What do you think of this fact situation:

[lucille]

Young woman is raped
Goes to emergency room and gets a prescription for the 'morning after' pill to prevent implantation, although fertilization is possible (RU-486)
2 pharmacies in town do not carry this medication
3rd had medication, but the pharmacist on duty tells the young woman he will not sell it to her as it violates his religious principals; the two alternate pharmacists also refuse to fill the prescription
Woman sues
Pharmacist and two alternate pharmacists fired
State House bill with 'conscience clause' proposed that says pharmacists do not have to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives that violate moral or religious beliefs, and do not have to tell the woman where she can go to have such a prescription filled.

[Coyote]

I'd say thats bull****, for lack of a better term.

If she gave birth, I would make the pharmacist pay child support. He is partly responsible for her pregnancy. He shouldnt have to sell the drug to her, that would be an injustice; He shouldnt be able to keep her from going someplace else though.

[krept]

that situation makes me very upset. as if rape isn't denigrating enough... State House is FOS too.

[John in AR]

I believe in personal freedom; both hers (to buy it or not) and the pharmacist's (to sell it or not).


...He shouldnt have to sell the drug to her, that would be an injustice; He shouldnt be able to keep her from going someplace else though.

I may have mis-read the story. How'd he "keep her from going someplace else"..?

[41mag]

I find it odd that the hospital pharmacy wouldn't have any on hand.Irrelevant I guess.
What does strike me as being odd is that you have a pharmacy w/only three pharmacists.& none of them will sell the drugs(inventory)that they have on hand?That
makes no sense.

As far as anyone being responsible for the rape,the only one I can see responsible is the rapist.Not the pharmacy by a long shot.

[lucille]

This house bill for pharmacists is an expansion on law that many states already have in place for other medical personnel:

When the article stating these statistics was written, forty six states protect medical personnel, doctors, nurses, and hospital staff, who object in participating in abortion procedures, ten states protect individuals who refuse to provide contraception, and sixteen states protect individuals who refuse to participate in sterilization procedures.

Most of these states do not have exceptions for emergencies or the health of women, but most require that the objection be for religious, moral or ethical reasons. Texas allows objections for any reason. Lynn D. Wardle, Protecting the Rights of Conscience of Health Care Providers, 14 J. Legal Med. 177,178(1993).

Whatever your general feelings are on some of these procedures, there are some times (rape, rape of a child) where there is no choice involved for the victim as far as consent to sex. In addition, some of the procedures such as routine surgical sterilization can go terribly wrong if for some reason extra staff help is required during a surgery and no one wants to participate.

What do y'all think? I have a gigantic assignment having to do with the pharmacist bill, would appreciate all input.

[DaRkWoLf]

Personally, I have "right to life" views. HOWEVER:

In the case of rape, or unconsentual sex, it seems that "the day after pill" and other emergency contraception and even abortion are the only solutions. I cannot see how a raped woman, or a woman dillagently using contraception (and taking every precaution) should be forced to carry the unwanted pregnancy.

If its consentual unprotected sex, I personally feel that the couple should take responsability. If one has sex in such a manner, one is deliberately going through the act of replication, and it is the parents fault if it was unwanted. Once again, that is my persoanl view; I do not force it on others and I have no intention of ever doing so.

In this case, I believe the woman was right on. Im glad the pharmacists were fired; they should also have been held responsable for the childs welfare (if it was born in the first place), and the woman should have been significantly compensated by them for their neglegence.

Lucille, good luck with your research and assignment. Its a tough issue, with alot of variables and factors. Good luck.

EDIT: Add in

It must also be noted, as for the case of accident during a sterilization procedure, or abortion; that those same individuals who are denying treatment on morl/religious grounds, are contradicting themselves by allowing the patient to die. They are directly violating the doctors creed. But then again, by giving an abortion, the same can be argued. However, two wrongs do not make a right.

[Coyote]

As far as anyone being responsible for the rape,the only one I can see responsible is the rapist.Not the pharmacy by a long shot.
Not responsible for the rape, responsible for the pregnancy.

The clock was ticking and he wouldnt tell her where another pharmacist that could fill the perscription could be found. I dont think he should have to sell it to her, but I think he should have to tell her where she can get it regardless.

[41mag]

Not responsible for the rape, responsible for the pregnancy.

The clock was ticking and he wouldnt tell her where another pharmacist that could fill the perscription could be found. I dont think he should have to sell it to her, but I think he should have to tell her where she can get it regardless.


Unless the pharacist was also the rapist then I don't see how he/she is responsible for anything.

My first thought that upon not finding a pharmacy to help her,she'd return to the hospital for help.

RU486 acts as an abortifacient. The drug’s actions are effective for the first 49 days after conception.
From here http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

It seems that the women wasn't limited to just the one pharmacy.Even two or three.Heck,in seven weeks the drug could be ordered in.

[lucille]

This is a real case; there was no child born, I believe the next day she may have found a pharmacy in a another city. The pharmacists are appealling their dismissal; and the new bill to allow them to make the choice of not having to sell that medication is being considered.

I am not discussing the pro's and cons of abortion, that is a personal and volatile subject and I do not expect you to share your feelings; but I will be researching the pharmacy cases and appreciate your input on how you view the responsibilities of medical people including pharmacists, doctors and nurses.


