:
Woman goes to an apothecary and shows a recipe for the morning after pill.
The pharmacist refuses to give out the medicine because of religious convictions.
The woman says (in a store, with other customers waiting behind her in a line) "I was raped by five different guys, one of them my uncle".
The pharmacist asks (politely, of course, he's a Christian) "do you have proof of that, miss?".
The woman shows the police report.
The pharmacist says "all right, I'll call a collegue".

Then there's the extra question: is this religious approach only valid in the case of Christian objections to birth control, or does it have more general validity?
A specific (but, as far as I know, hypothetical) example: could a Scientologist who, based on the tenets of his faith, does not believe in psychiatry, refuse to sell anti-psychosis medicines to someone who needs them, according to professional psychiatrists?

Then there's the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are opposed to blood transfusions. Various types of believers are against vaccination. And of course New Agers can have just about any strange believe you can imagine, together with a couple you can't.

I didn't even mention Christian- but it is an automatic assumption. You are not reading my post objectively, but putting religious inferences on it that aren't there. I am talking about everyones right to their own conscience. But that does not allow them the right to tell other what their conscience should dictate. So that 'scenario' you posted is rubbish and not even close to what I was saying. Here is the scenario I am talking about:

In a pharmacy:

Patient: I need the morning after pill.
Pharmacist against pill: Just one minute I will find someone to help you.
Patient: Thank you.

Pharmacist then finds someone who does not have an ethical objection to dispensing the pill. No personal questions should even be asked, because this is the pharmacist's personal decision for themselves and not based on the client's situation.

I am going to say this one more time, with emphasis: The pharmacist (or health care worker) has the right to decline dispensing this drug, they do not have the right to pass moral judgement on their client. Period.

Here's another scenario:

Hospital:

Patient: I was raped by five guys, one my uncle. I need the morning after pill.
Nurse cares for patient as per usual.
At a discreet moment, not near the patient, nurse finds a colleague, explains her qualms about giving the morning after pill, and transfers care to her.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 09:47 AM
It did pass (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072207.html) and the Sioux Nation is soliciting donations for the clinic.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/27/america/NA-GEN-US-Abortion-Lawsuit.php

She had ruled that opponents had a fair chance of succeeding in their claim that the law violates doctors' free-speech rights by forcing them to tell women things the doctors might not believe.....
~*~
The 2005 law would make doctors tell women "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause women psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide.

And THIS is on the other end of the spectrum. Doctors are being forced to tell women something they may not believe, but another doctor or pharmacist can refuse treatment on things they DO believe. How f'ed up is that?

Brita
08-20-2008, 09:54 AM
and what makes this even funnier is that the morning after pill is not an abortificant.

This is true- but some people believe life starts as soon as the ova is fertilized, so if the pill prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, some people see this still as terminating a life.

Just so you all know- I am not against this pill. I just find that all human rights are upheld until it comes to moral convictions, especially if they have connections with religion, especially if that religion is Christian. I am just trying to uphold people's rights to their own conscience, and trying to show that people can stay true to their ethics and still be professional and compassionate.

GonzoTheGreat
08-20-2008, 11:17 AM
I didn't even mention Christian- but it is an automatic assumption.
True. There are indeed other annoying believers apart from the Christian ones. My apologies for that.
Here is the scenario I am talking about:

In a pharmacy:

Patient: I need the morning after pill.
Pharmacist against pill: Just one minute I will find someone to help you.
Patient: Thank you.
Now, this requires the presence of someone else in that pharmacy, who is both qualified to dispense medicine and willing to dispense this particular type. As my list indicated, people can have objections to different things based on different religions. So, in order to make your scheme workable, all pharmacies should keep track of which employee is willing to dispense what, and make sure that there's always at least one person for any product they can deliver. That takes an awful amount of planning, and I'm sure it will go wrong with too much regularity.

My solution is far simpler: if you want to work in a pharmacy, you dispense all medicine. If you're not willing to do that, find another job.

I am going to say this one more time, with emphasis: The pharmacist (or health care worker) has the right to decline dispensing this drug, they do not have the right to pass moral judgement on their client. Period.
You want to legislate against passing moral judgements?
Now there's an optimistic approach to lawmaking. :D

How about my other examples?
I am really interested in the psychosis case. If a Scientologist working in a pharmacy withholds those medicines, and the psychotic then kills someone, who's responsible?

If nothing else, that one should show that merely asking for opinons on birth control isn't enough, which brings us back to the planning problems for making sure the pharmacy always has someone willing (and qualified) to dispense any medicine at all.

Brita
08-20-2008, 11:27 AM
If nothing else, that one should show that merely asking for opinons on birth control isn't enough, which brings us back to the planning problems for making sure the pharmacy always has someone willing (and qualified) to dispense any medicine at all.

