Is this the true face of the "Pro Life" campaign??
 

I wasnt sure whether this belonged in sexuality or here, but on the basis that rape is nothing to do with sex, and the implications are political, I chose here.

I have to say, this article astonished me - if it was from Afghanistan I might have at least not been as shocked... I can understand (although I dont personally agree with ) some of what the pro life campaign is about, but to act like this is so incredibly, so unbelievably heartless...

I can only say that I hope I speak for most people here in hoping for a long custodial sentence for the pharmicist involved. I am not sure that I would be capable of being just with such an offender, his crime makes me so angry - but prison time is the only option in my opinion, as both a punishment and a deterrent.

(And despite anything else, this is a terrible own goal for people who are against widely available abortion and birth control)

I understand that this can be an emotive issue, for both sides of the debate, and I apologise if I am too emotional about it, I just find it beyond belief...

LINK

I'd say it's quite a simple issue- the pharmacist shouldn't be allowed to practice. Not forever, I suppose, but a definite suspension wihout pay is in order. What's next- no medicinal marijuana? No selling of condoms?

I draw the line at not helping rape victims. I believe there should be no abortion except for cases of rape, or in cases where there is endangerement of the mother, or other extreme cases. This is just, I can't believe it, I'm just too shocked for words at what type of crap this is.

Jailed? No.
License reviewed, suspended and/or revoked. Definitely. It was a legal prescription he should have filled it.

His personal beliefs are irrelevant and obviously incombatible with his choosen proffesion.
His liscence should be pulled and he should be blacklisted from working in the industry.
His job was to fill prescriptions, and no one elected him to be a judge of character or morality.
His personal opinions are not relenvent to doing the job he was paid to do and he should be able to do his job without a problem. Since he obviously can't and cannot see for himself that he his incapable of performing his duties, the board governing pharmasists should make sure he cannot work in that feild anymore so that he is not a danger to others as he obviously was.

I cannot explain how angry i was when i read this this morning.

How is this guy even a pharmacist if he has moral objections to doing his job correctly?

Rape is a nonsense exception. Emotional anguish is not a sufficient justification for killing another human being, no matter how severe. Never mind how questionable it is to think that abortion would have a significant impact on said anguish.

It should be legal for one to refuse to provide such 'treatment'. Having said that, Eckerd Corp was certainly entitled to discipline or fire this man.

In some ways it is adding insult to injury. Not only would someone have to endure being raped by some asshole, they would also have to endure raising said asshole's bastard child concieved by way of sex crime. Whether it is murder at all depends on where life begins, which is a debate for another thread.

Well, let's simplify.

If it's a human being we're talking about, then rape is a nonsensical exception.

If it's just a clump of cells we're talking about, then rape is a nonsensical and unneeded exception. No justification would be necessary.

Re-read this a couple times and you'll realize it makes no sense.

Avoiding the moral argument, the law is the law. And the law of the land is that the 72 hour pill has been approved for use in this country. He is expected to follow the law, and the law is that no person shall be held from seeking a prescription filled who has been legally authorized to seek a prescription by a doctor.
If i was a doctor and i denied you treatment because you where white and i disliked whites, i would be disbarred. he denied a woman treatment as a medical worker (as pharmasists are classified) and thus there is no difference from my example as both are discrimination.
As a medical worker he is expected to check his personal opinions at the door when he is dealing with the health and well being of others. Any medical proffesional who cannot do that presents a possable risk to patients and should be removed.



And as for my opinion since you brought it up,
It's just a clump of identical cells similar to cancer for the first trimester. It has no conciousness. By third trimster i could view it as a living being, but it is not anything 72 hours or even two months. Sorry.
What your arguing for is the possability that something may exist given sufficient time, not that something currently exists that can be killed.

{mods, if my last part is a thread jack, please delete}

So, does this mean that he would give that pill to non rape victims?

that makes no sense at all...definitely should not be allowed to be a pharmicist anymore, but jail time would just be completely ridiculous. he is not obligated by law to give her what she wanted, although its agreed that he was an asshole prick for not doing it.

Done. Prediction false.

The law is wrong in this situation. One has the right to seek out those who sell the wanted prescription. One does not have the right to force any person to sell such a product.

Except that the refusal had nothing to do with the patient's habits and everything to do with the effects of the drug. There's no bigotry here.

Sure. And I would be ignoring the health and well-being of others if I dispensed that drug.

If he would, then I'm just as confused. My understanding is that he would refuse the pill to anyone.

It is a pharmasists job to sell the drugs that a person in prescribed by a doctor. It is not a pharmasists job to decide if a prescription is right or wrong. If he wanted to control what people were prescribed he should have become a doctor. I doubt he legally did anything wrong but within his buisness he definatly did something wrong and should be fired for it.

If a general refused to obey the president on an order that was within reason (legal bounds) and the general did not follow the order what do you think would happen to the general?

There is a chain of command; a way things work. If you agree to be part of that chain you better be ready to do what your told to do.