BTW, there are classes of medications termed 'morning after' pills. These must be taken in a very short amount of time, the typical window is three days but efficacy decreases after 1 day.

[T. Daves]

if the pharmacists refuse to sell drugs to a gay man with aids because they think gays are morally wrong, is that right.

[Magnum88C]

I believe in personal freedom; both hers (to buy it or not) and the pharmacist's (to sell it or not).

I agree 100%.

[krept]

Not to turn this into a theological debate... but in my opinion, one should let the supreme being/creator, etc. be the "judge." There are too many twisted opinions, too much hypocracy, when it comes to moral and immoral behaivor when someone elses health and emotional well being are at stake. Apparently, to this pharmacist, there is no "why" sufficient enough for him to give a contraceptive... why does the pharmacist work in a place where they sell it? "Yes, we have what you need and I am one of the only ones that can give it to you but I refuse to give it to you."

that's just crazy. I don't understand... "let he who is free of sin cast the first stone" and all that...

[brass hammer]

tough question! the rape[is the answer] as [i feel] the state[ruling authority,grief/trauma counseling,police, 'JUDGE' dare i say 'LAW' whatever?] should have rendered it a non-issue!

the fact that the 'druggist' refused to dispense the available 'pill'[is quite laughable] as he KNOWS what his scope of EMPLOYMENT entails!

yes , i feel he should go to church and pray to god almighty for directions
to A NEW JOB!!!

[KJUN]

I think the pharmacists should stop being pharmacists and start working at a job they CAN do instead of taking pay and NOT doing the job they ARE being paid to do.

Can a construction worked refuse to tear down wildlife habitat and STILL get paid because he doesn't like to see habitat destroyed? No, he does it or gets a new job. Can a piolt refuse to fly because he might kill a goose and still be paid? No. Can a.. You get the point.

The pharmacists should be responsible for bringing up any kid in such a case (monetarily), be fired, and... I don't know what else. If you can't do the job, don't expect to get paid. Period.

(By the way, I've said it before, but I am pro-choice, but against abortion. I say the above with the knowledge that I don't really like abortions, but recognize it isn't my right to decide for everyone else.)

If a pharmacist believed that it was wrong to take insulin when you could just change your diet or prey to some Timbuktu Gods that you'd get better without drugs or that only natural remedies (like eating the wilted green flowers of the bluao bluao kachinga plant from BFE) were the only morally right way to treat diabetes and therefor refused to sell it to the person, would that be OK? Heck now, if that person with diabetes (or asthma or whatever) died before they could get their medication elsewhere, they pharmacist should be hung as a murderer. In this case, he should be responsible for the welfare of any baby left.

Get a job where they can perform the work!
KJ

[arebindixie]

State House bill with 'conscience clause' proposed that says pharmacists do not have to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives that violate moral or religious beliefs, and do not have to tell the woman where she can go to have such a prescription filled.

While I personally disagree with abortion, I am a bit undecided in regard to "morning after pills". Regardless, it is the duty of the Christian (I do not consider other religious beliefs as they are not the beliefs that the Founders indicated as they framed both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution and to extend it further takes the concept of religious freedom out of context) to separate himself with the world, not the world from him. Pharmacists should not be permitted to not fill prescriptions, period!

[lucille]

I think the pharmacists should stop being pharmacists and start working at a job they CAN do instead of taking pay and NOT doing the job they ARE being paid to do.

Can a construction worked refuse to tear down wildlife habitat and STILL get paid because he doesn't like to see habitat destroyed? No, he does it or gets a new job. Can a piolt refuse to fly because he might kill a goose and still be paid? No. Can a.. You get the point.

The pharmacists should be responsible for bringing up any kid in such a case (monetarily), be fired, and... I don't know what else. If you can't do the job, don't expect to get paid. Period.

(By the way, I've said it before, but I am pro-choice, but against abortion. I say the above with the knowledge that I don't really like abortions, but recognize it isn't my right to decide for everyone else.)

If a pharmacist believed that it was wrong to take insulin when you could just change your diet or prey to some Timbuktu Gods that you'd get better without drugs or that only natural remedies (like eating the wilted green flowers of the bluao bluao kachinga plant from BFE) were the only morally right way to treat diabetes and therefor refused to sell it to the person, would that be OK? Heck now, if that person with diabetes (or asthma or whatever) died before they could get their medication elsewhere, they pharmacist should be hung as a murderer. In this case, he should be responsible for the welfare of any baby left.

Get a job where they can perform the work!
KJ



Your comment about insulin really hit home; one of my sons has diabetes and would die without insulin.....

[John in AR]

I think the pharmacists should stop being pharmacists and start working at a job they CAN do instead of taking pay and NOT doing the job they ARE being paid to do.

I agree. Their boss has the right to fire them, as any boss should have the right to fire anyone at any time for any reason, and any employee should have the right to quit at any time for any reason.


Can a construction worked refuse to tear down wildlife habitat and STILL get paid because he doesn't like to see habitat destroyed? No, he does it or gets a new job. Can a piolt refuse to fly because he might kill a goose and still be paid? No. Can a.. You get the point.

The pharmacists should be responsible for bringing up any kid in such a case (monetarily), be fired, and... I don't know what else. If you can't do the job, don't expect to get paid. Period.

The question isn’t “can they refuse to do it and keep their job”, the question is “should they have the freedom to do it, even though they know it can cost them their job”.

