Muslim chemist refuses to issue morning after pill! [Archive]

Queso

Oct 19, 2006, 07:42 AM

I heard the report as a 15sec. soundbite on the radio so didn't hear anything from those involved directly. What was his version?
He was worried that due to all the increased television coverage showing the outside of the Embassy he would be recognised then both he and his Lebanese wife would be targetted by militants.

BTW that is not a racist remark aimed at muslims. It is aimed at all the immigrants, nicking our jobs, buying up all the houses and moaning when they have to change their way of life because they now live in England. Pure *****!
That's globalisation for you. There are many Brits leaving to live and work in Oz, Canada and the EU and doing exactly the same there. For example, Spaniards can no longer afford to live anywhere near the Mediterranean coast thanks to German and British immigrants buying up all the land. Alicante and the Costa Del Sol are becoming British colonies in all but name.

mouchoir

Oct 19, 2006, 07:44 AM

BTW that is not a racist remark aimed at muslims. It is aimed at all the immigrants, nicking our jobs, buying up all the houses and moaning when they have to change their way of life because they now live in England. Pure *****!

/End Rant

Come on stuartluff, this remark is pure xenophobic daily mail fed nonsense. Most working immigrants are doing jobs that no-one here wants to do, such as cleaning, etc... They work their asses off doing jobs that are essential that nobody else wants.

Have you had your job stolen by an immigrant?

skunk

Oct 19, 2006, 07:46 AM

Come on stuartluff, this remark is pure xenophobic daily mail fed nonsense. Most working immigrants are doing jobs that no-one here wants to do, such as cleaning, etc... They work their asses off doing jobs that are essential that nobody else wants.

Have you had your job stolen by an immigrant?It only takes a thread like this to bring all those prejudices up to the surface. Our racial tolerance in this country is only skin-deep, I'm afraid.

Queso

Oct 19, 2006, 07:49 AM

It only takes a thread like this to bring all those prejudices up to the surface. Our racial tolerance in this country is only skin-deep, I'm afraid.
True of most countries, if not all.

mouchoir

Oct 19, 2006, 07:51 AM

It only takes a thread like this to bring all those prejudices up to the surface. Our racial tolerance in this country is only skin-deep, I'm afraid.

It is a shame.

I guess living in London and being from immigrant stock myself (French and Italian) parents has afforded me a more open mind on these matters.

mpw

Oct 19, 2006, 07:52 AM

He was worried that due to all the increased television coverage showing the outside of the Embassy he would be recognised then both he and his Lebanese wife would be targetted by militants...
OK that wasn't reported in the version I heard but makes little difference to my view that a Police officer can't opt out of duties that he doesn't want to do based on religion, or as in this case, fear of being unpopular. Unless they opt out of the force of course.

mouchoir

Oct 19, 2006, 07:55 AM

OK that wasn't reported in the version I heard but makes little difference to my view that a Police officer can't opt out of duties that he doesn't want to do based on religion, or as in this case, fear of being unpopular. Unless they opt out of the force of course.

That wasn't how it was reported here either. I heard a) that the police removed him from his duties outside the Israeli Embassay because he was a muslim and b)he was removed due to a request from the emassay itself.

:eek:

mpw

Oct 19, 2006, 07:57 AM

It only takes a thread like this to bring all those prejudices up to the surface. Our racial tolerance in this country is only skin-deep, I'm afraid.
I always surprised how intolerant some people in the UK are. I guess being from Jersey you start to feel your views are very similar to the mainland but then realise that we're actually very easy going and tolerant* over here on some things, swings and roundabouts I guess.

*Except of the French of course, they can all just **** off.

iJaz

Oct 19, 2006, 07:58 AM

Nice use of irony, I hope.
Of course it was irony, just to straighten that out.
He is allowed to do it. Has it caused any problems? Ever?
Do we know for sure that it hasn't? I agree with the mother
The mother said she was concerned teenage girls may be turned away

mouchoir

Oct 19, 2006, 08:09 AM

*Except of the French of course, they can all just **** off.

Thanks mpw! :eek:

(see a few posts above where I mention I have a French parent):p

inlimbo

Oct 19, 2006, 08:22 AM

I always surprised how intolerant some people in the UK are. I guess being from Jersey you start to feel your views are very similar to the mainland but then realise that we're actually very easy going and tolerant* over here on some things, swings and roundabouts I guess.

*Except of the French of course, they can all just **** off.

Is it maybe also just because you have so many immigrants. Its seems crazy to me (someone in Australia) that such a tiny little country has such huge immigration. Unfortuntely I think mass immigration creates problems. Don't misread me. I am NOT saying that immigrants create the problem. It takes two to tango as they say. But it does seem to breed contempt.

skunk

Oct 19, 2006, 08:25 AM

Thanks mpw! :eek:

(see a few posts above where I mention I have a French parent):pYeah, one is OK. It's real French people he can't stand. Living the life of a feudal serf in Normandy does that to a guy.

skunk

Oct 19, 2006, 08:27 AM

Is it maybe also just because you have so many immigrants. Its seems crazy to me (someone in Australia) that such a tiny little country has such huge immigration. Unfortuntely I think mass immigration creates problems. Don't misread me. I am NOT saying that immigrants create the problem. It takes two to tango as they say. But it does seem to breed contempt.It always amuses me to see a post like this, coming from a country which is composed almost entirely of immigrants.

Queso

Oct 19, 2006, 08:31 AM

It always amuses me to see a post like this, coming from a country which is composed almost entirely of immigrants.
As is the UK if you go back far enough :p

MOFS

Oct 19, 2006, 08:31 AM

That was not how he put it.
As for the chemist, as long as he referred the family to another source, that's OK too. This isn't a case of denying life-saving injections.
We can't carry on denying people the right to act according to conscience while at the same time decrying those who follow orders regardless.

I totally agree with you. In this country, a doctor who refuses to consent a woman to have an operation on the basis of his/her beliefs must refer her to somewhere else. This article has been totally been blown out of proportion, pure and simply because the pharmacist is a Muslim. If he'd been a Roman Catholic this would have been a non-story, but as is, has rapidly degenerated into a xenophobic rant.

skunk

Oct 19, 2006, 08:34 AM

As is the UK if you go back far enough :pIndeed. You'd be hard-pressed to find an aborigine here.

geese

Oct 19, 2006, 08:39 AM

BTW that is not a racist remark aimed at muslims. It is aimed at all the immigrants, nicking our jobs, buying up all the houses and moaning when they have to change their way of life because they now live in England. Pure *****!

/End Rant

What a load of bollocks.

Most immigrants to this country actually end up doing all the crappy jobs the English cant be arsed to do.

Ever thought why most corner shops are run by Pakistani's or Indians? Its because they were the only persons willing to open late at night and work hard. You wont find many english run corner shops open at 11am.

I say this being as a Bengali- we are not to blame for your lazyness and inability to do business. Our houses are bought on hard-work and by taking responsibility for our success and failures.

Look at the USA- a land made up of immigrants and see how successful they are.

PS- as for the Muslim bashing in the media, its the same old story with the Asians in the 70s, and the Afro-Carribeans in the 60's.

skunk

Oct 19, 2006, 08:41 AM

Damn right.

iJaz

Oct 19, 2006, 08:43 AM

I totally agree with you. In this country, a doctor who refuses to consent a woman to have an operation on the basis of his/her beliefs must refer her to somewhere else. This article has been totally been blown out of proportion, pure and simply because the pharmacist is a Muslim. If he'd been a Roman Catholic this would have been a non-story, but as is, has rapidly degenerated into a xenophobic rant.

I agree, did you see the link on the BBC page to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4649425.stm equally bad I think, but probably not equally discussed

skunk

Oct 19, 2006, 08:46 AM

I agree, did you see the link on the BBC page to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4649425.stm equally bad I think, but probably not equally discussedGood find.

inlimbo

Oct 19, 2006, 09:18 AM

It always amuses me to see a post like this, coming from a country which is composed almost entirely of immigrants.

Dude read my post! It is the NUMBERS! Im a freaken product of immigration. My great great (maybe there should be another great in there) were Irish convicts. Immigration is what made our country. But the more immigrants the more bloody racists it seems. We don't have a BNP here (well we could of but stuck the leader her in jail for a while. But they weren't skinheads planning to burn down mosques, thank god).

skunk

Oct 19, 2006, 09:25 AM

Dude read my post! It is the NUMBERS!I'd rather live in a nation that took account of Muslim sensibilities than one that took account of chav sensibilities.

inlimbo

Oct 19, 2006, 09:32 AM

I'd rather live in a nation that took account of Muslim sensibilities than one that took account of chav sensibilities.

Pitty the later is more true in Britain the the former.

Im all for immigration (my gf is a bloody immigrant), im just saying it breeds racism. Are you saying that racism doesn't exist?!? Im just glad I don't live in a country which has a political party of skinheads who wish to burn down mosques and pick fights with other people because they support the wrong football team. For a long time Australia was the grand example of working multiculturism (the riots messed that up) pitty we can't say the same for Britain and France.

The day Australia has a political power with a membership like the BNP, Im on a plane out-of-here

That doctor has the freedom to do whatever he likes. If you don't like him go to another quack.

Swarmlord

Oct 19, 2006, 09:51 AM

I'd rather live in a nation that took account of Muslim sensibilities than one that took account of chav sensibilities.

Careful what you ask for. I've lived and worked in their countries and after you spend a day in jail for drinking water publicly during the day during Ramadan, you might feel differently.

andrew050703

Oct 19, 2006, 10:00 AM

skunk

Oct 19, 2006, 10:38 AM

Careful what you ask for. I've lived and worked in their countries and after you spend a day in jail for drinking water publicly during the day during Ramadan, you might feel differently.Taking account of Muslim sensibilities is not the same as accepting Sharia law or public flogging.

mouchoir

Oct 19, 2006, 10:38 AM

why is it such a big deal that someone is prepared to act on their personal beliefs? Whether Muslim, Christian - even athiest, doctors and also chemists (pharmacists) have the general aim of making people better.

It only becomes an issue if the person is in a position of public service. I would be rather angry if a chemist wouldn't sell me condoms because they were catholic.

As far as I know, pregnancy isn't a disease that needs curing.

I'm not sure if this is a pro-life comment, but it makes no sense. People have the right to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in this country.

Lau

Oct 19, 2006, 11:01 AM

It worries me because I've read quite a few cases like this in the US (and the ones I read were all denied due to Christian beliefs) and whilst reading them I felt quite proud that in Britain we didn't have to worry about that.

It's all very well if you live in a city, and perhaps could try another late night chemists, but if you live in a smaller town, you may not have that choice, and as the earlier you take the morning after pill the more effective it is, it does put that person at a disadvantage. Worse, if you live somewhere rural, you may not even have the choice of another pharmacy even during the day.

Whether this should be 'allowed' is a tough one. I do think people should have the right to work according to their religious and moral beliefs, but I do think if you're doing a job that affects people's health, that perhaps you should be willing to dispense the medicine they ask for. Presumably someone acting under their moral beliefs could also refuse a smoker asthma medication, or refuse to dispense drugs to treat an STD, and so on. If you are running a late-night pharmacy, or the only one in a rural area, people could well have travelled and are relying on you as the one source of medication, and it seems wrong that you would have to potentially have an unwanted pregnancy just because of your postcode.

As for all the racist, Daily Mail influenced nonsense spouted in this thread — people with views like yours make me ashamed to be British. Seriously. dynamicv's quite right in saying that the Brits are cheerfully going abroad and completely refusing to integrate into the way of life there, not learning the language and pricing the locals out of their housing market, and generally acting like complete twunts, when the majority of immigrants here can speak English and are working bloody hard.

mpw

Oct 19, 2006, 11:13 AM

What a load of bollocks.

Most immigrants to this country actually end up doing all the crappy jobs the English cant be arsed to do.

Ever thought why most corner shops are run by Pakistani's or Indians? Its because they were the only persons willing to open late at night and work hard....
Again I'm not English so can't be 100% sure about the situation there, but here immigrants do a full range of jobs from the lowest paid to the highest, just as the local population do. The immigrant population are integrated throughout society and I guess maybe that's why I don't see the same polarization that seems to be portrayed as being seen in England in this thread.