1. I have no problem with his being fired.

2. There's no legal military action that is counter to the purpose of the military. This is a legal medical action that is counter to the purpose of the medical field. "First, do no harm."

that is for doctors, not pharmacists and if he refuses, tehy should give her a prescription from another pharmacist, unless he was the only one there.

even so, she should be able to get it elswhere

That depends on your definition of harm. If by helping someone not have the bastard child of a sex criminal you mean harm, well, i just find that interesting.:)

Please.

Touche. Nevertheless, pharmacists shouldn't be handing out drugs that are intended to kill human life. I assume that we agree on this, but not on whether an abortion pill does this.

Why aren't people getting this: THE MORNING AFTER PILL IS NOT AN ABORTION PILL. It is just a higher dosage of the typical birth control pill. In other words, it prevents ovulation. There is an incredibly small chance that it would actually prevent implantation, which could be seen as abortive, however there are many other drugs not even related to birth control that can have this effect. So if anti-MAP pill people aren't against regular birth control and all drugs that could just as minutely have a chance of preventing implantation, then their argument does not hold up.

The "Pro-Life" opposition to the MAP pill makes me vomit. If this pill were prescription free, the number of abortions in the US would drop significantly. Isn't that what these people want? Of course it isn't. They are really "Pro-Telling-you-what-to-do" and "Pro-Consequences". I sincerely hope this pharmacist never stands behind a counter again. Thank you religious zealots for making the world a better place.

Pay very close attention to that statment Foolthemall.
Surely we can agree that regardless of his personal belief, as a representative of the company he works for he is employed to dispense the drugs the company has decided to sell regardless of what he may personaly believe. If he doesn;t like that, he should open his own pharmacy. On someone elses dime, his personal opinions are not wanted or relavent and should not affect how he performs his job when he's being payed to do it.
Surely we can also agree that while we may disagree on if the law is right, that is the job of our court system, not us or him to decide. The courts are there to represent the will of the majority's beliefs in such matters and the morality and nature of birth control and womens choice is something for that venue, not his personal pulpet.


Also, from a scientific point of view, Anomaly_ is correct. the 72hr pill prevents ovulation, and if ovulation has not occured, then there is no clump of cells for us to argue semantics about. Are you arguing that we should not prevent ovulation and the chance that brings at insemination? Becuase then you are arguing that birth control is wrong, not abortion.
If ovulation is prevented, then nothing ever existed.

Wow, you learn something new every day. I was wondering why you were talking about prescriptions.

In Sweden the MAP is free if you go to a hospital/see a doctor and costs $10 at a pharmacy (state owned monopoly). No need for a prescription.

Anyway, that guy didn't do his job, so he deserved to be fired.

The man is free not to work as a pharmacist, where he KNOWS he might be asked to sell such a product. It's like a pacifist entering the armed forces and complaining when they have to shoot someone. We, the people, don't get to decide when "the law is wrong." You can't pick and choose.

I am.

The number of intentional deaths would not drop significantly. I'm pro-people-having-the-right-to-life-as-long-as-there-is-no-justification-for-taking-it-away. And I wouldn't call for legal changes if my position were based solely on religious beliefs.

The current law is incompatible with his chosen profession. Should Christian hospitals be shut down for not providing abortions?

He decided not to give her an item. She had no right to this item. (edit: That's not to say that she had no right to attempt to obtain it.) She had no need for this item. The business can certainly fire him for refusing to sell one of the company products, but he violated no rights.

Perhaps I made a mistake here. It's referred to in the article as the morning-after pregnancy-prevention pill. The woman sought this drug after the rape occured. I assumed that this meant that conception had already occured and implantation was to be prevented, because my understanding is that pregnancy begins with implantation and not conception.

Anomaly, can you give me a source to support the claim that the chance of prevention of implantation is "incredibly small"? I'm looking for a figure.

Can I ask what they are based on, if not solely on religious beliefs?
I won't deny that's a well-argued point. I'll ask in rebuttal should pharmacies then get to decide which drugs they want to dispense? Should a pharmacist who feels ADHD is over-diagnosed be allowed to refuse Ritalin prescriptions? What about a Catholic pharmacist? Can he refuse to sell condoms?

I guess the problem here is I don't feel the pharmacist has the right to make the decision, nor do you. She had no right to this item? I don't really understand the distinction between the right to have it and the right to try to obtain it.

Just to clarify:

Prevention of ovulation is the primary way the "Morning After Pill" works.

Prevention of implantation (if fertilization has occured) is a secondary way.


For my own part, I think this man is an ass and deserves to be fired, if he already hasn't been.

The right to life, and a belief that all human beings, regardless of stage of development, are deserving of this right.

[quote][/b]I won't deny that's a well-argued point. I'll ask in rebuttal should pharmacies then get to decide which drugs they want to dispense? Should a pharmacist who feels ADHD is over-diagnosed be allowed to refuse Ritalin prescriptions? What about a Catholic pharmacist? Can he refuse to sell condoms?[/b][quote]

Yeah. It's entirely up to the owner of any given store what he/she will sell in their store (barring illegal items), and a pharmacy should be treated no differently.