My point is that a construction worker who refuses to tear down the habitat should accept that he can be fired over it. You’re saying that he should be fired over it AND be “responsible for” the birds who may be born in that habitat. Why?


(By the way, I've said it before, but I am pro-choice, but against abortion. I say the above with the knowledge that I don't really like abortions, but recognize it isn't my right to decide for everyone else.)

“Deciding for” someone else is exactly what you’re proposing. You’re advocating forcing someone to do something against their will.

That’s exactly what the rapist did.


If a pharmacist believed that it was wrong to take insulin when you could just change your diet or prey to some Timbuktu Gods that you'd get better without drugs or that only natural remedies (like eating the wilted green flowers of the bluao bluao kachinga plant from BFE) were the only morally right way to treat diabetes and therefor refused to sell it to the person, would that be OK?

Yes, that is his right in a free society; the right to not participate in something he chooses not to. That’s the absolute CORE freedom: The freedom to be left alone. Every infringement of freedom violates that single, basic premise. Whether you’re talking about being threatened with prosecution for:

- owning a detachable rifle magazine,
- not wearing a seatbelt, or
- growing a marijuana plant on your windowsill

the root principle is the same. Every tyrant in history, whether “right wing fascist” (Hitler), “left wing communist” (Stalin), mentally ill psycopath (Napoleon), or just flat bully; regardless of their politics or personal beliefs, has had only this one thing in common: They forced people to do things the people didn’t want to.

Apply that same principle you pose, to a different situation: If a plumber believed that toilets were harmful to the environment and refused to install them, would that be ok? Yes. He would be out of business soon, and that’s as it should be. You’re advocating the government stepping in and FORCING him to sell toilets, just because customers want them. I don’t want the government forcing people to sell products; which is exactly what you say you want to happen.

I personally think your motives are good. But you’re advocating using the threat of prosecution, in order to FORCE people to be “their brother’s keeper”. That’s exactly what Lenin and Stalin advocated.

Heck now, if that person with diabetes (or asthma or whatever) died before they could get their medication elsewhere, they pharmacist should be hung as a murderer. In this case, he should be responsible for the welfare of any baby left.

All he did was to stay personally un-involved. Whether we think he’s a jerk or not, the fact is that that is absolutely all he did. Following that same principle, anyone who refuses to run into a burning building to rescue someone, would have to be “hung as a murderer” as well.


Get a job where they can perform the work!

I agree completely. Where we differ is that I say, “Do the job or get fired.”

What you’re saying is, “Do the job or go to jail.”

[KJUN]

I agree completely. Where we differ is that I say, “Do the job or get fired.”

What you’re saying is, “Do the job or go to jail.”
Nah, I think I must have explained myself improperly. What I'm saying is that if you take a job KNOWING that you can't perform the job, then you should be responsible for the results of your fraudulent actions. Big difference there.

If you lie at a job interview saying that you know how to build buildings (and you don't), then you build one that falls down and kills people, YOU should be responsible for those deaths. (Granted, your employer should have checked into it, so he is responsible, too, but let's say you are a good liar with lots of lying cover-up friends...lol.)

I believe that if you don't do the job required, the gov't should NOT protect your job. Period. Do it or get fired. I THINK we are in agreement on that if I read your post right. Where we seem to differ is that IF you take the job knowing what is required and knowingly do NOT do what is required by choice, then I feel that you should be responsible for your actions.

The converse to the "right to be left alone" is the "responsibility for YOUR own actions completely and without any loopholes." The rapist is responsible for being a violent criminal - he can't blame it on his mom or society. The woman is responsible for her protection (even though violent crime should NOT happen and is not the fault of the victim). ...and the pharmacist is responsible for the damage done by his actions.

Take it to an extreme. Let's say a Catholic pharmacist believes it is wrong to take birth control for religious reasons. Sooo, for some stupid reason he replaces the birth control pills with tic-tac. Woman get pregnant. (Let's assume these are all married woman who take it for health reason to avoid sticky arguments.) I feel he IS responsible for those babies and the damage done to the woman.

The aforementioned case isn't NEARLY that bad, but it is of the same mindset.

[lucille]

All he did was to stay personally un-involved. Whether we think he’s a jerk or not, the fact is that that is absolutely all he did. Following that same principle, anyone who refuses to run into a burning building to rescue someone, would have to be “hung as a murderer” as well.

”


I am listening closely to everyone's viewpoint, and everyone has some valid reasons for what they are saying.

The diabetic/insulin thing is not part of the fact pattern of my assignment, yet as I said it struck a responsive nerve as my son has diabetes.
There are situations where some medications, and some procedures (hanging blood during surgery, for instance) have a smaller window of opportunity than do other decisions, before life is lost. A raped woman, a diabetic child, a person in for routine surgery such as tubal ligation- none of those people expect that critical needs would not be met by medical personnel.

This is just a clarification; I am genuinely interested in what y'all have to say, not making points or judgments of my own.

The assignment not only involves a humongous paper, I am required to present oral argument as well; I have been listed on the side of the pharmacy who fired the pharmacists (who are suing the pharmacy for damages and to get their jobs back.)

This is a real case in Texas and an important one of first impression, which means that this jurisdiction does not have prior on point case history to depend on; it affects families; husbands as well as wives and others; children and adults by its far reaching effects.