I agree. There are many places of employment where the staffing numbers are sufficient that if one has a moral dilemma pops up, someone else is there to take over (i.e hospital pharmacy, ER dept). But if one is working in a place where they could be the only one, and then be presented with the moral dilemma without any recourse, then that person should not work there.

When I think of this situation I mostly think of my career as a nurse, which has far more felxbility in terms of places of employment and colleagues to draw on for assistance is needed.

You want to legislate against passing moral judgements?
Now there's an optimistic approach to lawmaking.

Haha- nope. I am just speaking of the unbinding code of ethics that healthcare professionals should consider and live by. Nothing written in law- just a debate on ethics in the workplace. This is just my stance in the debate :)

I am really interested in the psychosis case. If a Scientologist working in a pharmacy withholds those medicines, and the psychotic then kills someone, who's responsible?

The Scientologist should not withold the medication (or steal the script or whatever :)). He has the right to not dispense it himself, but there should be someone available who can and will, as I agree that the pharmacy should be able to provide the medications they say they will at all times. Responsible ethically- yes. Responsible legally.....I don't know- that's a tough one. I'm able to make reasonable comments on ethics, but not so much on law- this would be one for Sini.

Ishara
08-20-2008, 12:14 PM
It's the medical ethics part that lies at the haert of this problem, I think.

As a doctor (or a pharmacist) - your priority is patient care. Period. Obviously certain individuals are interpreting patient care as doing something the patient doesn't want, not allowing the patient to do what they want, or telling the patient something they don't want to hear. I happen to think that's wrong.

Patient care should always, always, be about the person seeking care. End of story.

Brita
08-20-2008, 12:49 PM
Patient care should always, always, be about the person seeking care. End of story.

Yes, but the caretaker is a person as well.

For example- when a nurse is pregnant she has the right to still work but also has the right to decline doing certain procedures that could compromise her pregnancy. Of course, other healthcare professionals will step in to do what needs to be done to care for the patient.

We all agree on this because it is safeguarding her health.

Why doesn't the same principle apply to safeguarding a person's conscience?

For example- when a nurse is a <insert belief system here> she has the right to still work but also has the right to decline doing certain procedures that could compromise her conscience. Of course, other healthcare profecssionals will step in to do what needs to be done to care for the patient.

I changed two words in the paragraph. People have no problems supporting the first paragraph, but do with the second. I will remind you that it was not long ago that women who were pregnant were forced to leave their jobs as they were unable to perform all tasks. We think this is ridiculous now- but will force professionals to leave their jobs because they cannot perform all tasks due to moral convictions.

We seem to think there will be no issue with a pregnant pharmacist being able to delegate dispensing chemotherapy to a colleague, but somehow this becomes impossible when a pharmacist chooses not to dispense the morning after pill.

Somehow, it has become acceptable to discriminate against people with moral convictions that don't match the general population.

John Snow
08-20-2008, 12:58 PM
And by the way, there's at least one woman in history for which abstinence didn't work. ;)


Gilgamesh's mother, right?

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 01:02 PM
Heh... ok, two. ;)

Somehow, it has become acceptable to discriminate against people with moral convictions that don't match the general population.

The problem, Brita, is that these people are discriminating against PATIENTS that don't follow their beliefs. And, in the case of South Dakota, forcing physicians to spout statistics that are misleading. They are not returning the prescriptions to the patient, nor are they referring the patient to another doctor.

Brita
08-20-2008, 01:06 PM
The problem, Brita, is that these people are discriminating against PATIENTS that don't follow their beliefs. And, in the case of South Dakota, forcing physicians to spout statistics that are misleading. They are not returning the prescriptions to the patient, nor are they referring the patient to another doctor.

I know, I know. You know I'm not agreeing with this behaviour. What I am arguing against is people that say "If you have a moral objection, you should just get another job". This is not necessary, not is it fair. I am trying to outline a code of ethics that will allow non-discrimination on all sides.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 01:11 PM
Well, the biggest problem is, these jackholes (in an article I've read in Glamour in one of their rabble-rousing issues) have been quoted as saying, (and I paraphrase) "I can't send them to someone else, because that just passes the sin onwards."

GonzoTheGreat
08-20-2008, 01:17 PM
We seem to think there will be no issue with a pregnant pharmacist being able to delegate dispensing chemotherapy to a colleague, but somehow this becomes impossible when a pharmacist chooses not to dispense the morning after pill.As far as I know (I don't have personal experience with this*), pregnancy is temporary.
If a pharmacist becomes permanently unable to dispense chemotherapy, then I would say that it makes sense to find a way of making sure that dispensing chemotherapy is not part of the ordinary workload anymore.
Similarly, if someone is unable (because of moral problems, or whatever) to dispense morning after pills, I would expect that person to be assigned a job where it is not part of the normal workload.