Again I've no proof but I always thought the success of Pakistani corner shops was partly down to the fact they were of muslim faith. I thought the reason they opened late and on Sunday historically was because they weren't constrained by licensing laws because they weren't off-licenses because they were muslims.

mpw

Oct 19, 2006, 11:22 AM

I agree, did you see the link on the BBC page to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4649425.stm equally bad I think, but probably not equally discussed
I agree it's equally bad, and I agree it probably wasn't discussed equally. I think I see what you're trying to imply and tell me if I'm wrong, but you're suggesting this not being discussed makes an argument that the OP's linked story is only being discussed as an oppourtunity to have a go at muslims.

I disagree as your linked story is equally as 'bad'as the first, but the difference is it doesn't say why the pharmacist took the action they did. If the story said 'high christian morals', 'high muslim morals', 'high pro-life morals' it would've had more impact and more discussion.

emotion

Oct 19, 2006, 12:18 PM

I can't believe some of the abhorrent attitudes I've read from fellow Britons on here.

It's that kind of thinking that will pave the way for identity chips in our necks (you can't work without it....no immigrants...problem solved).

Sheesh. At least there are others who've raised an objection to the rediculous views too.

Dubba

Oct 19, 2006, 12:19 PM

As someone who owns an HR business focused on supplying pharmacists (both locum and permanent) to pharmacies, I am surprised that this has only been reported now.

Many of the pharmacies that I deal with in areas with high aboration rates have specifically asked to not have a Muslim pharmacist because the pharmacy owner does not want to put them in an awkward position.

I do think this was blown out of proportion by the woman who wasn't given the medication she requested; I agree, there are a lot of things wrong with Britain right now: the lack of tolernace is one of them.

mdntcallr

Oct 19, 2006, 12:27 PM

A week ago a muslim Met. Police officer refused to do his duty because he didn't want to protect the Isreali embassy. From the news report no action was taken against him he just got moved to other duties.

That is horrible. Police shouldnt decide what they want to protect. they have a duty to uphold and protect.

also, regarding the pharmacist. That idiot should be fired. just like the one in the USA who did the same thing.

people need access.

What would happen in a small town, where there is only 1 or 2 pharmacies? essentially people can be blocked from getting this type of needed medicine.

Dunepilot

Oct 19, 2006, 01:01 PM

I understand that it would be an ethical dilemma for the pharmacist, given the fact that his beliefs mitigate against providing the 'morning after pill', and presumably that's a matter that would be covered by company policy on the matter, as well as in the policy of professional membership bodies (as discussed elsewhere in this thread).

It only takes a thread like this to bring all those prejudices up to the surface. Our racial tolerance in this country is only skin-deep, I'm afraid.

Wooly thinking on your part. Remarks in this thread have been about migrants (OT) or about religion interfering with the ability of someone to provide a service that they are in moral disagreement with, not about race. The original topic is also about a question of religion/ethics, also not about race.

It's been said before, but there is no such thing as the Muslim race.

OT -

1. I think tolerance of migrants in the UK is pretty remarkable given the rate of migration we're experiencing. I also think that, among my generation (people in their 20s), at least, that race is generally a non-issue.

2. As an aside, calling it 'emergency contraception' is a misnomer, since if the pill is effective, it's not preventing conception - which would already have occurred - but aborting the foetus.

skunk

Oct 19, 2006, 01:49 PM

Remarks in this thread have been about migrants (OT) or about religion interfering with the ability of someone to provide a service that they are in moral disagreement with, not about race. The original topic is also about a question of religion/ethics, also not about race.

It's been said before, but there is no such thing as the Muslim race.I've said it myself. However, people so often claim to talk in terms of religion when what they are really talking about is colour.

Dunepilot

Oct 19, 2006, 03:57 PM

I've said it myself. However, people so often claim to talk in terms of religion when what they are really talking about is colour.

Bear in mind that this is a common liberal conceit.

With all due respect, it presumes social, intellectual and moral superiority. This kind of view is quite common these days, and effectively holds that other people can't make the distinctions that you can - and I find that dangerous.

People are perfectly entitled to disagree with the religious ideals and views of others, and, I'd go as far as to say, to satirise them as well. There's no thought crime associated with religion yet, and for this we should be grateful.

skunk

Oct 19, 2006, 06:50 PM

With all due respect, it presumes social, intellectual and moral superiority. This kind of view is quite common these days, and effectively holds that other people can't make the distinctions that you can - and I find that dangerous.With all due respect, all of us, woolly-minded liberals included, are all too ready to conflate one issue with another: Iraq and Al Qaeda, Muslims and immigration, democracy and freedom, the West and Civilization. It's hardly a liberal conceit, it's how politicians and the media manipulate their constituencies.

AndyR

Oct 20, 2006, 02:18 AM

Just so I get my pennys worth in. I am not a racist. Got many friends of all different religions and races and also work with them, including two muslims in my team (nicest blokes here).

All I'm saying is that the minority are ruining it for the majority in the UK, plus the whole UK is getting WAY to politically correct. People need to stop walking on thin ice all the time for fear of offending someone. If someone is spouting rubbish, they need to be told.

andrew050703

Oct 20, 2006, 03:40 AM

It only becomes an issue if the person is in a position of public service. I would be rather angry if a chemist wouldn't sell me condoms because they were catholic.

I'm not sure if this is a pro-life comment, but it makes no sense. People have the right to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in this country.

my point was that doctors and pharmacists are in the general game of curing diseases; morning after pills aren't really within that remit.

I'm not saying people cannot have abortions/stop a pregnancy early, but people (i.e. doctors & pharmacists) also have the right to choose what they do - whether to help those actions, or, if their personal morals and convictions say otherwise, choose not to.

geese

Oct 20, 2006, 03:48 AM

All I'm saying is that the minority are ruining it for the majority in the UK, plus the whole UK is getting WAY to politically correct. People need to stop walking on thin ice all the time for fear of offending someone. If someone is spouting rubbish, they need to be told.

What does politically correct actually mean?

mpw

Oct 20, 2006, 04:03 AM

my point was that doctors and pharmacists are in the general game of curing diseases; morning after pills aren't really within that remit.

I'm not saying people cannot have abortions/stop a pregnancy early, but people (i.e. doctors & pharmacists) also have the right to choose what they do - whether to help those actions, or, if their personal morals and convictions say otherwise, choose not to.
I disagree if they choose to take any funding whatsoever from the NHS. Any decision to treat or not should be made purely on clinical grounds.

What does politically correct actually mean?
If poliitically correct is PC the politically incorrect is PI. I always thought it'd be funny to see a Ferrari screeching to a halt a guy in a Hawaiian shirt jump up toting a huge gun shouting "Feeze ******!" with the caption Magnum PI, it'd make a great T-shirt.

skunk

Oct 20, 2006, 05:20 AM

Any decision to treat or not should be made purely on clinical grounds.I'm curious. What exactly is the clinical basis for handing out morning-after pills?

mpw

Oct 20, 2006, 05:30 AM

I'm curious. What exactly is the clinical basis for handing out morning-after pills?
I think it's fair to say that somebody denied contraception particularly post coital contraception could be at risk from emotional anguish or depression if they end up having to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

It's maybe not the definition of 'clinical' but I hope you get what I mean.

The decision should be based on professional assessment for the good of the patient within the patients belief structure and within society's legal structure not the individual chemists/doctors religious or personal moral beliefs where they differ.

Does that make sense?

Dunepilot

Oct 20, 2006, 05:42 AM

What does politically correct actually mean?

It means applying logical inversion wherever you can. It means that normative majority values are subsumed by the championing of niche special interest groups.

Some see it as a philosophical conclusion of Gramsci's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci) desire to bring about change to a society by fracturing the status quo (or as he would have had it, cultural hegemony).

With all due respect, all of us, woolly-minded liberals included, are all too ready to conflate one issue with another: Iraq and Al Qaeda, Muslims and immigration, democracy and freedom, the West and Civilization. It's hardly a liberal conceit, it's how politicians and the media manipulate their constituencies.

My point was that the application of logic to a given theme should and can be of universal value. Yes, we all view political matters as part of our overall cosmology, and not purely in a thematic vacuum. But to make the mistake of assuming that people outside your ideological comfort zone are simplistic thinkers or to impute implicit racism to their criticism of immigration or of religion (which, to say again, is a choice that people make) is unbelievably patronising.

Regarding the media and politicians manipulating their constituencies - people just need to learn to think for themselves. The more our education system is politicised by the inclusion of PC-expedient doctrine (read: New Labour dogma), the less chance there is that this will happen.

We need to foster a climate of open debate in this country without people feeling constrained by what may or may not please vocal minority interests (and is therefore seen as PC). And that will rely on mutual tolerance.

Lau

Oct 20, 2006, 07:07 AM

I'm curious. What exactly is the clinical basis for handing out morning-after pills?

It doesn't exactly answer the question, but the morning after pill is one of the drugs that I would expect a pharmacy to have and be able to prescribe to me. If I went along needing one, I would expect them to offer me that service, and certainly not to withhold it from me if they had it.

I don't think people should be forced to do something that's against their moral or religious beliefs at all, but I would have thought that as a pharmacist you would have to (and surely always would have had to) be impartial to your patients and prescribe them what they've asked for.

Just out of interest, before the morning after pill became available over the counter, would a pharmacist have been allowed to refuse a doctor's prescription for it on moral or religious grounds? (It's not a trick question — I don't know the answer and am genuinely interested.)

geese

Oct 20, 2006, 09:24 AM

If poliitically correct is PC the politically incorrect is PI. I always thought it'd be funny to see a Ferrari screeching to a halt a guy in a Hawaiian shirt jump up toting a huge gun shouting "Feeze ******!" with the caption Magnum PI, it'd make a great T-shirt.

:confused: wot? :confused:

mpw

Oct 20, 2006, 09:29 AM

:confused: wot? :confused:
If I was in any way creative I'd sketch it for you, trust me it's funny, but don't feel stoopid 'cause you don't get it, everyone I've described it to seems confused at first........then they often just walk away. One guy got it.

freeny

Oct 20, 2006, 10:29 AM

Edot

Oct 20, 2006, 12:15 PM

I am going to work at McDonalds and refuse to serve any hamburgers because I believe it is wrong to eat meat. How on earth is this guy still employed? I don't care what your beliefs are, if you can't fulfill the requirements of the job then it is fine if they fire you. This isn't an issue of discrimination, but simply someone refusing to fulfill his duties. I am not saying that he doesn't have the right to refuse giving out medication that he doesn't believe in, but the pharmacy would have the right to terminate him because of it.

Voidness

Oct 20, 2006, 03:27 PM

Do you know why he wasn't fired? Beats me...

(bothers to read the BBC article)

Oh, that's why, the pharmacist was acting within the law:

In a statement, the company said it wanted to apologise to Ms Thomas.

But it said the pharmacist was acting within his rights under an industry code of ethics.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's code allows a pharmacist to refuse to sell or dispense drugs because of their religious or moral beliefs.

It's very clear that some people don't even bother reading. :rolleyes:

blitzkrieg79

Oct 20, 2006, 04:10 PM

That was not how he put it.
As for the chemist, as long as he referred the family to another source, that's OK too. This isn't a case of denying life-saving injections.
We can't carry on denying people the right to act according to conscience while at the same time decrying those who follow orders regardless.

Man, it was the pharmacists JOB and duty to provide his customer with service, the customer came to pharmacy with a prescription ordered by a doctor (which I guess in medical field a doctor is a much higher rank than a pharmacist). Thats what he gets paid for. If medicine wouldn't be available at a given time then he could've directed the customer where it was currently available, but when a pharmacy has a given drug in stock then he can believe in god, allah, or santa clause if he wants but that is his personal life and personal beliefs which should stay away from work.

When the guy agreed to become a pharmacist he knew perfectly well what he was getting himself into.

blitzkrieg79

Oct 20, 2006, 04:15 PM

Do you know why he wasn't fired? Beats me...