The professor is writing a paper and may include names of those who
provide excellent substantive research; and in turn this paper may be used as persuasive authority at trial.
I may be taking my first baby legal steps toward making a real difference in the lives of those I try to help......

[41mag]

and the pharmacist is responsible for the damage done by his actions.Take it to an extreme. Let's say a Catholic pharmacist believes it is wrong to take birth control for religious reasons. Sooo, for some stupid reason he replaces the birth control pills with tic-tac. Woman get pregnant. (Let's assume these are all married woman who take it for health reason to avoid sticky arguments.) I feel he IS responsible for those babies and the damage done to the woman.

The aforementioned case isn't NEARLY that bad, but it is of the same mindset

If the pharmacist had filled an RU486 script w/testoserone or banana extract then yes,they would be responsible.How responsible though?She'd likely suffer no damage from either sample(well maybe she has an allergic reaction or something)but would likely still blame the pregnancy on the pharmacist.& sue them(as opposed to the actual criminal,you know,the rapist?) into oblivion.

As far as the Catholic pharmacist & his tic tacs?:)
The pill is not fool proof.Lots of reasons why too.In this case having sex can result in having a baby.I feel that,unless the Pill actually was taken to keep the woman alive,at most he'd be guilty of fraud.What damage do refer too?Sagging boobs,a paunch,& a flat butt?Pregnancy isn't a disease,it's pretty normal.
In this particular case I still don't understand why they pharmacy is under attack.RU-486 works for seven weeks-another pharmacy could be found in time.

One more thing?What would have been the consensus if the woman arrived just as the pharmacist was closing up & walking out?Or if they'd been closed?There would have been no one to either fill the script or direct the woman towards another pharmacy.Should this place still be blamed?


I think not.

The wat I see it this case seems to have one victim & one(only)criminal(the rapist).

[John in AR]

If you lie at a job interview saying that you know how to build buildings (and you don't), then you build one that falls down and kills people, YOU should be responsible for those deaths…

…The converse to the "right to be left alone" is the "responsibility for YOUR own actions completely and without any loopholes." The rapist is responsible for being a violent criminal - he can't blame it on his mom or society. The woman is responsible for her protection (even though violent crime should NOT happen and is not the fault of the victim).

So far, so good. I agree completely.


...and the pharmacist is responsible for the damage done by his actions.

That’s the point I can’t seem to explain adequately. The pharmacist had no “actions”. He chose to not participate in a situation. That situation was directly related to his job, and he absolutely should face the specter of being fired for not doing his job. But he didn’t hurt anybody, and he didn’t do anything to anybody. He did nothing.


Take it to an extreme. Let's say a Catholic pharmacist believes it is wrong to take birth control for religious reasons. Sooo, for some stupid reason he replaces the birth control pills with tic-tac. Woman get pregnant. (Let's assume these are all married woman who take it for health reason to avoid sticky arguments.) I feel he IS responsible for those babies and the damage done to the woman.

Absolutely; we agree completely on that. He committed fraud and endangered their health and even their lives, by claiming candy was medicine. The pharmacist in this article didn’t lie, didn’t commit fraud, didn’t switch bottle contents, he did nothing deceitful at all. He just said “no” when someone asked if he’d sell them something.

Don’t think I’m making this guy out to be a hero, or that this is an abortion thing with me. It doesn’t matter to me whether it was birth control pills, “morning after” pills, tylenol pills, or the plumber who refuses to sell toilets.

I’m saying he didn’t steal from anyone, he didn’t defraud anyone, he didn’t slip a “mickey” into anyone’s medicine, and he didn’t lie to anyone. He simply said, “I don’t want to be involved in this.”

If we hold him somehow liable for the situation, do we not also have to prosecute the guy who wouldn’t run into the burning building? He did the same thing; saying, “I’m not getting involved.”

There are examples upon examples…

A man’s walking down the street with a jacket over his arm (heck, let’s say he’s even a jacket salesman), and a man on the street calls out to him, “Mister, I’m cold. Can I buy that jacket from you?” The jacket salesman says ‘no’, and keeps walking. The second guy later dies of exposure. Should the first guy legally “responsible for” that death, and be “hung as a murderer” as you say, or even be “responsible for” supporting the second man’s kids? I don’t believe so; it sounds like you’re saying he should be both.

Or let’s say Bob is a candy salesman. A kid asks Bob to sell him a candy bar and Bob (for whatever reason) says “no”. The kid then runs toward another candy store across the street, and gets run over & killed. Now, Bob did EXACTLY what the pharmacist did: he declined to sell a legal product, even though it was his job to do so. And this time it directly contributed to the death of a child. Applying your rule, we would have to “hang him as a murderer”.

I don’t see how these two situations are different than the pharmacist; and if we should “hang” the pharmacist “as a murderer”, we then must hang these two guys as murderers also. It really is that simple to me.

Maybe that’s the problem we aren’t getting past. If these two examples are different in principle from the pharmacist article, please show me what it is that I’m missing about it.

Or maybe it really is a philosophical difference. I don’t believe the government has the right to force someone to sell a product they don’t want to. Do you?

(And make no mistake. When you talk about “hanging them as murderers” or making them “pay for the child’s welfare”, etc, that’s nothing but government forcing the point under the threat of prosecution.)