And, at the same time, I would not expect someone who is permanently inable to carry out part of the job to seek employment in that profession. People wash out of med school because they discover they can't stand blood, they do not say "I'll be a doctor, but all bleeding patients should go to another practitioner". People who are pacifists stay out of the military, they do not sign up and then demand that they're allowed to refrain from learning how to fight.

Should the military create special "never ever fighting" positions for pacifists?
If not, how's that different from pharmacists who aren't willing to do the job they signed up for?

* Well, I've been born, I was told. So I guess that I have some personal experience with pregnancy, after all, but I can't remember it. Must mean it isn't all that bad, I guess.

Brita
08-20-2008, 01:19 PM
Well, the biggest problem is, these jackholes (in an article I've read in Glamour in one of their rabble-rousing issues) have been quoted as saying, (and I paraphrase) "I can't send them to someone else, because that just passes the sin onwards."

Arggh- then they make it impossible to be reasonable about it. They should not be allowed to work in their area- because they are compromising the care of the client.

It is people like this that give the rest of us a bad name, isn't it.

Brita
08-20-2008, 01:25 PM
@ Gonzo-

You have a point with some examples.

People wash out of med school because they discover they can't stand blood, they do not say "I'll be a doctor, but all bleeding patients should go to another practitioner".

Yes, this is true. But these pills (mornig after pills I mean) are new- and there are pharmacists that chose this career not aware they would face this dilemma. Healthcare is a rapidly changing profession- it has changed immensely even since I started.

If a pharmacist becomes permanently unable to dispense chemotherapy, then I would say that it makes sense to find a way of making sure that dispensing chemotherapy is not part of the ordinary workload anymore.

When nurses are allergic to latex gloves, the whole healthcare system changed their products to non-latex instead of saying "If you have allergies to latex find another line of work". In Canada at least, if a person has limitations that can be reasonably worked around, then the workplace cannot dismiss them for those reasons. And I have shown that this circumstance can be worked around in certain areas. If it can't (i.e limited staffing) then the person needs to leave.

People who are pacifists stay out of the military, they do not sign up and then demand that they're allowed to refrain from learning how to fight.

Should the military create special "never ever fighting" positions for pacifists?
If not, how's that different from pharmacists who aren't willing to do the job they signed up for?

Now that's just silly- that is their whole job. That is like saying someone who is against dispensing pills altogether want to become a pharmacist.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 01:26 PM
They should not be allowed to work in their area- because they are compromising the care of the client.

Which has been my point all along. Fundamentalists and zealots of any stripe have no business working with the public in this manner. Frankly, if you're unable to do your job, then quit.

I have a bad back. I don't go applying for jobs that require me to lift heavy loads or spend more than one hour at a time on my feet all day. An ethical or religious objection to one's job should be similar. Otherwise, they're using thier position to PREACH to their patients.

Brita
08-20-2008, 01:36 PM
[QUOTE=Gilshalos Sedai]Frankly, if you're unable to do your job, then quit.
QUOTE]

This is where we differ. This blanket statement is too broad and implies intolerance.

Of course, the reasonable ones who just quietly find another peson to care for their clients aren't the ones that make the news. And then everyone gets painted with the same brush- and a big red ZEALOT label is stamped on their forehead.

I work in healthcare- this issue can be reasonable dealt with, and is reasonably dealt with, every day. I am just trying to show this reality- because reasonable, everyday work doesn't make headlines. And then broad statements are made that only apply to the irrational minority, and not to the majority of people who face this ethical question and deal with it professionally.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 01:50 PM
I'm talking about the unreasonable person, Brita, not the one who says, "I'm uncomfortable with this, next window, please," but the one who says, "MY God/Deity/Hamster says this is wrong and YOU SHALL NOT HAVE YOUR MEDS." These are the people that need to find a new job. And they're not being required to, nor are they being required to compromise.

Intolerant? Hell yes. But then, not to sound like a 5 year old: They started it.

Yuri33
08-20-2008, 01:53 PM
If there's an extra burden to endure due to religious or personal objections from the healthcare provider, then it is that healthcare provider's responsibility to bare that burden and therefore mitigate the patient's inconvenience. Simply withdrawing and saying "I don't do that, go find someone else" is irresponsible, whether we're talking about dispensing contraceptions or performing abortions.

Brita
08-20-2008, 01:55 PM
"MY God/Deity/Hamster says this is wrong and YOU SHALL NOT HAVE YOUR MEDS." These are the people that need to find a new job. And they're not being required to, nor are they being required to compromise.

Intolerant? Hell yes. But then, not to sound like a 5 year old: They started it.