(bothers to read the BBC article)

Oh, that's why, the pharmacist was acting within the law:

It's very clear that some people don't even bother reading. :rolleyes:

Yeah but here is one thing, the pharmacist refused to give back the prescription to the customer, for that he should have got fired on the spot. Refusing to sell and actually forbidding to buy are two different things in my book.

Voidness

Oct 20, 2006, 04:20 PM

Yeah but here is one thing, the pharmacist refused to give back the prescription to the customer, for that he should have got fired on the spot. Refusing to sell and actually forbidding to buy are two different things in my book.
Where does it say that he refused to give back the prescription?

Edot

Oct 20, 2006, 06:40 PM

Do you know why he wasn't fired? Beats me...

(bothers to read the BBC article)

Oh, that's why, the pharmacist was acting within the law:

It's very clear that some people don't even bother reading. :rolleyes:

Fine. The British have a silly law. I still stand by my opinion and the opinion of many others, that the law and the principle of the whole thing is silly. This law allows the religious beliefs of someone else to determine the quality of healthcare you recieve. You make a reasonable request for healthcare, but it is legal for someone to deny it because they don't feel like it. Questioning the law is very important. Not all laws written should remain laws. At the time of creation they may have seemed appropriate, but there is no reason to say they shouldn't be allowed to be changed.

Macaddicttt

Oct 20, 2006, 09:17 PM

Fine. The British have a silly law. I still stand by my opinion and the opinion of many others, that the law and the principle of the whole thing is silly. This law allows the religious beliefs of someone else to determine the quality of healthcare you recieve. You make a reasonable request for healthcare, but it is legal for someone to deny it because they don't feel like it. Questioning the law is very important. Not all laws written should remain laws. At the time of creation they may have seemed appropriate, but there is no reason to say they shouldn't be allowed to be changed.

I think you're missing the essence of the true debate here. The thing is, birth control is not considered by some as "healthcare." It's true that some do consider it "healthcare," but it is still a point up for debate. Your (and everyone else's in this thread) indignation that someone refused to sell the morning after pill to someone stems from your inability to accept the beliefs and opinions of others' as valid. Open up the debate and start discussions about the validity of birth control being or not being "healthcare."

And your statement that someone's beliefs shouldn't affect the quality of your healthcare? Completely ridiculous. First, this guy is no doctor. His business is selling. He is in no official position and has no obligation to sell you anything. This guy choose to be a pharmacist and he can be a pharmacist however he wants to be. If you went to a barber and asked for a crew cut and the barber said he didn't believe and crew cuts and wouldn't give you one, would you be this upset? Of course not. The barber can refuse to do whatever he wants. He has no obligation.

Or, since this is a Mac forum, what if you're a graphic designer a client comes in and asks you to do a job on a PC. Are you allowed to refuse? Of course you are. You can determine the bounds of your profession.

And to bring it back to the topic of medicine, what about gynecologists? Should people like Catholics be barred from such a job since they refuse to give abortions? Of course not. They can choose their profession and what they're willing to do and not do just like everyone else.

So this is a matter of freedom. This is not the government being "politically correct" or "overly accommodating" to minorities. This is about letting someone lead their life how they want to. I could hardly believe the arrogant views posted on this forum denying a man the basic freedom of choosing his profession.

Xeem

Oct 21, 2006, 02:07 AM

So this is a matter of freedom. This is not the government being "politically correct" or "overly accommodating" to minorities. This is about letting someone lead their life how they want to. I could hardly believe the arrogant views posted on this forum denying a man the basic freedom of choosing his profession.
Although I might not agree point-by-point with everything in Macaddicttt's entire post, I do think he is correct. It all boils down to someone refusing to sell something he considered to be wrong. So long as he isn't harming anyone, he is afforded the freedom to do what he believes is right, even if we might not agree with him. I know a grocery store cashier that refuses to sell anyone cigarettes at work, even though the store sells them. Does this mean he should be fired? No. It means that customers can go to a different cashier to get them. They might be a little annoyed, or even downright pissed, but he can't be blamed for following his beliefs. That is how things work in a free society.

Mord

Oct 21, 2006, 05:53 AM

Chappers

Oct 21, 2006, 11:14 AM

skunk

Oct 21, 2006, 11:49 AM

Ugg

Oct 21, 2006, 01:01 PM

IIt's all very well if you live in a city, and perhaps could try another late night chemists, but if you live in a smaller town, you may not have that choice, and as the earlier you take the morning after pill the more effective it is, it does put that person at a disadvantage. Worse, if you live somewhere rural, you may not even have the choice of another pharmacy even during the day.

That's exactly why this issue is so troubling. It's fine if you live in a city but in rural America, often there are a very limited number of pharmacies and they often don't stock all drugs so have to order things in. Given the limited time frame of the effectiveness of the morning after pill, such policies could well mean that a woman is simply out of luck.

Small towns also tend to be more conservative so by allowing pharmacists to vote their conscience, people's health could be endangered.

I think it's a stupid law. If you become a pharmacist or a doctor or an IVF specialist, you must realize that you are going to be dealing with drugs, issues and people that are different than you are.

What's next? Policemen not having to assist gay people?

Skunk, I know you want the world to respect religion and that's fine, but there are limits. If somebody has a job that is an essential public service, their religious beliefs must come second to the job at hand.

Ugg

Oct 21, 2006, 01:11 PM

my point was that doctors and pharmacists are in the general game of curing diseases; morning after pills aren't really within that remit.

I'm not saying people cannot have abortions/stop a pregnancy early, but people (i.e. doctors & pharmacists) also have the right to choose what they do - whether to help those actions, or, if their personal morals and convictions say otherwise, choose not to.

That's a load of bollocks. There are a lot of prescription drugs out there that are morally reprehensible but people focus on the morning after pill as though it were some 600 pound gorilla. What about all painkillers that are prescribed and used by drug addicts? Why aren't the pharmacists stepping in to stop the abuse? Oh, that's right, it's the doctor's decision to prescribe and the pharmacist's duty to dispense without prejudice and without second guessing the doctor.

Public health should not be in the hands of religious fundamentalists but in the hands of non-discriminatory professionals.

Chappers

Oct 21, 2006, 01:12 PM

Agreed. But it's "censured" not "censored" you want to say, I think. :)

No I meant censored - as part of her act was not shown by NBC. You could have been correct as she has taken a lot of criticism.

Well spotted, what I wrote could be read either way.

Ugg

Oct 21, 2006, 01:13 PM

The essence of the true debate here is that this is more propaganda about Muslims. When Madonna is censored by NBC you don't hear "Christians censor Madonna crucifixion". A Christian priest phoned in a bomb warning over Madonna but was considered harmless - a Muslim doing the same thing would have a single room villa in Cuba and a super orange one piece outfit from Walmart.

Bollocks once again. It's about religious fundamentalism. Maybe you don't have that many xian fundamentalists in the UK, but there are plenty here in the US. There's a very real threat of religious exemption creeping into all aspects of life. If you're a pharmacist, you need to be willing to sell everything a doctor prescribes. Period.

Lau

Oct 21, 2006, 01:52 PM

What's next? Policemen not having to assist gay people?

It's funny you say that, as some firemen were recently suspended for refusing to hand out fire safety leaflets at a gay pride march. Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5301334.stm). Again, it's a public service that should be offered to all, and if you do that kind of job, it's not up to you to decide what you do.

Over here it can be a bit different — you can get the morning after pill prescribed for free by a doctor, but you can also buy it over the counter without a prescription, whenever you like (in theory :rolleyes: ).

Ugg

Oct 21, 2006, 02:21 PM

It's funny you say that, as some firemen were recently suspended for refusing to hand out fire safety leaflets at a gay pride march. Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5301334.stm). Again, it's a public service that should be offered to all, and if you do that kind of job, it's not up to you to decide what you do.

Over here it can be a bit different — you can get the morning after pill prescribed for free by a doctor, but you can also buy it over the counter without a prescription, whenever you like (in theory :rolleyes: ).

I've been reading the blog, Random Acts of Reality (http://randomreality.blogware.com/) for the last couple of years. Tom is a London Ambulance Service employee and has opened my eyes to what life is like for people in emergency services.

He loves his job and there are aspects of it he dislikes but rendering service to all is what he's paid to do. Discriminating against someone because they're drunk or drugged up is simply something he can't do, although sometimes he wishes he could leave them lying in their pool of vomit.

Allowing someone who provides an essential public service to discriminate based on their religion or personal beliefs will lead to chaos.

The morning after pill is theoretically an over the counter product here as well. Some pharmacies though are refusing to carry it although it's in violation of the law. The people most likely to be hurt by its unavailability are most likely poor, the very people so many rant at for having too many children...

Macaddicttt

Oct 21, 2006, 04:11 PM

That's exactly why this issue is so troubling. It's fine if you live in a city but in rural America, often there are a very limited number of pharmacies and they often don't stock all drugs so have to order things in. Given the limited time frame of the effectiveness of the morning after pill, such policies could well mean that a woman is simply out of luck.

Small towns also tend to be more conservative so by allowing pharmacists to vote their conscience, people's health could be endangered.

I think it's a stupid law. If you become a pharmacist or a doctor or an IVF specialist, you must realize that you are going to be dealing with drugs, issues and people that are different than you are.

What's next? Policemen not having to assist gay people?

Skunk, I know you want the world to respect religion and that's fine, but there are limits. If somebody has a job that is an essential public service, their religious beliefs must come second to the job at hand.

You're making a big error in your thinking here. Pharmacists are not performing a public service. They are in no way public servants and don't have any obligations as to what they sell or don't sell. This is a pharmacist, a salesman, not a doctor, not a fireman, not a policeman, not an ambulance driver, none of these things.

And as for the timeframe problems associated with the morning after pill, if you're not responsible enough to think of birth control before you have sex, I don't see how this is anyone's fault but your own. It is completely irresponsible to rely on the assumption that you will be able to get a prescription and fill it within the 72 hours. Who knows what problems you're going to encounter. What if your car broke down and you couldn't get to the pharmacist? What if they were out of stock?

If you're not willing to take all possibilities into consideration and assume that you'll be able to cover up your poor choice of having unprotected sex with a pill after the fact, then the blame is no one's but you're own.

faustfire

Oct 21, 2006, 04:56 PM

You're making a big error in your thinking here. Pharmacists are not performing a public service. They are in no way public servants and don't have any obligations as to what they sell or don't sell. This is a pharmacist, a salesman, not a doctor, not a fireman, not a policeman, not an ambulance driver, none of these things.

You are right in that a pharmacist is not a public servent but neither is a doctor. But what differentiates a pharmacist or doctor from a salesman is that a pharmacist must obtain a license from the state. Pharmacists are there to provide the medications prescribed by a doctor, not to decide if it is morally right for the patient to take the medicine. You cannot get a job at taco bell and expect to not loose your job if you refuse to serve the ground beef because your are a vegetarian. People should pick a job that suits their moral beliefs. And for those who deliberately take jobs that dont mesh with their morality with the aim to use their position to push their fairy tale beliefs on the rest of us, I say go live in Afganistan if you want to live in a theocracy and stay away from countries who would like to remain free.:mad:

mpw

Oct 21, 2006, 05:16 PM

...If you're not willing to take all possibilities into consideration and assume that you'll be able to cover up your poor choice of having unprotected sex with a pill after the fact, then the blame is no one's but you're own.
Need a new lung? Should've thought about that before smoking.
TCP? Should've thought about that before running in flip-flops.
Reading glasses? Should've thought about that before buying your paper.

mouchoir

Oct 21, 2006, 05:29 PM

If you're not willing to take all possibilities into consideration and assume that you'll be able to cover up your poor choice of having unprotected sex with a pill after the fact, then the blame is no one's but you're own.

Never heard of a condom splitting? Accidents do happen.

Ugg

Oct 21, 2006, 05:32 PM

You're making a big error in your thinking here. Pharmacists are not performing a public service. They are in no way public servants and don't have any obligations as to what they sell or don't sell. This is a pharmacist, a salesman, not a doctor, not a fireman, not a policeman, not an ambulance driver, none of these things.