[lucille]

There are actually different kinds of common law duties to help, where doing nothing is indeed actionable. Most of the time you can choose not to be involved, sometimes you cannot.
In general, in America there is no affirmative duty to help; if you see someone drowning you do not have to help them.

There are a number of exceptions to this, and here is one: if you created the situation that caused the harm you can be held actionable. If you have a 'special relationship' and you did not fulfill your duties, you are liable. Did the pharmacist and pharmacy create a cause when they are in the business of selling necessities and refused? That is something to ponder....
Remember that in many small towns there is only one pharmacy; and for many Americans in poverty transportation is difficult.

There are other duties, of course, where inaction makes one liable: for instance, parents are required to feed their children if they are able (this is one of the 'special relationships', every once in a while there are cases where parents have food and let their children starve to death pursuant to misplaced discipline.
And in fact many jurisdictions require medical action; certainly in a hospital setting if the Dr. does not give proper care or the nurse ignores an emergency, liability is created.

So inaction is in fact sometimes a tort, and occasionally a crime.

[John in AR]

I can appreciate that and even understand the reasons for it; but it leads me to ask the following question:

If a doctor refuses to perform an abortion (where it’s legal to perform one), should he then be responsible for child support of that child? That seems to be what I'm hearing here.

[lucille]

There are already 'conscience clauses' in most of the states that permit the doctor to refuse and absolve him of liability so the above fact pattern is not a large issue. Individual fact patterns may vary; the one I mentioned where a medical person would refuse to hang blood if a routine tubal ligation went wrong, or if there were anesthesia problems in a vasectomy, and a death ensued, may have a different result depending on the exact facts and timing of refusal.
The current conscience statutes are now expanding, thus the pharmacist case, because pharmacists are not covered in many places.

[KJUN]

That’s the point I can’t seem to explain adequately. The pharmacist had no “actions”. He chose to not participate in a situation. That situation was directly related to his job, and he absolutely should face the specter of being fired for not doing his job. But he didn’t hurt anybody, and he didn’t do anything to anybody. He did nothing.
Doing nothing IS an action, but that isn't what I wanted to reply to in this part. The pharmacist is not just some guy like the one that doesn't run into a burning building. This is more like a fireman that refused to put out the fire at an abortion clinic because he is morally against abortions and is glad to see it burn. His decision to "do nothing" results in loss of property and possibly life.

Or maybe it really is a philosophical difference. I don’t believe the government has the right to force someone to sell a product they don’t want to. Do you?No, but I feel even less that the government has a right to protect you (or your job) for not doing something that is part of your job duties. If he was so against selling that stuff, why is he such a hypocrite to take a job there? Obviously his morals only go so far....

[lucille]

Errata:

Our professor, in error (because she is not a medical pro, I suppose) gave us the name of the RU med in error, when actually the young woman was seeking the 'morning after' med. I pointed out to her that there was no hurry with RU as it can be used over a longer time span, but that there is a conceptual difference as the 'morning after' prevents implantation and so is not legally held as an abortifacient; and apparently in some circles that makes an ethical difference.

So the short time window is indeed a factor....

[andy]

So bust into the place after hours and GET the stuff, where's the problem?

[Coyote]

So bust into the place after hours and GET the stuff, where's the problem?
Gunkid, a tip: slit up, not across.

[T. Daves]

So bust into the place after hours and GET the stuff, where's the problem?
it must be the criminal side in you when you say stuff such as this.

[7of7]

To me, the pharmacist raped her a second time....
The rapist forced his will upon her by raping her.
The pharmacist forced his will upon her by not selling a drug that he had available and in stock because he didn't agree with its use.
There isn't too much difference.
The rapist forced her to do something she didn't want to do. (have a sexual encounter and possibly get pregnant)
The pharmacist also forced the woman to do something she did not want to. (have a child should she become pregnant by his refusal to sell the medication).
Should there have been a child born, the pharmacist should have had to pay child support, as his actions secondary to the rape, contributed to the pregnacy and subsequent birth of a child. So because of his actions, he should be required to contrubute to the support of the child.

[Wylycoyte]

You're right. 2+2=7 and a half.

[KJUN]

I'm still pretty much in agreement with 7of7. We each have the write to do exactly what we want as long as it doesn't harm others. What the pharamacist did harmed another. As an adult, he made his decision to do a job when he took that job. He changed his mind half-way through doing that job. Either he needs to realize that being fired is a conseuence of not doing his job and own up for those actions, or he will never be an adult deserving the responsibility. He is not an adult in my eyes with what he is doing and how he is doing it now. If he would have been fired and left it at that (and made a true sacrifice for his beliefs), I would have respected him a LOT as a person even though I disagree with his actions.

The problem is that he wantesd someone ELSE to suffer for his responsibilities. He wanted to have his cake and eat it, too.

KJ

[John in AR]

...Either he needs to realize that being fired is a conseuence of not doing his job and own up for those actions, or he will never be an adult deserving the responsibility...

...If he would have been fired and left it at that (and made a true sacrifice for his beliefs), I would have respected him a LOT as a person even though I disagree with his actions....



We’re actually 100% in agreement on that. My point all along has been that very thing: he is susceptible to being fired, and very probably should be. My point is that it’s an employer/employee issue, not a court/police issue. That’s what I’m disagreeing with: when some say he should pay child support, or even call him a “rapist”.

