My friends at Planned Parenthood emailed me today about the growing trend of pharmacists (this time, specifically at Target) refusing to fill prescriptions based on their moral beliefs. Now, we ALL know that “moral beliefs” translates to “religious beliefs”. I just wish PP would say it!What we have is a group of people who in reality provide a necessary public service refusing to do so under some circumstances. They want a say on your treatment. Your medication WAS a decision between you and your doctor, but now it’s a choice with the pharmacist too. And the pharmacists want VETO power. What if he also objects to certain sleeping pills, pain pills, etc? Certainly, someone somewhere can make a good argument why Jesus doesn’t want you to obtain other legal medicines as well!Yes, the pharmacist has rights, but these rights to not extend to other people. His religious rights do not trump yours, they end where yours begin! Pharmacists fill prescriptions — they don’t overrule doctors. I hope Target takes a stand as a pharmacy for ALL people, not just the Christians.
RA,
I am speaking specifically about the morning after pill, but for a Catholic in particular BC pills are considered in the same light.
Say Tim, do you have any citation to the case you describe? I’d settle for a year and a state.
I’ll take all that you have, though.
David,
Are my posts being restricted in some way?
Darrow,
I believe I may still have it at work. It came in a professional journal e-mail newsletter, which I usually archive.
I’ll look it up tomorrow…
Tim
Are you trying to copy and paste something?
I tried to C & P from the Landover Baptist Church site earlier today and the blog wouldn’t allow it. I don’t know why.
This is such a mess I balk at diving into, but I’ve done dumber things.
Darrow, Your suggestions for reporting the pharmacist may get the reporter in legal trouble, if they make false or spurious claims. Be very careful there.
As for the rest of this discussion, I see very little understanding of the principle: One persons rights stop where anothers begin.
If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription they are free to do so. In our quasi-free market health care system there is always another pharmacist to go to, even mail order, which I use sometimes.
Whether that pharmacist has a problem taking that action, is up to the employer.
In one example above, a ph. refused a script, and refused to advise or refer, those were all within his rights. When he refused to return the script, he went over the line. Running, screaching and raving over the line. Refusing business is his choice, a stupid one, but his choice. the rest was at best theft, and in some situations may be life threatening.
As far as changing the current rules and requireing all ph. to fill all scripts, including those that violate religious beliefs, that makes as much sense as requireing all ph. to perform a religious blessing over all scripts to make sure they are holy.
We can require all ph. to post signs stating any restrictions on what they sell. That violates no rights I can think of and allows customers to be informed, allowing them to take thier money elsewhere.
Frankly, I think this is a rather rare occurance. What percentage of the population of pharmacists actually goes this far? I’ll bet 95% to 98% just fill it and file it. The few nut cases are better off laughed at and left to stew in thier self righteous rage.
Using force against them only allows claims of victim status and feeds thier martydom. Don’t give them the satisfaction. Report enough to expose and laugh at them, but leave legislation alone.
They WANT to be oppressed by laws and regulations, it gives menaing to thier fantasies of victimization and righteous rage.
Better to ridicule in public. The second YOU break out the laws, badges and guns, THEY have won.
Tim: “Can you honestly tell me these 2 pharmacists were right?”
Answer the question, please. Yes/no.
Tim. Nope. But we did just get an upgrade. Perhaps you’re being cut by a spam filter? Please email me with details of what is happening.
dsilverman@atheists.org
Is anyone else having problems?
Karen,
I was, but then I retyped the whole message and it still wouldn’t accept it! Kinda weird…
David,
If it happens again, I’ll send you the details.
When I encountered the problem earlier, it simply said there was a problem and I had to go back to the editor to fix it. No amount of retyping helped, even for part of the message. Yet I was able to post other messages. I dunno…
Reluctantatheist – “Purchasing birth control isn’t always about contraception. Sometimes it’s about the woman’s health.”
I agree with you completly. On of my friends had a polip inside of her uterus and it started bleeding uncontrollibly. I got so bad that she needed to go to the hospital. When she was released she lost so much blood that she was givin a perscription for birth control for a couple of months. It would stop her period and allow her body to replenish the blood that she lost.
I would be absolutly pissed if she was denied the medicine that she needed to recover.
Tim, Dave
That’s what happened to me too.
tomwright,
Thank you for bringing some much needed perspective to this debate. You make some very good points.