If you're not willing to take all possibilities into consideration and assume that you'll be able to cover up your poor choice of having unprotected sex with a pill after the fact, then the blame is no one's but you're own.

Most communities with more than one pharmacy have a pharmacist on call to fill emergency orders that the emergency room or hospital may not be able to. That means they provide a public service, pure and simple.

Ah, so all unprotected sex is voluntary and condoms have no chance of breaking? Some times sex and its consequences aren't a choice for women. Obviously, you disagree. Tell that to the thousands upon thousands of women who are raped each year in this country.

aquajet

Oct 21, 2006, 06:36 PM

This is a pharmacist, a salesman, not a doctor, not a fireman, not a policeman, not an ambulance driver, none of these things.

If a doctor is a public servant, it would seem to me by extention that the same would hold true of a pharmacist. We are talking about medicine here, not color televisions.

daze

Oct 21, 2006, 09:36 PM

Thing is if they fire him. They will get done for discrimination. Just shows how sh*te this country is getting. Im out first chance i get. We are being invaded and suppressed and people dont even know it.

BTW that is not a racist remark aimed at muslims. It is aimed at all the immigrants, nicking our jobs, buying up all the houses and moaning when they have to change their way of life because they now live in England. Pure *****!

/End Rant
Gee, thanks for not being racist to just one particular section of the society but every immigrant that enters your country. Perhaps, you need to inspect your immigration laws, before blaming those that enter using those laws. And by the way, when the British decided to colonise most of South Asia (and other parts of the world) unlawfully, it was pure ***** too, buddy. If you feel the shoe is now on the other foot, I can't help but feel a certain amount of irony in this situation.

PS: Negative birth rates and an aging population are why many countries require immigration.

daze

Oct 21, 2006, 09:47 PM

If this was a right wing christian chemist in sourthern america no one would care.
Yep, right now, the Muslims are the favourite targets.

Macaddicttt

Oct 21, 2006, 10:00 PM

Most communities with more than one pharmacy have a pharmacist on call to fill emergency orders that the emergency room or hospital may not be able to. That means they provide a public service, pure and simple.

Ah, so all unprotected sex is voluntary and condoms have no chance of breaking? Some times sex and its consequences aren't a choice for women. Obviously, you disagree. Tell that to the thousands upon thousands of women who are raped each year in this country.

Oh yes, thank you for putting words in my mouth. Of course since I disagree with you on this one thing about the rights of a pharmacist in a specific instance I have backwards views on everything. Right, I believe that women are always at fault for rape... :rolleyes:

Give me a break buddy. Where in the article did it say the poor girl was raped? No? It doesn't say that? I didn't think so. So I am not arguing that raped women are at fault. Give me some sort of respect. Just because I'm defending a guy's rights, don't label me as a religious fundy. You seem to be more of the liberal steam of thought (as I myself am). What ever happened to freedom?

Macaddicttt

Oct 21, 2006, 10:02 PM

Need a new lung? Should've thought about that before smoking.
TCP? Should've thought about that before running in flip-flops.
Reading glasses? Should've thought about that before buying your paper.

Since when is being pregnant a disease that needed to be cured? This is a matter of convenience, nothing else. No one in the article's health was threatened.

Macaddicttt

Oct 21, 2006, 10:04 PM

If a doctor is a public servant, it would seem to me by extention that the same would hold true of a pharmacist. We are talking about medicine here, not color televisions.

Well, doctors take oaths, pharmacists don't. Nowhere is it written that a pharmacist is a public servant, and there is no precedent for it. Once that precedent is set, then you have an argument.

EDIT: As you can see, I was proven wrong below. I apologize.

Ugg

Oct 21, 2006, 10:15 PM

Oh yes, thank you for putting words in my mouth. Of course since I disagree with you on this one thing about the rights of a pharmacist in a specific instance I have backwards views on everything. Right, I believe that women are always at fault for rape... :rolleyes:

Give me a break buddy. Where in the article did it say the poor girl was raped? No? It doesn't say that? I didn't think so. So I am not arguing that raped women are at fault. Give me some sort of respect. Just because I'm defending a guy's rights, don't label me as a religious fundy. You seem to be more of the liberal steam of thought (as I myself am). What ever happened to freedom?

Well, since you didn't offer any exceptions, nor refer to the woman in the article, I took your statement at face value.

The Oath of a Pharmacist (http://www.aacp.org/site/tertiary.asp?TRACKID=www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&VID=2&CID=686&DID=4339)

Oath of a Pharmacist
At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.

I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

It's pretty clear to me by the above oath that they are public servants.

Macaddicttt

Oct 21, 2006, 10:20 PM

Well, since you didn't offer any exceptions, nor refer to the woman in the article, I took your statement at face value.

The Oath of a Pharmacist (http://www.aacp.org/site/tertiary.asp?TRACKID=www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&VID=2&CID=686&DID=4339)

It's pretty clear to me by the above oath that they are public servants.

I stand corrected about the public servant issue. But I still think the guy was within his rights. I still contend that birth control is not a health issue, but one of convenience and, like gynecologists who refuse to perform abortions, this guy has every right to not sell birth control. And that's what the debate really should be about.

Assuming that birth control is a health issue is a mistake on your part, not in that your view is wrong (it might be right for all I know), but because you're assuming something that isn't decided in our society. Therefore, all your indignation at the refusal of this guy to sell the morning after pill comes off as arrogant.

Ugg

Oct 21, 2006, 10:38 PM

I stand corrected about the public servant issue. But I still think the guy was within his rights. I still contend that birth control is not a health issue, but one of convenience and, like gynecologists who refuse to perform abortions, this guy has every right to not sell birth control. And that's what the debate really should be about.

Assuming that birth control is a health issue is a mistake on your part, not in that your view is wrong (it might be right for all I know), but because you're assuming something that isn't decided in our society. Therefore, all your indignation at the refusal of this guy to sell the morning after pill comes off as arrogant.

Incestuous rape and the possible pregnancy isn't a health issue? I think it is.

Pharmacists provide an essential public service. Allowing those who practice in small towns to make the decision for all the town's inhabitants regarding their family planning is wrong. No single person or group of persons, especially those sworn to "devote my professional life to the service of all humankind" should be allowed to only serve when it suits them.

There's a lot of abuse of prescription drugs in this country. Why isn't there an equivalent outcry over that? Perhaps because the sale and profits from the morning after pill are negligible and pharmacists can afford to take a stand. Painkillers like the one Rush Limbaugh abused are far more profitable yet more destructive to society at large.

If there was a concerted effort from pharmacists to tackle serious moral issues created in part by prescription drug abuse, I might agree with you. However, profits clearly outweigh any moral issues associated with these other more damaging drugs. The guy is a hypocrite, pure and simple.

Lau

Oct 21, 2006, 10:43 PM

Since when is being pregnant a disease that needed to be cured? This is a matter of convenience, nothing else. No one in the article's health was threatened.

So is me getting my asthma inhalers convenience? I won't die without them, it just makes my life easier. I could be fitter, and then maybe I wouldn't need them. Or asprin — that's just for headaches, and so you just take them for convenience. Hell, most antibiotics are just for whingers with sore throats and stuff, and so it's just for convenience that people take them really.

Medicine is something that's always evolving, and it means that people's lives are easier because of it. Most uses of it aren't to treat something life threatening, but that's the beauty of you know, science and stuff, in you know, the modern age. We're not in the middle ages any more. These days you don't have to put up with the flu if you have to go to work, because someone invented drugs that alleviate the symptoms of that so that someone can go to work without passing out and keep their job. Does it suck that they have to do that? Sure. Equally, if there is an accident with contraception or a woman is raped, she can take a pill to prevent the pregnancy starting. Should people take responsibility for contraception themselves? Of course. But accidents happen for many reasons, and I really don't see why a woman (and her partner) should have to go through with a pregnancy that they don't want when there's drugs out there to prevent it. I also think it's a better option than an abortion a couple of weeks later.

I think you'll find almost every woman who's taken the morning after pill once wouldn't want to neglect contraception in order to have to take it again — it's not pleasant. You feel sick as hell for a good two days. Any sensible woman isn't using it as a method of contraception, they're using it as a last resort, and although it isn't necessarily life threatening (although if you're prone to ectopic pregnancies or various other things it could well be) I really think that in the 21st effing century that people have the right to this kind of medicine through their pharmacist without exception.

Macaddicttt

Oct 21, 2006, 10:47 PM

Incestuous rape and the possible pregnancy isn't a health issue? I think it is.

Pharmacists provide an essential public service. Allowing those who practice in small towns to make the decision for all the town's inhabitants regarding their family planning is wrong. No single person or group of persons, especially those sworn to "devote my professional life to the service of all humankind" should be allowed to only serve when it suits them.

There's a lot of abuse of prescription drugs in this country. Why isn't there an equivalent outcry over that? Perhaps because the sale and profits from the morning after pill are negligible and pharmacists can afford to take a stand. Painkillers like the one Rush Limbaugh abused are far more profitable yet more destructive to society at large.

If there was a concerted effort from pharmacists to tackle serious moral issues created in part by prescription drug abuse, I might agree with you. However, profits clearly outweigh any moral issues associated with these other more damaging drugs. The guy is a hypocrite, pure and simple.

No, incestuous rape and possible pregnancy isn't a health issue. It's an issue, but it certainly isn't a health one, or at least in the way I understand a doctor or pharmacist is required to act. Again, pregnancy is not a disease, and you shouldn't treat it as such. Doctors and pharmacists are under no obligation to "cure" it. What doctors and pharmacists are required to do is save lives and try their best to improve the health of their patients. Pregnancy, especially resulting from rape or incest, has more repercussions than just health, and it is not a doctor's obligation to deal with them.

And branding this guy a hypocrite "pure and simple" is confusing the issue. There is no reason at all to bring abuse of prescription drugs into this debate at all. All it does is obscure the point. And again, you are coming off as very arrogant, assuming that this particular pharmacist does not care and does not do anything about prescription drug abuse. Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't, but your assumption is way out of line and completely unfair.

Macaddicttt

Oct 21, 2006, 10:51 PM

So is me getting my asthma inhalers convenience? I won't die without them, it just makes my life easier. I could be fitter, and then maybe I wouldn't need them. Or asprin — that's just for headaches, and so you just take them for convenience. Hell, most antibiotics are just for whingers with sore throats and stuff, and so it's just for convenience that people take them really.

You're missing a huge difference between accidental pregnancy and asthma or headaches, etc. As I've said numerous times before, pregnancy isn't a disease to be cured. The morning after pill is not alleviating symptoms of a health problem, it is not curing you of a sickness. Therefore, a pharmacist is under no obligation to provide it to you.

Lau

Oct 21, 2006, 11:00 PM

You're missing a huge difference between accidental pregnancy and asthma or headaches, etc. As I've said numerous times before, pregnancy isn't a disease to be cured. The morning after pill is not alleviating symptoms of a health problem, it is not curing you of a sickness. Therefore, a pharmacist is under no obligation to provide it to you.

Not really. A headache's an inconvenience, it's hardly a disease. My asthma's fairly mild — I've never seen it as a disease, I've always seen it as a natural way my body's geared up to work — my lungs have to work a bit harder. I've also got short legs and curly hair.

However, the point isn't whether a pregnancy is a disease or not. Since when are pharmacists and doctors only about curing diseases? I don't see why preventing a pregnancy is so big a deal here — it's something modern medicine does very well. Why should that option would be kept from a woman who wants it because a pharmacist doesn't agree with it, when plenty of "unessential" items are easy to get without question, including, as Ugg says, addictive painkillers?

Do you agree with the morning after pill? Would you be happy for your girlfriend/wife/sister to take it?

Macaddicttt

Oct 21, 2006, 11:07 PM

Not really. A headache's an inconvenience, it's hardly a disease. My asthma's fairly mild — I've never seen it as a disease, I've always seen it as a natural way my body's geared up to work — my lungs have to work a bit harder. I've also got short legs and curly hair.

Well, no matter how you see it, headaches and asthma are definite medical problems. But curly hair and short legs are not. Since you see doctors as obligated to provide medical conveniences, do you think that a doctor should be obligated to try and make your hair straight should you request it?