LOL- hamster?

Then we agree. I wouldn't even say this is intolerant at all- it is completely reasonable.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 01:55 PM
Is denying them the drug/treatment any better?



HAHA- hamster? Then we agree. I wouldn't even say this is intolerant at all- it is completely reasonable.

Hey, I'm a person of faith. However, I also believe God gave me a brain and the ability to use it for a reason. If He didn't want me to think, He shoulda made me a moron. And as far as these jackasses are concerned their god might just be a hamster.

Brita
08-20-2008, 01:56 PM
What do you mean?

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 01:58 PM
Sorry, that was to Yuri.

Brita
08-20-2008, 02:06 PM
LOL- got it :)

Brita
08-20-2008, 02:12 PM
If there's an extra burden to endure due to religious or personal objections from the healthcare provider, then it is that healthcare provider's responsibility to bare that burden and therefore mitigate the patient's inconvenience. Simply withdrawing and saying "I don't do that, go find someone else" is irresponsible, whether we're talking about dispensing contraceptions or performing abortions.

Yes, good point, and I hope in all my examples its clear that the healthcare professional sought out a colleague to help the client, and did not just say "Good luck to you".

Yuri33
08-20-2008, 04:25 PM
Is denying them the drug/treatment any better?

I'm not sure I understand your objection. No doctor can deny a patient a valid medical procedure\medication without a compelling legal or medical reason. At the same time, no doctor can be forced to perform\proscribe something they have a moral or religious objection to. I mean, would you want an anti-abortionist doctor to do your abortion if a court ordered him/her to?

However, as a doctor, if I have non-legal or non-medical objections to personally carry out the procedure, its my burden to find someone who will. That's my patient, and its my professional obligation to do what the patient desires under reasonable (legal\medical) restrictions, no matter what my personal feelings on the issue are. I can deny doing the procedure myself, but I had better find someone who can in my place. That was my point. The party with the non-legal\non-medical objection must bear the burden. This is why we make patients sign a form forfeiting legal liability if they refuse treatment based on religious or other personal grounds. It's why we make patients sign an AMA form if they leave without being properly discharged--they are assuming the burden.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-20-2008, 04:34 PM
Sorry, the way you phrased your objection to Brita's statements wasn't clear to me. Thanks for clarifying.

JSUCamel
08-20-2008, 07:18 PM
And by the way, there's at least one woman in history for which abstinence didn't work.


Shmi Skywalker?

Brita
08-20-2008, 07:37 PM
Sorry, the way you phrased your objection to Brita's statements wasn't clear to me. Thanks for clarifying.

I didn't think he was objecting to my statements at all :( I thought he was just clarifying that it is the responsibility of the healthcare professional to ensure their patient finds care if they aren't willing to provide it.

Ishara
08-20-2008, 07:59 PM
Yuri, I loved the way you phrased that. I agree completely.

GonzoTheGreat
08-21-2008, 04:53 AM
Yes, this is true. But these pills (mornig after pills I mean) are new- and there are pharmacists that chose this career not aware they would face this dilemma. Healthcare is a rapidly changing profession- it has changed immensely even since I started.

Yes, they are new. As Wikipedia tells us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_after_pill), the first came onto the market in the early 1970s (1974 was the first, I gather from that article).
So, after having taken 34 years to make up their minds, those brilliant pharmacists have now decided that it's against their principles to deal with those pills.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-21-2008, 08:25 AM
So, after having taken 34 years to make up their minds, those brilliant pharmacists have now decided that it's against their principles to deal with those pills.

Thank you, Gonzo. I needed that. LOL

Brita
08-21-2008, 11:50 AM
LOL- you got a point there Gonzo.

I was thinking specifically about RU486 which was approved by the FDA in 2000. And our version in Canada, Plan B, which was approved in 1999.

But you're right, the concept has been there for over 2 decades, long enough for pharmacists to consider the ethical implications.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-21-2008, 11:54 AM
Oh, and Camel, that was Shmi Skywalker, not Padme. I'm fairly certain Luke and Leia were concieved the old fashioned way.

Davian93
08-21-2008, 12:06 PM
That moment was when I knew the new trilogy was gonna suck...thanks Lucas!!! Did you really need to make a Jesus reference? Couldn't you just have the Emperor be the father?

GonzoTheGreat
08-21-2008, 12:19 PM
Come on Dav. We all know that Anakin's mother was just a trifle more innocent (or more evasive, for some reason) than other girls. She was a slave, remember?

Frenzy
08-21-2008, 02:01 PM
Watto was the father?!?

Cary Sedai
08-21-2008, 02:32 PM
~cleans mind out with bleach~

Thanks for the mental image Frenzy, much appreciated!