I think it’s natural for us to run to our respective viewpoints and high-minded principles when we get going on a topic. It’s easy to forget the practical, day-to-day reality of our existence. In the end, we should try to help one another, not maintain our distance by stubbornly standing on principle.
Tom, you do bring some good points, but I don’t care what percentage of ph. refuse to prescribe drugs, at midnight with few other options and a future life at stake, I don’t want my wife’s destiny to be held in the hands of a nutter. That, in principle (and legislation) needs to be stopped. Period.
RA,
The two Pharmacists were within their rights to do what they did, but I’m not defending their decision as being “right.” I would not do what they did and I beleive strongly in preserving the life of the unborn.
I think that it’s hard to know what is truly in someone’s heart when they refuse to do something on moral grounds. I will give folks the benefit of the doubt until there’s clear and convincing evidence they have gone too far.
One last question for the night.
A hypothetical: It is the year 2010 and abortion, while still legal has become rarely used at all because there are only a very small number of doctors in the U.S. who will perform them.
If a woman wants to have one (as opposed to a medical emergency), but simply cannot find a doctor who will perform the procedure, does she have the right to sue and force any doctor to do the procedure against their will? After all, she has a right to have the procedure done. How can the law shield doctors of conscience if a lot of people believe that the law should COMPEL doctors to comply with their wishes?
Tim:
Extenuating circumstances. Those always have to be factored in.
& no, the pharmacists weren’t within their rights. MWANNNKK! Wrong answer. They made a pre-judgement w/o the facts. They assumed that the 2 women were off to have sex.
Read Adviser Moppet’s post.
FYI, I care very strongly about ALL life, present & future.
We need to worry about the here & now, as well as the future.
This isn’t an abortion thread. This a CONTRACEPTION discussion.
I’m guessing, you’re Roman Catholic?
Keep your balance folks, here comes that slippery slope again!
Tomwright, you bought up some very interesting points, I must disagree with the analogy:
Withholding medication could have much more serious consequences than performing a blessing. In these circumstances the danger is minimal, the people involved are not in any imminent danger, but it is the thin edge of the wedge. What if you had a sickchild and the pharmacist refused your prescription for antibiotics due to moral reasons?
A Pharmacist should be a health professional as such I would expect them to put medical scientific opinion regarding their patients health, ahead of their moral objections.
I’d suggest that a stand is taken against this now, before you become a nation of Christian Scientists with Appendicitis.
This article, from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is really making Larry Darby look like an Archie Bunker of Atheists:
________________________
Strange Bedfellows
Disgraced Holocaust denier hosted by Alabama atheist
David Irving, a writer whose Holocaust denial activities caused a British judge to label him “a right-wing, pro-Nazi polemicist,” has been repeatedly hosted by the largest neo-Nazi group in America. David Duke, the famous former Klan leader, has organized talks and book sales for him. Others who’ve tried to help Irving sell his wares ? the judge called them “deliberate” falsifications designed to slander Jews and hold Hitler up as a hero ? include a host of other white supremacists.
And then there is Larry Darby.
Darby is not your typical host for Holocaust deniers. He is president of the Alabama-based, nonprofit Atheist Law Center. The bespectacled Darby is normally a lonely voice in supremely conservative Alabama, arguing against religion in all forms.
But in early July, Darby hosted Irving ? who he described as “an expert on World War Two, the Nazi era and the erosion … of free speech” ? and about a dozen atheists at a meeting in the Holiday Inn of Prattville, Ala. Most of those who attended seemed to know little about Irving’s background. Others, who heard about the appearance by e-mail, expressed their shock privately.
Darby will hear none of it. To him, he is the victim of “semantic terrorism” that is destroying free speech in America. After all, he told the Intelligence Report, racism originated with Jews’ description of themselves as the “chosen” people. “I think it’s easy in this country to speak out on Christianity and even Islam,” Darby said. “I think it’s more difficult to speak out on things of a Jewish nature.”
For his part, Irving told those who assembled in Prattville of the case that ruined his career as a purported historian. Irving had sued Deborah Lipstadt, a well-known Holocaust scholar who had accused him of pro-Nazi sympathies and false reporting in his books. At the conclusion of a hugely publicized libel trial in London, the court found that Lipstadt was justified in her published criticisms.