However, the point isn't whether a pregnancy is a disease or not. Since when are pharmacists and doctors only about curing diseases? I don't see why preventing a pregnancy is so big a deal here — it's something modern medicine does very well. Why should that option would be kept from a woman who wants it because a pharmacist doesn't agree with it, when plenty of "unessential" items are easy to get without question, including, as Ugg says, addictive painkillers?

Pharmacists and doctors aren't only about curing diseases, but that's their only obligation. Well, "curing diseases" isn't the right phrase, but something more along the lines of solving health problems. A doctor is under no obligation to proved cosmetic surgery. In the same way, a doctor is under no obligation to provide birth control or perform abortions. Doctors are not obligated to help make your hair straight, but they are obligated to help you find solutions to your asthma, should you request it.

Do you agree with the morning after pill? Would you be happy for your girlfriend/wife/sister to take it?

I fail to see how this really has any bearing on the debate. My personal opinions about the morning after pill are immaterial.

Lau

Oct 21, 2006, 11:20 PM

A doctor is under no obligation to proved cosmetic surgery. In the same way, a doctor is under no obligation to provide birth control or perform abortions.

The thing is, Macaddicttt, is that it's not black and white like that. The issue of cosmetic surgery covers a huge range, from people who want their tits done to people who've been hugely disfigured and need to have their face reconstructed. Over in the UK, some cosmetic surgery is done on the National Health Service, more usually on the disfigured end as opposed to the tits end, unsurprisingly. I could argue that accidental pregnancy is a similar scale — from women who've been raped, through to those who just couldn't be bothered to use a condom. Again, it's hardly a black and white issue. However, contraception is provided and abortions are performed on the NHS as standard, which says to me that it is a service that the NHS should provide to me, whatever part of the country I'm in, and whatever pharmacist I go to.

Whether it's something the pharmacist should be obliged to do I don't think we're going to agree here — I think it's part of his job. I also think it's incredibly backward thinking to consider denying someone this. It's also bad business — I think that pretty much anywhere over here you'd be able to get an abortion on the NHS, and that'll cost the NHS more and not to mention cause more physical and mental trauma to the woman. I can't see how that's a good thing.

Chappers

Oct 22, 2006, 02:47 AM

Bollocks once again. It's about religious fundamentalism. Maybe you don't have that many xian fundamentalists in the UK, but there are plenty here in the US. There's a very real threat of religious exemption creeping into all aspects of life. If you're a pharmacist, you need to be willing to sell everything a doctor prescribes. Period.

Thanks for starting your reply in such a dignified way.

I realise that you have christian fundamentalists in the US but does your mainstream media refer to them as Christian Fundamentalists constantly?
I agree that religious fundamentalism is a real threat but it is Islam generally that has been demonised by the media.

In the case of this pharmacy the guy was within his rights under British law - not the Pharmacy code in America that you quoted.

I may not agree with him but that is his belief and I respect that and so does our law it would appear. It does not make him a fundamentalist.

The fact that he did still help her and put her in touch with her local GP (doctor) shows that although he is against it - he sent her where she could receive help.
This action shows he is not a fundamentalist yet the article still hits the headlines as yet another piece of Islamic propaganda.

skunk

Oct 22, 2006, 05:18 AM

The point is, surely, that the guy was acting within the rules of his profession. Some people have very strong feelings about abortion. Taking a morning after pill is essentially abortion. Does this mean that anyone who feels that abortion is the taking of life is unsuitable to be a Pharmacist? Or does it mean that anyone wishing to be a Pharmacist should put their morals to one side?

andym172

Oct 22, 2006, 05:22 AM

I'm so tired of hearing about Muslims.

There are some bad, there are some good. Hardly a surprise.

mpw

Oct 22, 2006, 05:23 AM

Well, no matter how you see it, headaches and asthma are definite medical problems...
Someone goes out and drinks way too much and has non-consensual sex. The next morning you think it's OK for the pharmacists to sell her asprin for her self-inflicted hangover but not the morning after pill?

skunk

Oct 22, 2006, 05:26 AM

I just think that if there's a problem, it's with the pharmacists' code of practice, not the pharmacist.

mpw

Oct 22, 2006, 05:26 AM

skunk

Oct 22, 2006, 05:27 AM

The 2nd one, where their morals impact on the person they're treating negatively, but where the person seeking treatment is breaking no law.That's not what their code of practice says.

mpw

Oct 22, 2006, 05:36 AM

That's not what their code of practice says.
Maybe not, but like you said a couple of posts back maybe that's where the problem is.

I'd like to know what this pharmacist would do if his professional body changed their code to remove his right to deny treatment on his religious/moral grounds in instances like this. Would he quit of is his job and income more important to him than his beliefs?

Queso

Oct 22, 2006, 06:12 AM

The 2nd one, where their morals impact on the person they're treating negatively, but where the person seeking treatment is breaking no law.
This is my point of view on the subject too. Should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse a prescription for anti-HIV drugs because he/she has negative views on homosexuality?

Mord

Oct 22, 2006, 06:17 AM

This is my point of view on the subject too. Should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse a prescription for anti-HIV drugs because he/she has negative views on homosexuality?

No because he has no ethnical objection to the medication itself, the reason for refusal would be based on homophobia thus is not allowable.

skunk

Oct 22, 2006, 06:30 AM

No because he has no ethnical objection to the medication itself, the reason for refusal would be based on homophobia thus is not allowable.Agreed. It's a different situation.

Macaddicttt

Oct 22, 2006, 07:44 AM

The thing is, Macaddicttt, is that it's not black and white like that. The issue of cosmetic surgery covers a huge range, from people who want their tits done to people who've been hugely disfigured and need to have their face reconstructed. Over in the UK, some cosmetic surgery is done on the National Health Service, more usually on the disfigured end as opposed to the tits end, unsurprisingly. I could argue that accidental pregnancy is a similar scale — from women who've been raped, through to those who just couldn't be bothered to use a condom. Again, it's hardly a black and white issue. However, contraception is provided and abortions are performed on the NHS as standard, which says to me that it is a service that the NHS should provide to me, whatever part of the country I'm in, and whatever pharmacist I go to.

Whether it's something the pharmacist should be obliged to do I don't think we're going to agree here — I think it's part of his job. I also think it's incredibly backward thinking to consider denying someone this. It's also bad business — I think that pretty much anywhere over here you'd be able to get an abortion on the NHS, and that'll cost the NHS more and not to mention cause more physical and mental trauma to the woman. I can't see how that's a good thing.

You're right, it's not as black and white as that. There's a grey part in the area of contraceptives/abortion/etc. So while the NHS will provide it, I doubt that a doctor is forced to perform abortions. Someone else will do it. It's the same thing here. It's not black and white at all, so any indignation as to this guy refusing to sell is baseless since it is a grey area and the morning after pill does not fall fully within the "heath care" side. So just as it's not black and white enough to deny all people contraceptives, it's also not black and white enough to force all pharmacists to sell them.

Voidness

Oct 22, 2006, 02:56 PM

I'm so tired of hearing about Muslims.

There are some bad, there are some good. Hardly a surprise.
That's been the trend lately. Every time some muslim does something that could be perceive wrong or controversial becomes big news, or atleast thoroughly discussed. Unfortunately, the point many people come up with after reading such "news" is:

"OMG!!!! SEE, SEE! all muzlimz are teh suxorz!!!!111!!!!!!!11!1!11"

Xeem

Oct 22, 2006, 11:03 PM

Thanks for starting your reply in such a dignified way.

I realise that you have christian fundamentalists in the US but does your mainstream media refer to them as Christian Fundamentalists constantly?
I agree that religious fundamentalism is a real threat but it is Islam generally that has been demonised by the media.

In the case of this pharmacy the guy was within his rights under British law - not the Pharmacy code in America that you quoted.

I may not agree with him but that is his belief and I respect that and so does our law it would appear. It does not make him a fundamentalist.

The fact that he did still help her and put her in touch with her local GP (doctor) shows that although he is against it - he sent her where she could receive help.
This action shows he is not a fundamentalist yet the article still hits the headlines as yet another piece of Islamic propaganda.
Actually, yes- mainstream media does refer to Fundamentalist Christians constantly, and it often also demonizes them as well (although certainly many groups are definitely not blameless). I myself am a Christian, but I don't think many would consider me "fundamentalist." The reactions of many people here left me a little sad, as it really serves as a reminder of the increasing difficulty I have had (and I see my friends, both Christian and of other faiths) in following my faith in today's world.

savar

Oct 23, 2006, 09:08 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6049750.stm

Me thinks this chap is in the wrong job. What next, a paramedic saying "sorry I can't give you this life saving injection as I don't beleive in this type of medicine!" ***** joke!

What is the world coming too.....

Sounds like a non-story to me. The pope isn't handing out rubbers either. The surprising thing to me is this is a chain -- am I correct? I can't believe that a chain of drugstores can allow each individual pharmacist to decide what medicine he will and won't dispense. I would never go back to that pharmacy ever again.

agreenster

Oct 23, 2006, 01:09 PM

ALL religions = evil

mpw

Oct 23, 2006, 01:25 PM

...The pope isn't handing out rubbers either...
The Pope didn't choose a profession where it's fair to say the public have an expectation that he would, in fact if the Pope did start selling contraception I'm pretty sure his customers would react too.

Mord

Oct 23, 2006, 01:40 PM

The Pope didn't choose a profession where it's fair to say the public have an expectation that he would, in fact if the Pope did start selling contraception I'm pretty sure his customers would react too.

With such an open profession if they tried for force all hindu pharmacists to sell drugs which originate from a cow in some form, all catholics to start selling contraception and all muslims to sell the morning after pill they'd have a massive union upriseing on their hands, it's unfair to exclude people of so many faiths from a job which most are ok with thus it's in the rules that they don't have to sell drugs which they have a moral or religious objection to, if it were any other way it would be discriminatory.

Don't panic

Oct 23, 2006, 04:53 PM

With such an open profession if they tried for force all hindu pharmacists to sell drugs which originate from a cow in some form, all catholics to start selling contraception and all muslims to sell the morning after pill they'd have a massive union upriseing on their hands, it's unfair to exclude people of so many faiths from a job which most are ok with thus it's in the rules that they don't have to sell drugs which they have a moral or religious objection to, if it were any other way it would be discriminatory.

i disagree, it's unfair that people are denied medications they are entitled to because of the personal convictions of the pharmacist. If your personal bias are so strong that they interfere with your job, than you should change job or drop your bias.
and this applies to any philosophy/religion or profession.

Macaddicttt

Oct 23, 2006, 06:08 PM

i disagree, it's unfair that people are denied medications they are entitled to because of the personal convictions of the pharmacist. If your personal bias are so strong that they interfere with your job, than you should change job or drop your bias.
and this applies to any philosophy/religion or profession.

So are you saying that no professional should be able to set the boundaries of his own profession or carry out their own personal ethics? Should the professional be at the complete mercy of their client, forced to do whatever the client asks? I don't think so.

If I want to be a musician, but don't want to play classical, I shouldn't be barred from the profession since I won't perform one part of it. Or is it unfair to my client that they are denied classical music?

Ugg

Oct 23, 2006, 06:18 PM

So are you saying that no professional should be able to set the boundaries of his own profession or carry out their own personal ethics? Should the professional be at the complete mercy of their client, forced to do whatever the client asks? I don't think so.

If I want to be a musician, but don't want to play classical, I shouldn't be barred from the profession since I won't perform one part of it. Or is it unfair to my client that they are denied classical music?

Professionals go into their profession knowing full well what the requirements are. By professionals, I mean doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, etc. Musicians hardly count in that category. If a musician didn't want to play classical, fine, there's nothing saying that he must. However, if he's hired by a symphony orchestra and says after the fact he'll only play concerts that have no classical pieces, he should be fired.

Professionals are governed by plenty of laws and are restricted from doing anything for their client that is illegal.

Your arguments are very weak and nonsensical.