If I refuse to sell a car, I am not legally, morally, or ethically responsible for the consequences of that person not having a car. And the government should not have the power to force me to sell a car if I don’t want to.

Your fireman analogy earlier is right-on. The fireman takes taxpayer money in exchange for his promise to go into burning buildings when necessary. As tax money is collected under the threat of force, he absolutely has the legal, moral, and ethical responsibility to fulfill his job duties, just as a soldier or cop does. (I hope we agree on that much at least.) A privately employed pharmacist (or veterinarian, or plumber) does not have that same legal responsibility to “do their job well”. The fireman, soldier, and cop all accept my tax money, which was taken from me by force. Whether a firemen or plumber, failing to do their job (which is all we’re talking about here), the employee is susceptible to punishment by the employer. Since for a fireman, cop, or soldier, the government is their employer, they (IMO) should be more susceptible to “government” penalties. That’s the big difference in my opinion. I guess that’s a long-winded way of saying that since they (firemen, law enforcement, soldiers) make their living at the public trough, they should be held to a higher standard. [And I say this as someone who is currently law enforcement, and was once a soldier.]

What it sounds like I’m reading here is an example of we “gun nuts” (who so often bleat about getting government out of our lives), wanting the government to get forcibly involved in someone else’s life and job because they did something we disagree with. That really is what it sounds like to me.

[KJUN]

> And the government should not have the power to force me to sell a car if I don’t want to.

I agree with that, but the government shouldn't protect you via legislation in this case, either. Sounds like a case for a jury of our peers to decide.

> Your fireman analogy earlier is right-on.

..and your tax payer comments are completely valid. I don't agree that the source of the money in the pharmacists case excuses him for not doing a job he agreed to do, but I can see your point. I also recognize it as a VERY valid one in my eyes.

> wanting the government to get forcibly involved in someone else’s life and job because they did something we disagree with.

Not really. My bigger problem is that the government is trying to protect him for his voluntary actions that might harm someone else and limit his responsibility for his actions. THAT is just as bad as the government forcing him to do something he doesn't want. I don't see a difference.

If the woman could get the medicine somewhere else (with a reasonable amount of effort), then no "real" harm was done to her. If that was for some reason her ONLY source of the medicine, then he did "real" harm for which the government should not be his "parent" and protect him for his voluntary actions. I'm not saying the government should punish him - that is for his employers and possibly a civil suit to settle.

KJ

[John in AR]

Dang. We agree after all... :)

[KJUN]

Dang. We agree after all... :)
I really do think we are 95+% in agreement on most of the important points in this thread. I've thought so all along. I think our biggest problem lies in the inefficiency of a few typed words on a public forum to explain ourselves in manner that another can understand completely.

Even if I didn't think we were pretty much in agreement (which I do), I'd have to respect the intelligence in your refutes and the information used to support them. Of course, I'd have respected your difference in beliefs no matter what.

Thank you for an enjoyable dialog!
KJ

[andy]

My friend would probably meet the pharmicist in the parking lot and explain the facts of life to him, via a ski mask and a hunk of angle iron.

[lucille]

I understand; but a win in the legal arena would be a nationwide win so that women would not have to endure these difficulties in obtaining prescribed medication in the future.
I do not advocate personal physical force; for one thing the brunt of the conscience clause is felt by women, and they do not have the same physical power as men; and certainly are not mindful of using what little they do have after enduring a crime of violence such as rape.

[Aslan]

my two cents:

Certain professions carry certain obligations. Some are implicit and some are explicit.

By definition, a pharmacist is a person that dispenses medicines. That is their job. They do not diagnose and they don't write scripts. Doctors do that.

Many medications have multiple uses. Methotrexate, for example is a cancer treatment drug, that just happens to be pretty good stuff for rheumatoid arthritis.

For a pharmacists to refuse to dispense a drug because of their moral or religious beliefs, is pretty stupid. After all, what did they think their job entailed? What reasonable expectations should they possess after all the training and licensing they went through?

Suppose they refuse to fill a prescription for medication because it violates their beliefs about abortion, but it turns out the drug was being used to treat some other illness and the person dies.

My take ultimately boils down to this:

The pharmacist had a reasonable expectation to be required to fill prescriptions. The pharmacist also had a reasonable expectation that some of those would more than likely be in direct opposition to their moral or religious beliefs.

The pharmacist accepted a job with those expectations. Failing to perform that job, knowing up front what the requirements were and knowing what their beliefs were, they were rightly fired.

They should have absolutely no recourse and no standing in court to petition or sue to get their jobs back.

It's like going through medical school, becoming a doctor, and refusing to see anyone that is sick or requiring medical treatment. (What was the point of becoming a doctor?)

What was the point of becoming a pharmacist, if it wasn't to fill prescriptions?

You have the right to practice whatever beliefs you want. But that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of making the right choices in your life - like where you work or what profession you choose.

I'm willing to bet that no one forced them to become pharmacists.

:devil:

[Aslan]

My friend would probably meet the pharmicist in the parking lot and explain the facts of life to him, via a ski mask and a hunk of angle iron.

I hate to say it, but it sounds like your friend is a moron. This is wrong on so many levels. It clearly shows a poor grasp of ethics, respect, compassion, etc. It also shows a complete lack of morals or respect for the law - go figure.

I suppose your friend figures he should go around and beat up people that don't share his religious views as well. Maybe he beats up people for not being in the same political party too.