In Prattville, Irving emphasized the brilliance of his failed defense, and complained about how he’d been ordered to pay some $5 million in court costs for Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books. Darby ? whose ad for the Irving event said that Lipstadt’s defense was funded “by the usual enemies of Free Speech” (Jewish groups helped pay for the defense) ? listened without comment.
Darby acknowledged to the Report that many atheists had been appalled when they heard of his Irving event. But he found that utterly unreasonable.
“If they have questions, why not ask him?” Darby asked. “Why exhibit hatred for a man they do not know? When people are so brain-warped to have knee-jerk reactions like that, it makes me want to get to know him more.”
Intelligence Report
Fall 2005
Comment from: David Silverman
“There are pro-life orgs from other religions, but none are leading an active push to pharmacists like the Christians are.”
I never said there weren’t Christian movements supporting one’s “right of choice” and refusing to fill BC perscriptions. My objection was your blatant condemning of one faith. Had you made this statement in your opening thread then at least you’d acknowledge there are other religions with similar views.
Instead you revealed your hatred towards Christianity by singling them out.
The one article made a great point and thank-you for making it available.
“Sadly, the Noesen case is yet another profound demonstration of the left’s blatant hypocrisy. The same liberal activists that tout the “separation of church and state,” demanding people of faith not “cram their views down our throats,” apparently don’t believe such a right ought to be applied both ways. Liberals want to force their agenda on others and those who don’t believe as they believe better get ready for forced compliance. If they truly believed in the separation of church and state as they often claim, then why won’t they fight against the government’s interference with an individual’s right to follow his/her faith with regard to the practice of abortion?”
I don’t see those that are cetain that “Separation of Church and State” were our Founders intent (relctant) riding the to defence of this myth. But then agian it’s really not about equality for all.
Comment from: Tim [Member]
One last question for the night.
A hypothetical: It is the year 2010 and abortion, while still legal has become rarely used at all because there are only a very small number of doctors in the U.S. who will perform them.
If a woman wants to have one (as opposed to a medical emergency), but simply cannot find a doctor who will perform the procedure, does she have the right to sue and force any doctor to do the procedure against their will? After all, she has a right to have the procedure done. How can the law shield doctors of conscience if a lot of people believe that the law should COMPEL doctors to comply with their wishes?
A:It is already getting like that. I honestly forget if it was GA, AL or MS but it was a city the size of Birmingham and they had one planned parenthood. I can say for 100% certainty we had a problem here in Austin. A contractor refused to build a planned parenthood in South Austin. He outright stated that he would refuse any further contracting jobs to any company that helped build it. He called and harassed people at their business for bidding on the pp building. The backlash of his actions was unbelievable. People came out and volunteered to build the place themselves, similar to habitat for humanity. It was about 1 to 1.5 years ago.
While I disagree with a pharmacist using their personal religious beliefs to deny medication I must admit that as a travel agent I refuse to assist people with travel to Israel or to resorts with a male-female couples only policy (Sandals Resorts) based on my moral beliefs. However, I always offer the client an alternative source for help with these arrangements. This way I pass the responsibility to someone else and I know that I am not helping to support a racist apartheid terrorist state (Israel) or a homophobic company (Sandals).
Alex.
I’m pissed. I can’t post my comment.
This stupid blog is busted and I can’t post anything significant, so I threw my comments up on the web if anyone is interested:
Religious Phreedm??
shit it didn’t use the anchor tag. here:
http://www.pogoto.com/rp.html
The one good thing about posting your comments on your own site is that you can go back and correct your grammar
I don’t really have anything to say right now. Just saw that rainbows was having trouble getting things to post and thought I’d try this as a test. Instead of just “Testing, Testing.”
r4d, nice comments on your site.
Let me just say that day after day I’m surprised…
In my province a good portion of pharmacist are of vietnamese origin, so at least a part of them must be budist who say that all life is sacred. Yet, not a single one has objected to filling out my wife’s BC prescription.
R4D
I tried to cut and Paste your comments from your site for you. I got an error message and the blog told me the comment was invalid. That’s the same thing that happened when I tried to cut and paste something yesterday.
But if you were just typing your comment without C & P, I don’t see why this would happen.
DAVE?????
It seems some things got fixed and other broke in the upgrade yesterday!
I’m having trouble posting as well….