Macaddicttt

Oct 23, 2006, 06:34 PM

Professionals go into their profession knowing full well what the requirements are. By professionals, I mean doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, etc. Musicians hardly count in that category. If a musician didn't want to play classical, fine, there's nothing saying that he must. However, if he's hired by a symphony orchestra and says after the fact he'll only play concerts that have no classical pieces, he should be fired.

Professionals are governed by plenty of laws and are restricted from doing anything for their client that is illegal.

Your arguments are very weak and nonsensical.

I found Don't panic's arguments very weak and nonsensical and that why I responded as such, to point out his failings. He did not put a limit on what professionals were let alone what their duties are. He made very broad, sweeping arguments that were full of holes.

And I still contend that professionals have the right to determine their own bounds. To deny them that is to deny them a fundamental freedom. To be more specific and back the realm of medicine, do you believe that Muslims and Catholics, et al. should be barred from gynecology since they refuse to preform abortions?

Or a less black and white example, should a plastic surgeon be required to do facelifts? What if he got into the profession to do reconstructive surgery on those who had been injured in accidents, etc. Should be be banned from plastic surgery because he won't do boob jobs?

(And a musician who was hired by a symphony who refused to play classical does not fit into my argument at all. This guy was not hired to sell the morning after pill the way the musician was hired to play classical. Pretty much all symphonies play is classical. The morning after pill is a tiny, tiny percentage of the huge field of medicine.)

skunk

Oct 23, 2006, 06:55 PM

Professionals go into their profession knowing full well what the requirements are. By professionals, I mean doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, etc.Chemists in the UK go into their profession knowing full well that there are provisions in the rules of that profession which allow them to abide by their own ethical standards. What are you saying here? :confused:

Ugg

Oct 23, 2006, 06:59 PM

And I still contend that professionals have the right to determine their own bounds. To deny them that is to deny them a fundamental freedom. To be more specific and back the realm of medicine, do you believe that Muslims and Catholics, et al. should be barred from gynecology since they refuse to preform abortions?

Or a less black and white example, should a plastic surgeon be required to do facelifts? What if he got into the profession to do reconstructive surgery on those who had been injured in accidents, etc. Should be be banned from plastic surgery because he won't do boob jobs?

(And a musician who was hired by a symphony who refused to play classical does not fit into my argument at all. This guy was not hired to sell the morning after pill the way the musician was hired to play classical. Pretty much all symphonies play is classical. The morning after pill is a tiny, tiny percentage of the huge field of medicine.)

There is no one Muslim stance on abortion. Some sects ban it entirely, some allow it to save the life of the mother, etc. While the Catholic Church has a firm stance on the practice, many Catholics have a more compassionate view towards family planning issues. If a hospital or a practice needed a gynaecologist to perform abortions, and the person said they wouldn't, the person simply wouldn't be hired. Would you hire someone who refused to fulfill his job description?

Physicians have a fair amount of leeway in choosing not only their specialization but also the practice or hospital they work for. Since most elective cosmetic surgery is done by specialists within private practices, I see very few situations where your hypothetical situation would occur. We've also come along way from the idea that all elective cosmetic surgery is simply vanity. Many people who want nose jobs, boob jobs need them for their mental health. Obviously, the issue lies more with societal expectations.

The health of the patient must be foremost to all pharmacists and medical professionals. Who is he to judge how the customer will or will not be affected by his refusal to sell the morning after pill? What if she had been raped by her father and later committed suicide because her mental health was destroyed by being forced to carry such a child? Isn't that potentially an even worse sin in the eyes of your god? Or, for that matter, any god.

It's good the morning after pill makes up such a small percentage of drug sales but then so do many other drugs. Why should that matter?

In the end, professionals choose their profession, not the other way around. If they are truly professional, they will know from the very beginning what is expected of them by law and by the rules of their profession. If they want to change it, fine, but they need to work within the rules and laws, not feel that simply because they believe in some god that they are exempt from earthly laws.

Ugg

Oct 23, 2006, 07:03 PM

Chemists in the UK go into their profession knowing full well that there are provisions in the rules of that profession which allow them to abide by their own ethical standards. What are you saying here? :confused:

Sorry, I guess I've let this become US centric. The laws differ from state to state, there's no federal blanket provision here in the US as there is in the UK.

Is this a fair provision though? Are people with differing religious being discriminated against in the UK due to the fact that chemists in small towns may be refusing to sell these drugs? How do you resolve that?

skunk

Oct 23, 2006, 07:40 PM

Sorry, I guess I've let this become US centric. The laws differ from state to state, there's no federal blanket provision here in the US as there is in the UK.

Is this a fair provision though? Are people with differing religious being discriminated against in the UK due to the fact that chemists in small towns may be refusing to sell these drugs? How do you resolve that?Does one discrimination trump another? Isn't a trained pharmacist being discriminated against if he's not allowed to practise his profession because doing so would violate his beliefs?

aquajet

Oct 23, 2006, 08:02 PM

Isn't a trained pharmacist being discriminated against if he's not allowed to practise his profession because doing so would violate his beliefs?

I know you probably intended for this to be rhetorical, but I would say yes. It's not as if we have a huge cross section of pharmacists refusing to provide a morning-after pill and as such, have a legitimate concern. It would seem to me that if one decides to engage in sexual intercourse strictly for pleasure, it would be prudent to plan ahead and make sure you have the proper contraceptives and should their effectiveness come into question after the fact, then you have a contingency plan in place.

It's interesting that people generally don't have such spirited opinions against doctors who refuse to perform abortions, yet when a pharmacist refuses to facilitate an abortion, suddenly people feel as if their rights are being violated.

Ugg

Oct 23, 2006, 08:03 PM

Does one discrimination trump another? Isn't a trained pharmacist being discriminated against if he's not allowed to practise his profession because doing so would violate his beliefs?

One discrimination never trumps another but in a civil and secular society, choices must be made. Health or religious belief? Take your pick.

Ugg

Oct 23, 2006, 08:16 PM

I know you probably intended for this to be rhetorical, but I would say yes. It's not as if we have a huge cross section of pharmacists refusing to provide a morning-after pill and as such, have a legitimate concern. It would seem to me that if one decides to engage in sexual intercourse strictly for pleasure, it would be prudent to plan ahead and make sure you have the proper contraceptives and should their effectiveness come into question after the fact, then you have a contingency plan in place.

It's interesting that people generally don't have such spirited opinions against doctors who refuse to perform abortions, yet when a pharmacist refuses to facilitate an abortion, suddenly people feel as if their rights are being violated.

Sex isn't always optional for women and in those cases pleasure may have nothing to do with it. The morning after pill is also there when other methods may have failed. Accidents happen. People go on vacation, may not be willing or able to carry an extra morning after pill with them, etc, etc. It's emergency contraception. By your logic car accidents would never happen or if they did, only between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday.

Doctors who perform abortions are rarely needed, if they are, they're most likely to perform them in a separate clinic. Emergency abortions are another story, if a woman was involved in a life threatening car accident and the emergency room doctor was unwilling to save a mother's llfe by performing one, it's likely he would never practice again.

The morning after pill is not abortion. Abortion is when a doctor removes the fetus from the womb. In order for it to be abortion, the doctor must know beyond a doubt that a fetus exists. A woman in need of a morning after pill has no idea whether a sperm has met an egg or that the meeting was successful. It's possibly a means of disrupting that meeting but if it never took place....

aquajet

Oct 23, 2006, 08:30 PM

Sex isn't always optional for women and in those cases pleasure may have nothing to do with it.

Well of course, but this an extreme case. Personally, I would think it wise for a rape victim to visit a doctor, if not an emergecy room, as soon as possible to treat any injuries, test for diseases and take any abortive action if needed/wanted. Of course this is the ideal, and things can't always work out that way...

The morning after pill is also there when other methods may have failed. Accidents happen. People go on vacation, may not be willing or able to carry an extra morning after pill with them, etc, etc. It's emergency contraception. By your logic car accidents would never happen or if they did, only between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday.

That was my point: accidents do happen and it's best to be prepared. Establish a relationship with a phamacist that you trust. Ask your doctor for emergency contraception before you go on vacation. It's the prudent thing to do, just like wearing seat belts and observing traffic laws.

Doctors who perform abortions are rarely needed, if they are, they're most likely to perform them in a separate clinic. Emergency abortions are another story, if a woman was involved in a life threatening car accident and the emergency room doctor was unwilling to save a mother's llfe by performing one, it's likely he would never practice again.

Quite right. That's a serious medical concern. A matter of life and death. But again, this is an extreme case.

The morning after pill is not abortion. Abortion is when a doctor removes the fetus from the womb. In order for it to be abortion, the doctor must know beyond a doubt that a fetus exists. A woman in need of a morning after pill has no idea whether a sperm has met an egg or that the meeting was successful. It's possibly a means of disrupting that meeting but if it never took place....

But if it is the case that a meeting took place, it is essentially an abortion.

Ugg

Oct 23, 2006, 08:40 PM

Well of course, but this an extreme case. Personally, I would think it wise for a rape victim to visit a doctor, if not an emergecy room, as soon as possible to treat any injuries, test for diseases and take any abortive action if needed/wanted. Of course this is the ideal, and things can't always work out that way...

That was my point: accidents do happen and it's best to be prepared. Establish a relationship with a phamacist that you trust. Ask your doctor for emergency contraception before you go on vacation. It's the prudent thing to do, just like wearing seat belts and observing traffic laws.
\

Have you ever been raped or known someone who has? Rational behaviour at a time like that is very difficult to ask of a woman who has been violated. Her primary concern may well be to wash away every trace of what happened. Should she be penalized for that?

Of course it's the prudent thing to do but wearing seatbelts and observing traffic laws is no guarantee that you won't have an accident. There are too many variables in this world. What if the woman on vacation brought the pill with her but it was stolen along with her purse and she was raped. A person can plan all they like but the point of emergency contraception is exactly that, to be used in emergencies.

Macaddicttt

Oct 23, 2006, 09:08 PM

There is no one Muslim stance on abortion. Some sects ban it entirely, some allow it to save the life of the mother, etc. While the Catholic Church has a firm stance on the practice, many Catholics have a more compassionate view towards family planning issues. If a hospital or a practice needed a gynaecologist to perform abortions, and the person said they wouldn't, the person simply wouldn't be hired. Would you hire someone who refused to fulfill his job description?

Physicians have a fair amount of leeway in choosing not only their specialization but also the practice or hospital they work for. Since most elective cosmetic surgery is done by specialists within private practices, I see very few situations where your hypothetical situation would occur. We've also come along way from the idea that all elective cosmetic surgery is simply vanity. Many people who want nose jobs, boob jobs need them for their mental health. Obviously, the issue lies more with societal expectations.

The health of the patient must be foremost to all pharmacists and medical professionals. Who is he to judge how the customer will or will not be affected by his refusal to sell the morning after pill? What if she had been raped by her father and later committed suicide because her mental health was destroyed by being forced to carry such a child? Isn't that potentially an even worse sin in the eyes of your god? Or, for that matter, any god.

It's good the morning after pill makes up such a small percentage of drug sales but then so do many other drugs. Why should that matter?

In the end, professionals choose their profession, not the other way around. If they are truly professional, they will know from the very beginning what is expected of them by law and by the rules of their profession. If they want to change it, fine, but they need to work within the rules and laws, not feel that simply because they believe in some god that they are exempt from earthly laws.

Here's the problem, you're taking into account the most extreme situations, then doubting the guy's morality and insulting his religion. Who are you to come in comparing sins, trying to use this guy's religion against him, and calling him a hypocrite? What right do you have? And the poor guy isn't even here to defend himself. The facts of the matter are this, this wasn't the only pharmacy in town. The guy wasn't the only pharmacist around. It wasn't necessary for the health of the area for this guy to sell birth control, and that's even assuming that birth control is a health matter. (As I've said a million times, pregnancy isn't a disease that needs to be cured. Sure pregnancy has health implications, but pregnancy isn't de facto bad for one's health.)

Really, though, I'm most insulted and amazed by your attempts to throw this guy's religion back in his face. Who are you to assume that his denial to sell birth control automatically causes grave repercussions to whomever's health? How do you know that he doesn't give money or actively participate in charities to help people deal with unwanted pregnancies? It really sickens me that you're trying to take the moral high ground and use this guy's religion against him, and by implication denounce his whole faith. You must not understand religion if this is how you think of it.