The proper response is what happened. The pharmacist was fired. They never should have become a pharmacist in the first place. After all, what did they think a pharmacist did for a living?

:devil:

[KJUN]

I hate to say it, but it sounds like your friend is a moron. This is wrong on so many levels. It clearly shows a poor grasp of ethics, respect, compassion, etc. It also shows a complete lack of morals or respect for the law - go figure.
Great Post, Aslan.

[DaRkWoLf]

Good post Aslan.

[Coyote]

I hate to say it, but it sounds like your friend is a moron. This is wrong on so many levels. It clearly shows a poor grasp of ethics, respect, compassion, etc. It also shows a complete lack of morals or respect for the law - go figure.

I suppose your friend figures he should go around and beat up people that don't share his religious views as well. Maybe he beats up people for not being in the same political party too.

The proper response is what happened. The pharmacist was fired. They never should have become a pharmacist in the first place. After all, what did they think a pharmacist did for a living?

:devil:
For all we know his "friend" is the one that raped her in the first place. It wouldnt be out of character for any of his "friends", judging by his posts.

[andy]

so why wasn't she black belt and carrying a gun?

[John in AR]

Lost me there… Is being raped somehow more her own fault since she wasn’t armed or a black belt..?

“Unarmed and not a black belt” describes most people on the planet.

I can’t help but notice that you recommend physically attacking the pharmacist, but never mention trying to even find the rapist… Sounds like the kind of response we'd get from Kennedy or Feinstein.

[brass hammer]

Lost me there… Is being raped somehow more her own fault since she wasn’t armed or a black belt..?

“Unarmed and not a black belt” describes most people on the planet.

I can’t help but notice that you recommend physically attacking the pharmacist, but never mention trying to even find the rapist… Sounds like the kind of response we'd get from Kennedy or Feinstein.

RIGHT-ON! BROTHER "john in AR",,,,!

[buckbucknumber1]

This is my first post. I originally came here to get some advice on some weird stuff going on to the finish of my grandfather's WW1 1911.

I stumbled onto the morning-after pill thing. I am not a troll but wanted to give my opinion.

I am medically retired from the army. My wife is a pharmacist. She works for a large retail chain that houses pahrmacies within their stores. She is the pharmacist-in-charge for her store. She really has no authority over the other two pharmacists in her store, only the pharmacy techs and she is the liason beween the state board of pharmacy and her pahrmacy.

We are non-denom christians. She never wanted to be faced with the prospect of having to sell the morning-after pill. She simply refuses to order the drug for her store--problem solved.

Her store is a part of the private sector. The retail chain's sole purpose in life is not to dispense medicine, it is to generate a profit for the shareholders. If people with prescriptions can not get the medicine they want at a certain pharmacy, they should take their business somewhere else. They should ask the docter who RX'd it where to go.

There is no one-size-fits-all formulary for pharmacies. You can find two pharmacies on opposite side of the street with huge disparities between the types, brands and amount of meds they stock. Usually, some meds are only ordered as needed on a case by case basis because they have short or terminal shelve-lives.

The government needs to keep out of this. You know, free market economy, capitalist society, smaller government and all of those things that arms enthusiasts and conservatives, I assume, should value. If this were a public sector pharmacy in a government hospital, I would say the government might have an interest.

Just as the DR should do no harm, neither should the pharmacist and if the pharmacist considers dispensing the morning-after poll to be doing harm, then so be it. Liberals are all about freedom of choice until it is a pharmacist's choice not to dispense abortion in a pill box.

[buckbucknumber1]

Sorry, this was a duplicate.

[RIKA]

BB#1, I think that your wife is probably doing the right thing conscience-wise in not ordering the drug. The problem that caused the uproar was the pharmacist who had the drug in stock and then refused to fill the prescription. If that guy was a man of such strong faith then he should have quit his job and gone to work for a store that didn't carry the morning after pill. His refusal to fill the prescription didn't make him a Christian - it made him a hypocritical a$$hole.

My .02

RIKA

[buckbucknumber1]

He, she, they may be hypocrites, I do not know. I do know there are usually at least two sides to every story.

Maybe they do not have the authority to determine meds to stock or not stock and are activley trying to get rid of it. Maybe they feel it is evil and do not want to walk away, but want to eliminate it from their store. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing. Maybe they are in a position where they can't quit, like they have little ones. I am a pretty inflexible person until it comes to my little ones. I would do just about anything to protect and provide for my boys--stuff I would not do for myself.

When that med first came out, it was in the grapevine that local DR's were RXing it as a retro-birth control. That is what freaked my wife out and she threatened to quit if the store started to stock it. The local DR's know which pharmacies will order it and which won't and they know hers is a big won't. If it is a matter of rape or medical emergency, then the DR should facilitate it or the clinic doing the exam should be equipped for these kinds of cases. Do not shove it off on a pharmacist who does not know the particulars of a case. If a erroneous RX is filled by a pharmacist, they are legally just as culpable as the DR. They realize that their actions have consequeces and they have the right not to do something they feel may be harmful or immoral.

[RIKA]

Sure there are 2 sides to every story but I look at this way. If you take a job and know what your responsibilities are from the start then you sure ought to do your job. If your job offends your sensibilities then quit.

