Pro Life Pharmacists

[foghorn]

So, are we saying that if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription, then the pharmacy owner should be forced to fire him/her?

[Westley]

Originally Posted by Bicycle Repairman

and pass some new law taking away freedoms.

Unlike a law forcing people to fill prescriptions that they object to, which takes away no freedoms at all!

[MNBridge]

Originally Posted by llcooljabe

No one is imposing anything. It's simply a case of saying "I refuse to help someone do something that I think is wrong." By your logic the accountant grunts at Enron (or othe such companies) should do exactly what they are told because they are instructed to. Who cares if there is something wrong being done.

There is no legal wrong being done (or even socially unacceptable).

Would it be OK for a justice of the peace to refuse to marry mixed race couples?

Not so, orthodox jews have the right to have Saturday off, Christians Sunday.

I what world? You can choose to work in a job that you don't have to work those days but no way do I believe that a restaurant could get in trouble for not hiring someone who won't work on Saturday (or Sunday).

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Originally Posted by Father of two

Just to be clear, do you have a problem if the pharmacy refuses to carry the pill?

That depends on the answer to this question: If there are no pharmacies within a practical distance that voluntarily carries a particulr drug, is the prescribing doctor legally allowed to give the patient the drug? In other words, is the pharmacy system merely a convenience for doctors, or is there some law that only pharmacies can dispense drugs?

[Harry]

Originally Posted by llcooljabe

No one is imposing anything. It's simply a case of saying "I refuse to help someone do something that I think is wrong." By your logic the accountant grunts at Enron (or othe such companies) should do exactly what they are told because they are instructed to. Who cares if there is something wrong being done.

So someone working at Burger King refusing to put mustard on a customer's hamburger, simply because they think it is wrong, shouldn't be fired?

[llcooljabe]

Originally Posted by MNBridge

There is no legal wrong being done (or even socially unacceptable).

Would it be OK for a justice of the peace to refuse to marry mixed race couples?

I was waiting for someone to bring up race. (not criticizing you for it). I realize that by my logic your example would be sanctioned. Who's principles/morals are we subject to? The government, or the individual? (Gasp, I'm in partial agreement with Bicycle Repairman!) In your example it's the government. In IL, wrt our current discussion, it's also the government.

I what world? You can choose to work in a job that you don't have to work those days but no way do I believe that a restaurant could get in trouble for not hiring someone who won't work on Saturday (or Sunday).

You're right, you wouldn't even get a job in an industry where Saturday work is mandatory. But to put in actuarial terms-at year end, no one can force an orthodox jew to work on Saturday.

Originally Posted by llcooljabe

No one is imposing anything. It's simply a case of saying "I refuse to help someone do something that I think is wrong." By your logic the accountant grunts at Enron (or othe such companies) should do exactly what they are told because they are instructed to. Who cares if there is something wrong being done.


Not so, orthodox jews have the right to have Saturday off, Christians Sunday.

You are comparing apples and oranges here with your Enron example. In the Enron example, the grunt can refuse on the grounds that it violates the law. If he is fired for it, he will have recourse in the legal system.

Standing up for something because it is against the law is much much different than standing up for something because you think it is morally wrong. If you do that, you have to be willing to sacrifice your job for it. If you TRULY believe it is wrong, than it should be more important than your job. If the pharm. was asked to fill an illegal script, that would be an apples to apples comparison.

If the pharm believes something wrong is being done, than he/she needs to find a new job, one that does not compromise his moral integrety. Maybe cashier at McDonalds.

[llcooljabe]

Originally Posted by Harry

So someone working at Burger King refusing to put mustard on a customer's hamburger, simply because they think it is wrong, shouldn't be fired?

Now we're getting silly.

Birth control is a well known prohibition in catholicism.
Morning after pill is considered wrong by most religions who hold life dear, and those who consider conception to be the start of life (not interested in starting a debate on this, just defining a point).

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Originally Posted by llcooljabe

No one is imposing anything. It's simply a case of saying "I refuse to help someone do something that I think is wrong." By your logic the accountant grunts at Enron (or othe such companies) should do exactly what they are told because they are instructed to. Who cares if there is something wrong being done.

If they were being asked to violate the ethical code of their profession, they should have refused. And, if fired, they should have sued. But that's not what is happening here. Dispensing birth control is not against the professional code of ethics for pharmacists. If a person's own ethical code is more strict, and they choose to follow it, good for them. But they don't have a right to a job.

Not so, orthodox jews have the right to have Saturday off, Christians Sunday.

Anybody has the right not to work on any day, for any reason at all. Slavery has been abolished.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by llcooljabe

Now we're getting silly.

Birth control is a well known prohibition in catholicism.
Morning after pill is considered wrong by most religions who hold life dear, and those who consider conception to be the start of life (not interested in starting a debate on this, just defining a point).

Then the pharmacist should be outraged that his employer would do something so reprehensible as distribute a product that would kill someone. How could someone work for a murderer like that? If they really had that moral conviction, they wouldn't work there.

OK, how about an orthodox Jew working at Red Lobster that refuses to serve shrimp?