Stop taking the "holier-than-thou" approach and denying people basic religious freedoms. This guy is simply removing himself from part of society, not forcing his own upon others, and I'm sure he would appreciate it if you didn't push your beliefs on him.

Macaddicttt

Oct 23, 2006, 09:13 PM

Have you ever been raped or known someone who has? Rational behaviour at a time like that is very difficult to ask of a woman who has been violated. Her primary concern may well be to wash away every trace of what happened. Should she be penalized for that?

Have you ever known anyone who has been raped? An abortion hardly washes away all traces of the rape and may even cause more damage. Ever hear of people feeling extremely guilty after having an abortion? Happens all the time.

And since when is "remove all traces of it ever happening" considered a psychologically healthy course of action?

mdntcallr

Oct 23, 2006, 09:21 PM

Have you ever known anyone who has been raped? An abortion hardly washes away all traces of the rape and may even cause more damage. Ever hear of people feeling extremely guilty after having an abortion? Happens all the time.

And since when is "remove all traces of it ever happening" considered a psychologically healthy course of action?

a rape is horrible, but it would also be horrible to force a woman to carry a baby she didn't want to birth.

especially if it was created via rape. also.... honestly it is a womans decision to choose to have children.

most men would wish otherwise, that they had some say... but hell lets face it. THE GOVT SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM people's bodies. let them decide what to do for themselves.

mdntcallr

Oct 23, 2006, 09:23 PM

Macaddicttt

Oct 23, 2006, 09:39 PM

a rape is horrible, but it would also be horrible to force a woman to carry a baby she didn't want to birth.

especially if it was created via rape. also.... honestly it is a womans decision to choose to have children.

most men would wish otherwise, that they had some say... but hell lets face it. THE GOVT SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM people's bodies. let them decide what to do for themselves.

I'm not saying you should force someone to carry a baby that was the result of a rape, but just as the government shouldn't tell the woman what to do, it shouldn't tell the pharmacist what to do either. This isn't a life-or-death decision, this isn't a split-second decision (the woman has 72 hours), this is a gray spot in the realm of medical ethics. Let the pharmacist decide what he wants to do.

Macaddicttt

Oct 23, 2006, 09:42 PM

i believe there ought to be a code of ethics, that pharmacists and doctors ought to provide ANY necessary medical treatment or medicine a patient requires.

ie, morning after pills, birth control, condoms and yes medically necessary abortions.

What do you say to those who think the exact opposite, that the government should restrict birth control and abortions? Are their opinions any less valid than yours?

(I know I'm arguing against an argument you didn't necessarily make here, but I'm just using it to argue against Ugg who seems to have put forth this belief. So don't take it personally that I quoted you with this response. :) )

mpw

Oct 24, 2006, 04:32 AM

...Stop taking the "holier-than-thou" approach and denying people basic religious freedoms. This guy is simply removing himself from part of society, not forcing his own upon others, and I'm sure he would appreciate it if you didn't push your beliefs on him.
I disagree, he clearly is forcing his beliefs on others. He's chosen to refuse a service that the public can reasonably expect him to provide because of his religious beliefs.

As a pharmacist the public expect him to provide a service, he should know that and should be prepared to meet those expectations based on the law of the society that has licensed him to do the job, not his own religious beliefs.

I've got no problem with him living his life by his religious beliefs, but I do have a problem when those beliefs impact on others, especially when he enjoys a privileged position.

bartelby

Oct 24, 2006, 04:34 AM

I disagree, he clearly is forcing his beliefs on others. He's chosen to refuse a service that the public can reasonably expect him to provide because of his religious beliefs.

As a pharmacist the public expect him to provide a service, he should know that and should be prepared to meet those expectations based on the law of the society that has licensed him to do the job, not his own religious beliefs.

I've got no problem with him living his life by his religious beliefs, but I do have a problem when those beliefs impact on others, especially when he enjoys a privileged position.

That's exactly what I think.

mpw

Oct 24, 2006, 04:36 AM

That's exactly what I think.
I know, I'm channeling.

bartelby

Oct 24, 2006, 04:48 AM

I know, I'm channeling.

Ah! That'll explain the weird feeling then...;)

skunk

Oct 24, 2006, 04:57 AM

I disagree, he clearly is forcing his beliefs on others. He's chosen to refuse a service that the public can reasonably expect him to provide because of his religious beliefs.How you can construe his declining to violate his own principles as "forcing his beliefs on others" is beyond me. He clearly did not force the woman to do anything but find another chemist, as he was entitled to do. Should believing in the sanctity of life be outlawed? Or should it just be ignored when it's inconvenient for your customers?

As a pharmacist the public expect him to provide a service, he should know that and should be prepared to meet those expectations based on the law of the society that has licensed him to do the job, not his own religious beliefs.If the rules of his professional body give him the option of declining to offer a service which is against his beliefs, he is entirely within his rights. If you have a problem with that, it should be addressed at the level of his professional body, not to him personally.

Let's face it, if Muslims, Roman Catholics and others were taken out of the equation, we'd be short of chemists for more than emergency contraception.

mpw

Oct 24, 2006, 05:25 AM

...If the rules of his professional body give him the option of declining to offer a service which is against his beliefs, he is entirely within his rights. If you have a problem with that, it should be addressed at the level of his professional body, not to him personally.
OK I don't want to 'have a go' at this one pharmasist in particular and I agree it's an issue that needs addressing at the profession and or the relevant legislation.

In principle however I think the public should be able to expect a certain level of service based on the law of the land and not an individual’s religious belief.

In this instance there was the option of traveling to the next pharmacy so the consequences of his actions weren't as grave as they could've been but what if there wasn't that option?

...Should believing in the sanctity of life be outlawed? Or should it just be ignored when it's inconvenient for your customers?...
No you can believe anything you want, but it's whether actions based on personal beliefs impact unreasonably on others around you who do not share those beliefs.

A little inconvenience doesn't bother me, but having to go full term with an unwanted baby is hardly simple inconvenience.

Let's face it, if Muslims, Roman Catholics and others were taken out of the equation, we'd be short of chemists for more than emergency contraception.But not all chemists who follow a faith put their personal beliefs before the service to their customers. Only remove those that limit their service because of their religious beliefs and I don't think the service offered overall would be greatly effected. It would however stop these isolated but unnecessarily stressful situation happening again and give assurance to the public.

Queso

Oct 24, 2006, 06:01 AM

skunk

Oct 24, 2006, 06:42 AM

By refusing to allow the purchaser the option of making her own moral decision on the matter, the pharmacist was making that decision for her by proxy. If that isn't imposing religious beliefs upon others, I don't know what is.The purchaser had already made her "moral decision". He simply declined to assist her in executing it. He did, however, refer her to someone who would.

skunk

Oct 24, 2006, 06:48 AM

No you can believe anything you want, but it's whether actions based on personal beliefs impact unreasonably on others around you who do not share those beliefs.

A little inconvenience doesn't bother me, but having to go full term with an unwanted baby is hardly simple inconvenience.

But not all chemists who follow a faith put their personal beliefs before the service to their customers. Only remove those that limit their service because of their religious beliefs and I don't think the service offered overall would be greatly effected. It would however stop these isolated but unnecessarily stressful situation happening again and give assurance to the public.Would you apply these arguments equally in the case of euthanasia, if it were legal?

Ugg

Oct 24, 2006, 06:58 AM

The purchaser had already made her "moral decision". He simply declined to assist her in executing it. He did, however, refer her to someone who would.

What if the next chemist doesn't refer her to someone else? Should his license be revoked? Once again, this isn't simply about the morning after pill but about all drugs.

Should current birthrates in the UK continue, there's a good chance that at some point in the not too distant future that many chemists will be Muslim. What happens if there aren't any chemists in Leeds willing to dispense the morning after pill?

skunk

Oct 24, 2006, 07:06 AM

What if the next chemist doesn't refer her to someone else? Should his license be revoked? Once again, this isn't simply about the morning after pill but about all drugs.

Should current birthrates in the UK continue, there's a good chance that at some point in the not too distant future that many chemists will be Muslim. What happens if there aren't any chemists in Leeds willing to dispense the morning after pill?Presumably by that time there won't be enough god-fearing Christian folk in Leeds to create a demand. Seriously, this isn't anything to do with birthrates.

Ugg

Oct 24, 2006, 07:16 AM

Presumably by that time there won't be enough god-fearing Christian folk in Leeds to create a demand. Seriously, this isn't anything to do with birthrates.

Hmmm, I think it is. Overpopulation is probably the most serious problem in the world right now. I would think that responsible family planning would be seen as a positive issue and one to be embraced by all.

skunk

Oct 24, 2006, 07:17 AM

Hmmm, I think it is. Overpopulation is probably the most serious problem in the world right now. I would think that responsible family planning would be seen as a positive issue and one to be embraced by all.I'd hardly call rushing out after the event to a pharmacist "responsible family planning".

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 07:30 AM

Hmmm, I think it is. Overpopulation is probably the most serious problem in the world right now. I would think that responsible family planning would be seen as a positive issue and one to be embraced by all.

In Europe there's a huge problem with the falling birth rate. It's one of the biggest problems facing Europe.

mpw

Oct 24, 2006, 07:37 AM

Would you apply these arguments equally in the case of euthanasia, if it were legal?
Yes.

I imagine that if euthanasia were to be legalized in the UK it would involve the consent of at least two specialist doctors in that field.

I would hope a medical professional in that field would make decisions in the interest of individual patients not his own religious beliefs.

Ugg

Oct 24, 2006, 07:40 AM

In Europe there's a huge problem with the falling birth rate. It's one of the biggest problems facing Europe.

The same can be said for the US. The only difference is the level of immigration.

The population explosion in the middle east and parts of Africa and Asia are responsible for a great deal of social unrest and largely responsible for the waves of impoverished immigrants coming to Europe.

If family planning were an option in those areas, the world would be a much more peaceful place.

skunk

Oct 24, 2006, 07:41 AM

I would hope a medical professional in that field would make decisions in the interest of individual patients not his own religious beliefs.Seeing the divisions in the medical profession on this score, I think it's a vain hope.

skunk

Oct 24, 2006, 07:42 AM

The same can be said for the US. The only difference is the level of immigration.

The population explosion in the middle east and parts of Africa and Asia are responsible for a great deal of social unrest and largely responsible for the waves of impoverished immigrants coming to Europe.

If family planning were an option in those areas, the world would be a much more peaceful place.Slippery Slope Alert.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 07:42 AM

Yes.

I imagine that if euthanasia were to be legalized in the UK it would involve the consent of at least two specialist doctors in that field.

I would hope a medical professional in that field would make decisions in the interest of individual patients not his own religious beliefs.

Then you're putting one's religious beliefs over that of another and that is unfair. If I believe it is wrong to kill, I should be able to refrain from doing it. Why should the other guy's wants be more important than my beliefs?

mpw

Oct 24, 2006, 07:44 AM

Seeing the divisions in the medical profession on this score, I think it's a vain hope.
Probably the reason it's not legal.

No government would legalize it if the medical profession aren't in agreement as to it's practice.

Personally I'd be for it btw.

mpw

Oct 24, 2006, 07:48 AM

Then you're putting one's religious beliefs over that of another and that is unfair. If I believe it is wrong to kill, I should be able to refrain from doing it. Why should the other guy's wants be more important than my beliefs?
'Cause it's his body, his life?

You don't have to kill him to let him decide he wants to die or have a willing party assist him in that.

All the medical professional would need to do is say that in his medical opinion the patient is competent enough to make a judgement.

Ugg

Oct 24, 2006, 07:49 AM

Then you're putting one's religious beliefs over that of another and that is unfair. If I believe it is wrong to kill, I should be able to refrain from doing it. Why should the other guy's wants be more important than my beliefs?

Doctors who would approve euthanasia would likely not be forced to do so. Since there generally isn't an immediate need in such cases, I'm sure specialists could be brought in for consultation.