To me its just like the gals and guys who joined the National Guard for the benefits and went to school on govt money. Easy money but then they get orders to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. They scream and moan "OOOH Noooo! I can't do that! I can't take a human life and I have little ones -- blah blah blah." Hey buddy, don't sign on if you aren't willing to do your job.

I won't ask other people to do what I won't do myself -- and I expect that of others though I'm most often disappointed.

By the way, I don't believe in abortion but I don't believe in hypocrisy either.

RIKA

[buckbucknumber1]

I hear you. I just do not know that I could call it hyprocrisy until I hear both sides of the story. Not just the side that the left-leaning media gives out. Even then it would just be my opinion and in the end there is only one judge.

I do respect your opinion and your right to choose. Free will is what separates us from animals and freedom is what makes this country great and should be advanced world wide.

As far as Iraq, I have been to Bosnia, Kosovo and 2X to Iraq . I missed all of the army's other little fun field trips. I was put out to pasture because of a stupid mistake during a CONUS field problem. My own fault, totally. I definately agree with you on some of the NG. Some of them are pretty squared away. Some of them used to make me mad. I remember at bragg and campbell they would come to summer camp and complain that they did not have full PX, commissary priveledges or med and dental benefits but when they got deployed for real you would hear about some complaining how much money they were losing only getting RA pay. Know you know why regular army has those benefits, buster. They were a slap in the face to the good-to-go reserve componants. There were some regular army GI's that pulled off some junk, too.

I better get off here. I did not mean to stoke anyone.

[RIKA]

Hey BB#1, I'm not angry. We're having a little discussion and I respect your opinion. I'm just blabbing about "the way things ought to be" ( :D ). This is a hot topic that pushes many folk's hot buttons. I'm not hot because there is a power that will take care of such things.

Stay around and discuss guns and survival with us.

Peace.

RIKA

[buckbucknumber1]

Hey Rika,

I appreciate the invitation. I do not know boo about guns, MRE's and
T-Rats suck, and I am not into sleeping outside anymore so I do not think I am much into guns or survival.

I am into hunting still and I do have a legit problem that I need help with. I have some pretty cool stuff from my grandfather. He died way before I was born, so I do not know the real deal on the stuff. I have his WW1 dogtags, complete with green shoe string. This is the only thing I know was his.

I also have some trench art that I question because it is too good to have come from my family. Paint-by-numbers gives us the fits.

The problem is a M1911. I question this too because I know for a fact he was enlisted. I thought this was an officer's weapon and in later wars used by tankers. This thing is in pretty nice shape for its age. Here's my problem, though. There were spots that looked like small crystals or salt deposits. This thing was just wrapped up in a rag in a cedar box forever. When I got it, I lubed it up and put it in a small safe with a dessicant. Now the crystals are getting bigger. I do not want to remove more of the finish trying to get rid of the crystals. This junk is even on the grips.

Any suggestions on how to get rid of the stuff without further damage? I probably should post this in a different forum on this site.

Well, the family should be back from her parent's soon. I better go over the to-do-list so I can come up with new excuses why I needed to not go and did nothing on the list. Vacation is almost over, too.

[brass hammer]

Not to turn this into a theological debate... but in my opinion, one should let the supreme being/creator, etc. be the "judge." There are too many twisted opinions, too much hypocracy, when it comes to moral and immoral behaivor when someone elses health and emotional well being are at stake. Apparently, to this pharmacist, there is no "why" sufficient enough for him to give a contraceptive... why does the pharmacist work in a place where they sell it? "Yes, we have what you need and I am one of the only ones that can give it to you but I refuse to give it to you."

that's just crazy. I don't understand... "let he who is free of sin cast the first stone" and all that...


dammit-KREPT!,,,,an eternal,,,,,classic!!!

B,T.W, how is that mild bump in the SPEED OF LIFE???

as you!,,, KNOW!,, IFFIN' YOU "YOU",,,,'i.e.,,,famaile[bean-lingo]
don't make it to "T", with the whole,,,troop!
i'm fixin' to ,whip-out!!! :dgrin:

[RIKA]

BB#1, handguns were also carried by NCO-s in WW1 and they were sold on the surplus market from time to time. Any number of ways your GrandDad could have gotten the pistol. I can't help with the "salt crystals" -- what size and color are they. Are they pitting the metal or just removing the finish?

You will get a lot better response if you post in the handguns section above.

RIKA

[Magnum88C]

Not to turn this into a theological debate... but in my opinion, one should let the supreme being/creator, etc. be the "judge." There are too many twisted opinions, too much hypocracy, when it comes to moral and immoral behaivor when someone elses health and emotional well being are at stake. . .I don't understand... "let he who is free of sin cast the first stone" and all that...
Unfortunately, taking that quote out of context (as you did here) is often used as an excuse by people to do nothing in the name of being fair, or even honoring God, when it's really so they don't have to step up to the plate and make a stand when it might cost them. Many atrocities have been aloowed to happen because of a foolhardy misapplication of "judge not!"

[Kent]

Many atrocities have been aloowed to happen because of a foolhardy misapplication of "judge not!"

The people misapplying this are invariably the ones commiting the atrocities.

AFA the pharmacist, he should have quit. Sometimes we pay a price for convictions.
It's not as if there aren't other pharmacies out there.

[andy]

Hell yes, it's partly one's fault when one does not take adequate precautions. Women, especially petite women, are heavily at risk. To not take action to reduce that risk is not smart at all.