Subscribe"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.
adiopocere, if a type of work or workplace violates a person's morals, they don't need to work there. The option is there not to work there if they really cannot do the job. There are professional standards that must trump personal ones.
I would not accept a power company or department store moralizing over its customers, saying no, we won't supply you with electricity because you'll just use it to watch pornography, or no we won't sell you some sheets because you're a homo and you'll fuck men on them and make baby Jesus cry.
Thats kind of an odd analogy to the current situation.
Yes, of course. Pharmacies should not sell products that are illegal for sale.
You know, just throwing in a liberal dog-whistle isn't going to make us go "OMG MY LOGIC IS DESTROYEDZ!!!". If a power company refused to provide power for a legal government function, then I imagine that they could expect, at the very least, to loose their government contract and possibly even their power-generation license.
And if standing up to capital punishment was really that important to them, they would welcome the consequences, no matter how severe.
I'm kind of surprised at how difficult this is for some people to understand) are a bit overwrought.
I work for a private business and if we excluded some patients based on our personal moral code,
To answer you one more time: For a Pharmacist to call themselves a Pharmacist, they have to meet state guidelines, one of which is to provide a minimum level of services as deemed by Washington state law.
Fair enough. Write a letter.
I do not, however, have the right to ignore, violate or otherwise neglect the laws and regulations of which I am professionally bound and still expect to keep my job or my state-issued license intact.
...should car companies be allowed to sell their cars without these devices?
Okay. Let's say it's a drug that isn't time sensitive or someone went in to order Plan B ahead of time just in case. Basically they're refusing outright to carry something that they can and lawfully should get easily but are refusing on moral grounds. Nothing else. That's why the law needed to be enacted.
If you're defending the premise that a governmental entity should not be allowed to compel the behavior of private parties
The State involves itself more closely in areas of health and welfare, eg. the regulation of public utilities and product safety regulations. Pharmacies are solidly in this public/private sphere; car dealerships, notsofuckingmuch.
No, it would be like requiring Ford to have emissions controls and fuel efficiency standards.
If you aren't denying it, you're certainly doing an interesting little quasi-libertarian shimmy where you object to OMGTHE STATEBOOGABOOGA requiring a business they license to behave as the license dictates.
No it doesn't but it sure does mess with the logic of not carrying or selling the product at all.
I guess you can "bzzzt" as much as you like, but to the extent that you are basing your disagreement on your personal dislike of a particular product being available, your position (and that of jsonic's) is inconsistent and its logical basis and merits, therefore, suspect.
5Emphasis mine.
See Wash. Admin. Code §§ 246-869-010(1)(a)-(e), (2) (exempting
pharmacies from the general duty to deliver when the prescription cannot
be filled due to lack of payment, because it may be fraudulent or errone-
ous, or because of declared emergencies, lack of specialized equipment or
expertise, or unavailability of a drug despite good faith compliance with
Washington Administrative Code section 246-869-150, which provides in
part that “[t]he pharmacy must maintain at all times a representative
assortment of drugs in order to meet the pharmaceutical needs of its
patients”).
It's really about the pro-life adherents trying their best to undermine reproductive rights not by instituting major legislation (e.g., overturning Roe v. Wade) - which would be wildly unpopular and they could never do, but instead by whittling away all the myriad ways in which reproductive rights manifest in society.
Uh, yes, it does. That is if you're still arguing from the stance that this not economically feasible.
Or are we just specifically talking that this isn't right from a regulatory standpoint? Because, hey, let's get rid of all kinds of regulations that people have moral quandaries over and see where that leads us.
Pharmacies have to agree to fill any order that a licensed physician gives. No questions asked. That is what a pharmacy is.
So, yes, that point is valid, but the point in general has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. A pharmacist is not qualified to make non-health related judgments about whether or not Plan B is in the patient's best interests.
All this ruling did was say that if the state disagrees, and thinks that it is better to deny pharmacists the right to make faith-based decisions in this manner, it is constitutionally permitted to make such a regulation.