The former implies that one need not do anything other than exist in order to deserve possession of it. And that's not true in this case. Either she makes the product or provides the service for herself (the infeasible option), or she provides compensation to someone who voluntarily provides the product/service.

Now, if an employee doesn't carry out the wishes of the employer in this case, and the wishes are legal, then that's a legitimate reason for job termination. And the employee will have to seek out an employer without those wishes. (No one has the right to employment, either.)

Thanks. Now it's just a matter of whether the secondary way's chance of taking place is negligible or not. If negligible, I may change my mind on this. But that's not the sense I get from reports on this drug.

Ok, the question so far:

1) Is the MAP equivalent to abortion or contraception?

2) Does a pharmacist have the right/duty to second guess a doctor?

3) Does an employee have the right/duty to apply their own value set in place of their employers?

4) If the answer to (3) is no (or, I guess, even if the answer is yes), then what is an appropriate punishment for doing so?

The science says the answer to (1) is that it is contraception. If you're against contraception, then you are against the MAP. If you are against abortion, the MAP is irrevalent to you.

I argue that if the answer to (2) is yes, then we are all in a great deal of trouble indeed.

I have no trouble imagining a pharmacist thinking asthma is psychosomatic, and denying a Ventalin prescription. The patient gets nervous about this, and goes into an asthma attack and dies. I am sure other readers of this can imagine variations on the theme.

I also argue the answer to (3) is yes, but that employee must do so publicly and suffer the consequences. Sometimes the only employer in town is the local saw mill or mine or auto plant, and the fact of this world is that we must make money to support ourselves and our families.

We are obligated to follow our own sense of right and wrong (and for many of us, following the laws of the land in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary is a very strong "right") at all times and all circumstances. We choose to comply and continue our employment, or we choose to conflict and either win the dispute or lose our employment.

I know my answers seem to contradict each other; sadly, the older I get, the more complicated and contradictory the world seems to get.

Regards,
Candide.

This sums up my feelings, reactions and opinions quite well. Thank you, arch13, I couldn't have, and probably wouldn't have, phrased this any better than you have. I might have spelled liscence "license", though. ;) J.K. Good job.

I am staunchly pro-life as i'm sure those who argued with me in the philosphy board about it are well aware. But i agree with this. The unfortunate fact of the matter is it is legal, and it's his job to fill prescriptions. If he has a moral objection to it - he shouldn't put himself in that position (i.e. - find a new job).

They taught me in pharmacy school we have the right to refuse to fill any prescription. However, company policies often beg to differ ;) Most companies have to allow it if it's for religious reasons, because if they discipline for that, then it's discrimination. However, since he refused it on moral grounds, he's toast. Based on Illinois law he wouldn't lose his liscence, I don't know what it's like in TX though.


I would have filled it, the fact that she was a raped just reinforces it that much more.

Just out of curiosity,

Then if you are a scientologist (a recognized religion by the govt.), can you refuse to fill a prescription for zoloft or prozac?

(this is a serious question, btw.)

"Rape is a nonsense exception."

Spoken like someone who can never be forced to have sex, then forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy, labor, and a lifetime of bonding with a child from a rapist.

...
When did I say that the MAP was abortion? I said I drew the line at not helping rape victims.... I meant that in ALL situations similar to this one, whether the woman be maybe a day along, or a few months along (although it pains me to say that). You're probably confused by the abortion reference I made.... I'm actually kind of hurt that you would make that inference that all Pro-Life people want to do is boss people around. It isn't true, it just isn't. This guy is a jackass, there are people who take it too far, but it's on both sides too. Please don't make generalizations from extreme people you hear about in the news.

Spoken like someone who realizes that killing an innocent bystander cannot be justified as a cure for emotional anguish.

how can you "kill" a being that does not have the power to live independantly? If something does not have a life of its own, it cannot be killed, surely?

AHEM.

It's fine to talk about the merits of this thread, but let's keep on track and not get personal.


Thanks,

-lebell

...aren't their like 50 abortion debate threads already.

Yeah, and they always go in the same circles, regarding when something is a life, and why i believe what i believe, and who's right, until it eventually gets personal, as this thread has, and no-one is any better for any of it.

Anyways, i think they should fire the guy, and that his refusal is bad news!!!

I hate to pull out the uterus card, but I'd love it if some of you pro-lifers who'd like to see this woman carry a rapist's child to term could walk a mile in a woman's shoes. Imagine living every day of nine months with the spawn of the man who raped you growing in your body. Who the hell are you to decide when life begins? And who the hell are you to make moral choices for other people and impose your will on the body of a woman who can bloody well make up her own mind and suffer the moral and emotional consequences herself? It's HER body, HER unborn clump of cells that may or may not become a potential life, HER choice.