The courts never said "a pharmacist must do anything."- doesn't really appear to be in line with this quote from the last link in the OP:
"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.I've gotta say that the repeated "you're obviously incapable of understanding anything" that keeps getting advanced as the reason why anyone would think this is bad is pretty silly and insulting.
Nobody is even asserting a belief that Plan B kills anyone. The belief is that contraceptives are immoral.
In the mind of pharmacist Jim Ramseth, there is a moral hierarchy when it comes to preventing pregnancy: Selling condoms and birth control pills is OK. But the emergency contraception known as Plan B is not, and Ramseth refuses to provide it.Malor:
...
"Everybody draws their own lines," Ramseth said. "And if a person's purpose is to kill a fertilized egg, then I disagree with that. Regardless of where the practitioner draws that line, they should have the right."
If we declare assisted suicide legal, which will probably someday happen, it will be wrong for pharmacists to inject themselves into that decision, too. Their job is to enforce the law and prevent medical mistakes. They're guardians, not arbiters.
From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer link in the OP: In the mind of pharmacist Jim Ramseth, there is a moral hierarchy when it comes to preventing pregnancy: Selling condoms and birth control pills is OK. But the emergency contraception known as Plan B is not, and Ramseth refuses to provide it.Then Jim Ramseth is in the wrong line of work. I simply do not understand what you, XMLicious, and others refuse to get about this.
"Everybody draws their own lines," Ramseth said. "And if a person's purpose is to kill a fertilized egg, then I disagree with that. Regardless of where the practitioner draws that line, they should have the right."
What you quoted directly supports what I said. The Pharmacist is claiming that he is drawing a line based on morality. Not science.
Nobody is even asserting a belief that Plan B kills anyonewhich is unquestionably a false statement.
Then Jim Ramseth is in the wrong line of work. I simply do not understand what you, XMLicious, and others refuse to get about this.
Your flavor of morality is not one that has been ruled acceptable or standard by the government.
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of government, doesn't it?
But most importantly, yours doesn't trump mine, according to the government.
In the mind of pharmacist Jim Ramseth, there is a moral hierarchy when it comes to preventing pregnancy: Selling condoms and birth control pills is OK. But the emergency contraception known as Plan B is not, and Ramseth refuses to provide it.Good god, I didn't even catch that bullshit before. Here. Science. This is the first thing I found with a half-assed 30 second PubMed search. (Note: Don't believe everything you read on PubMed, but AJOG appears to be a reputable publication.)
"Everybody draws their own lines," Ramseth said. "And if a person's purpose is to kill a fertilized egg, then I disagree with that. Regardless of where the practitioner draws that line, they should have the right."
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Nov;181(5 Pt 1):1263-9.That article's old, but there haven't been any recent mindblowing advances in our understanding of how contraceptives work. THE LINE HE IS DRAWING DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. If he refused to dispense any hormonal contraceptives, I would still disagree with him but at least he would be logically consistent. Either Jim Ramseth is full of shit, or he could have saved himself a lot of trouble with a half-assed 30 second PubMed search.
The mechanism of action of hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices.Rivera R, Yacobson I, Grimes D.
Modern hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices have multiple biologic effects. Some of them may be the primary mechanism of contraceptive action, whereas others are secondary. For combined oral contraceptives and progestin-only methods, the main mechanisms are ovulation inhibition and changes in the cervical mucus that inhibit sperm penetration. The hormonal methods, particularly the low-dose progestin-only products and emergency contraceptive pills, have effects on the endometrium that, theoretically, could affect implantation. However, no scientific evidence indicates that prevention of implantation actually results from the use of these methods. Once pregnancy begins, none of these methods has an abortifacient action. The precise mechanism of intrauterine contraceptive devices is unclear. Current evidence indicates they exert their primary effect before fertilization, reducing the opportunity of sperm to fertilize an ovum.
PIP: The mechanism of action of contraceptive method is essential for the development of new methods. It also influences cultural and individual acceptability of a contraceptive method. Modern hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices have multiple biologic effects. Some of them may be the primary mechanism of contraceptive action, whereas others are secondary. For the combined oral contraceptives and progestin-only methods, the main mechanism of action are the inhibition of follicular development, ovulation, and as consequence, corpus luteum formation. Further, it is also involved in the alteration of the cervical mucus that inhibit sperm penetration. For hormonal methods, particularly the low-dose progestin-only products and emergency contraceptive pills have effects on the endometrium that, theoretically, could affect implantation. However, no scientific evidence will indicate that prevention of implantation actually results from the use of these methods. Once implantation has taken place, none of these methods are effective and pregnancy proceeds normally. The precise mechanism of IUDs remains unclear because of difficulties in carrying out relevant investigations in humans and the limitations of extrapolating findings from animal studies. However, several studies evidenced that IUDs exert their primary effect before fertilization, by impeding the ascent of sperm to the fallopian tubes or by reducing the ability of sperm to fertilize an ovum.
"But most importantly, yours doesn't trump mine, according to the government."I no longer have faith in your reading comprehension skills on this topic.
Au contraire, that's exactly what the government is saying here. If you are a pharmacist then you can be compelled even to the point of doing something that constitutes assisting in killing someone in your eyes."
There isn't any general principle here; the government is specifically saying to these pharmacists, "You are not allowed to regard this as killing someone."No. The government is specifically saying to these pharmacists, "Regard this as whatever you want, but dispense it when the scrip comes in because that's the job for which we licensed you. Don't want to play by our rules? Then you don't get our license."
"People have refrained until now from saying what you just said: 'Your flavor of morality is not one that has been ruled acceptable or standard by the government.' = 'Their morality is wrong, my morality is right.'These are two very egregious and silly twistings of my words. At this point, I've dismissed you as a valid participant in this discussion. You are trying so hard to make the factual observations and opinions of other people fit into your preconceived boxes about how this argument will advance that it's not worth my time. Someone with less to do today can continue to rebut your intentionally obtuse position.
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of government, doesn't it?= If you are saying that you surrender your moral judgment and personal responsibility to the government and simply say, "Whatever the government says is right!" I call bullshit - you do not have a definition of government that says this. Like allen.spaulding you're just saying anything you can come up with."
And how is your argument any different than that in support of slavery, or repression of women, or any of a multitude of moral codes, XMLicious?
If that person is going through the gates to suffer the death penalty, and you're a decent human being, you'll warn them and make sure they know stepping through the gate will kill them. But if they want to come through anyway, you open the gate, because you don't own it. It's not your gate.
It's pretty clear that you haven't read the ruling.
I no longer have faith in your reading comprehension skills on this topic.
Yes, if you are a pharmacist you can be compelled to give medicine that a board of licensed medical experts have decided is safe and standard; if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. This argument has been made to you and your side in a million logical ways throughout this thread, and you are just blindly refusing to acknowledge it.
"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics...".
If a state passed a law saying "You can't sell Halal meat" it'd certainly fail the test. If a state passed an animal cruelty law that outlawed a certain form of inhumane slaughter that happened to be used in the preparation of some Halal meat, that'd likely be ok.
I usually find your viewpoint salient and insightful fff but this doesn't jive with me - an implication from the language used seems to be that since a pro-choice stance is right it "doesn't count" as a moral code to be included in this analysis.And how is your argument any different than that in support of slavery, or repression of women, or any of a multitude of moral codes, XMLicious?But ultimately, you are correct; you are absolutely entitled to your moral judgment. And I am entitled to mine. But most importantly, yours doesn't trump mine, according to the government.Au contraire, that's exactly what the government is saying here. If you are a pharmacist then you can be compelled even to the point of doing something that constitutes assisting in killing someone in your eyes. And the only reason you're acceeding to the government being able to do so is because you're expecting that you'll never be put in the same position, that the government in the future is going to agree with your moral code.
« Older Have you ever wondered what happens when a freight... | Marwa el-Sherbini testified in... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by lazaruslong at 9:19 PM on July 10 [10 favorites has favorites]