Doctors make life and death decisions every day. Have you ever heard of triage? If a doctor isn't willing to make those decisions, he shouldn't have become a doctor. Being a doctor isn't always about making people better, sometimes it's simply about alleviating pain and suffering.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 07:51 AM

Doctors who would approve euthanasia would likely not be forced to do so. Since there generally isn't an immediate need in such cases, I'm sure specialists could be brought in for consultation.

Doctors make life and death decisions every day. Have you ever heard of triage? If a doctor isn't willing to make those decisions, he shouldn't have become a doctor. Being a doctor isn't always about making people better, sometimes it's simply about alleviating pain and suffering.

Making split-second decisions or alleviating pain isn't the same think as euthanizing. But this is kind of a tangent. We should get back to the original matter.

Queso

Oct 24, 2006, 07:52 AM

I guess we're getting off topic here, but:-

We don't put animals through a long painful death under those circumstances. To deny terminally ill people the ability to go out with dignity rather than suffer for no benefit is downright evil.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 07:53 AM

'Cause it's his body, his life?

You don't have to kill him to let him decide he wants to die or have a willing party assist him in that.

All the medical professional would need to do is say that in his medical opinion the patient is competent enough to make a judgement.

Okay, so with birth control or abortion or whatever, it's their bodies, their lives, they can make the decision whether or not to do it. That doesn't mean that a doctor or a pharmacist is obligated to help them carry it out.

Ugg

Oct 24, 2006, 07:57 AM

Slippery Slope Alert.

Isn't the slippery slope issue here one of allowing the chemist's beliefs to trump the beliefs of his customer and possibly his cusomer's physician?

Once again, this case may be only about the morning after pill but a pharmacy is filled with a lot of truly life changing/threatening drugs. Why aren't they refusing to sell painkillers to drug addicts, methadone to recovering heroin addicts, antibiotics to those who don't need them (antibiotic overprescription is a serious problem) The list is endless. This issue isn't about religious beliefs but about discrimination towards women. Mainly because the sales of the morning after pill are relatively small in comparison to other drugs out there.

My argument may have teetered towards the edge, but the morning after pill issue is half way down the slope of religious hypocrisy.

Ugg

Oct 24, 2006, 08:07 AM

Okay, so with birth control or abortion or whatever, it's their bodies, their lives, they can make the decision whether or not to do it. That doesn't mean that a doctor or a pharmacist is obligated to help them carry it out.

What should a doctor or pharmacist be obligated to do? Or, should they each have their own set of guidelines and every patient who doesn't meet them be damned?

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 08:10 AM

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 08:12 AM

What should a doctor or pharmacist be obligated to do? Or, should they each have their own set of guidelines and every patient who doesn't meet them be damned?

No, you set up a set of rules about what a doctor or pharmacist is obliged to do. All that have the precedent of being squarely within the realm of healthcare must be sold. All that are in a grey area don't. Birth control is controversial whether you like it or not, and every pharmacist should be able to opt out from selling it until (if) there is a precedent and acceptance across the field of medicine that it is necessary to healthcare.

mpw

Oct 24, 2006, 08:24 AM

...That doesn't mean that a doctor or a pharmacist is obligated to help them carry it out.
Nor is he obligated to be a doctor or pharmacist, and I'd be happy if he took his personal beliefs with him as he leaves the profession.

The point I'm making is if you take a position where the public you're serving expect a certain level of service you should accept that and be prepared to meet those expectations.

Any doctor taking a position described above where his clinical judgement on a right to die would have accepted that level of responsibility.

If there aren't any doctors willing to take the position the law would need to change, likewise should we reach a situation where no pharmacist would supply the morning after pill the law would surely change.

In that situation they would probably be compelled by law to supply the drug. I wonder how many high-earning pharmacist would leave the profession or their religious beliefs. I bet some would 'suffer' having to bend their convictions rather than take a less well paid job, but I'm a cynic.

Queso

Oct 24, 2006, 08:24 AM

Birth control is controversial whether you like it or not
Birth control is only controversial because religious people keep trying to impose their beliefs on others.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 08:30 AM

Nor is he obligated to be a doctor or pharmacist, and I'd be happy if he took his personal beliefs with him as he leaves the profession.

The point I'm making is if you take a position where the public you're serving expect a certain level of service you should accept that and be prepared to meet those expectations.

And this pharmacist meets those expectations. He does everything a pharmacist is expected and required to do. As I wrote above, once (if) the morning after pill is no longer controversial, then it can be expected of him. But the fact of the matter is that the morning after pill is controversial and therefore it is not required of all pharmacists. Just because you sit on one side of this debate doesn't mean you can force your opinion on others.

If you really feel so strongly about it, don't argue that this guy should be required to sell the morning after pill. Argue for the merits of the pill, assuage the misgivings of this pharmacist. Don't just force your belief on him. You're arguing the wrong thing. If you really care about this issue, then debate the morning after pill because as of now it is a controversial drug and no one should be required to sell it.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 08:34 AM

Birth control is only controversial because religious people keep trying to impose their beliefs on others.

(Not that I necessarily believe this but) birth control is only controversial because atheists keep trying to impose their beliefs on others. You don't seem to understand that there are two sides to this issue and you can't just dismiss the one you disagree with. You'll get nowhere with this kind of talk. You're impeding any sort of progress we could have in this debate. You really should understand people's religious convictions, see that the might possibly have merit, and let them practice what they want. Is your crusade to force pharmacists to sell the morning after pill that different from a Christian trying to force you to not sell it? No, there isn't. They're both limiting your freedoms in an unacceptable way. I don't see why you're allowed to fight for what you think is right, but religious people aren't.

Ugg

Oct 24, 2006, 08:36 AM

It's a little bit harder to know who's a drug addict or who doesn't need antibiotics, etc. There just really isn't anyway to prevent these kinds of sales. If you know for a fact that the person filling the prescription is a drug addict and doesn't need the pills, then sure.

This is not the slippery slope to religious hypocrisy. And it is also not about the discrimination against women. If you look at the first feminists, they were vehemently against birth control. Just because women happen to be the ones to get pregnant does not make this discrimination against women.

Again it seems to me like you're obscuring the argument, not dealing with the issue and attacking the character of religious pharmacists. These are illogical arguments to make.

So only when the pharmacist knows for sure that the drug will be used for purposes against his religious beliefs should he not sell it? That's pretty lame and immoral as well. If due diligence is applied to the morning after pill then it needs to be applied to all drugs.

Yeah, and the founding fathers also didn't allow women to vote and allowed slavery. Times change, just because the first feminists didn't believe in abortion doesn't mean that it's wrong for women to believe in it now. Whenever an action is targeted towards one gender or another, then it's dsicrimination based on gender. There's no way around that.

Pharmacists who put their beliefs above the health and well being of the patients are acting immorally and with hypocrisy, especially when they don't take action on other the misuse or overuse of drugs that have much more serious moral implications.

Ugg

Oct 24, 2006, 08:40 AM

(Not that I necessarily believe this but) birth control is only controversial because atheists keep trying to impose their beliefs on others. You don't seem to understand that there are two sides to this issue and you can't just dismiss the one you disagree with. You'll get nowhere with this kind of talk. You're impeding any sort of progress we could have in this debate. You really should understand people's religious convictions, see that the might possibly have merit, and let them practice what they want. Is your crusade to force pharmacists to sell the morning after pill that different from a Christian trying to force you to not sell it? No, there isn't. They're both limiting your freedoms in an unacceptable way. I don't see why you're allowed to fight for what you think is right, but religious people aren't.

Not all religious people believe that abortion is immoral. Nor do all atheists believe it's moral. Why make this into a believer/nonbeliever argument?

What's at issue here is whether in a secular society people have a right to access certain drugs.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 08:43 AM

So only when the pharmacist knows for sure that the drug will be used for purposes against his religious beliefs should he not sell it? That's pretty lame and immoral as well. If due diligence is applied to the morning after pill then it needs to be applied to all drugs.

Yeah, and the founding fathers also didn't allow women to vote and allowed slavery. Times change, just because the first feminists didn't believe in abortion doesn't mean that it's wrong for women to believe in it now. Whenever an action is targeted towards one gender or another, then it's dsicrimination based on gender. There's no way around that.

Discrimination is denying someone something because they are a certain way. This pharmacist is not denying this woman the morning after pill because she's a women. She just happens to be. You have a pretty loose definition of discrimination. And the reason I brought up early feminists was not to say that women today are wrong for embracing birth control, but to show that it is possible to be a feminist and be anti-birth control. Therefore, being anti-birth control doesn't not make you sexist.

Pharmacists who put their beliefs above the health and well being of the patients are acting immorally and with hypocrisy, especially when they don't take action on other the misuse or overuse of drugs that have much more serious moral implications.

These claims are completely baseless and I'm still incredulous that you keep making them.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 08:45 AM

Not all religious people believe that abortion is immoral. Nor do all atheists believe it's moral. Why make this into a believer/nonbeliever argument?

What's at issue here is whether in a secular society people have a right to access certain drugs.

I made it that because dynamicv did. And people here in a secular society do have a right to access certain drugs. The pharmacist in question did not abridge that right. He did not remove all the morning after pills from the country and make it impossible for this woman to obtain one.

Queso

Oct 24, 2006, 08:45 AM

I don't see why you're allowed to fight for what you think is right, but religious people aren't.
Because they are fighting for their right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own lives and bodies, whereas I'm arguing that everyone be able to make their own decisions and live with the consequences.

As I posted above, the moral decision over this pill was with the possibly pregnant woman. If she chooses that she can live with her conscience and potentially terminate a possible pregnancy, no-one else should be able to prevent her from doing so.

BTW, I agree that the argument isn't entirely religion/anti-religion, but you can't argue that it tends to follow those lines.

Ugg

Oct 24, 2006, 08:48 AM

Discrimination is denying someone something because they are a certain way. This pharmacist is not denying this woman the morning after pill because she's a women. She just happens to be.

That's laughable. A woman who may be pregnant is certainly discriminating against someone who is a certain way especially since it's only women who can get pregnant.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 09:42 AM

Because they are fighting for their right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own lives and bodies, whereas I'm arguing that everyone be able to make their own decisions and live with the consequences.

As I posted above, the moral decision over this pill was with the possibly pregnant woman. If she chooses that she can live with her conscience and potentially terminate a possible pregnancy, no-one else should be able to prevent her from doing so.

BTW, I agree that the argument isn't entirely religion/anti-religion, but you can't argue that it tends to follow those lines.

You're right, no one should be able to prevent her from following her conscience. At the same time, no one should force a pharmacist to override theirs. You talk about consequences, think of the consequences for the Muslim. I don't know much about Muslim theology, but I can tell you the consequences had the pharmacist been Catholic. Had the pill caused an abortion, the guy would have been automatically excommunicated. Talk about conscience and consequences...

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 09:44 AM

That's laughable. A woman who may be pregnant is certainly discriminating against someone who is a certain way especially since it's only women who can get pregnant.

Is a plastic surgeon refusing to do a boob job sexist? I mean, who asks for boob jobs except for women?

Queso

Oct 24, 2006, 09:47 AM

You're right, no one should be able to prevent her from following her conscience. At the same time, no one should force a pharmacist to override theirs. You talk about consequences, think of the consequences for the Muslim. I don't know much about Muslim theology, but I can tell you the consequences had the pharmacist been Catholic. Had the pill caused an abortion, the guy would have been automatically excommunicated. Talk about conscience and consequences...
If a muslim or Catholic takes this pill themselves that is a valid argument. But unless the pharmacist forced open this customer's mouth and made her swallow the pill, the blame is 100% on her, is it not? She after all is the one that chooses to take it, not the pharmacist.

Is a plastic surgeon refusing to do a boob job sexist? I mean, who asks for boob jobs except for women?
Both sexes these days. Pec implant ops have been available for a while.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 09:48 AM

If a muslim or Catholic takes this pill themselves that is a valid argument. But unless the pharmacist forced open this customer's mouth and made her swallow the pill, the blame is 100% on her, is it not? She after all is the one that chooses to take it, not the pharmacist.

No, if you are an accessory to abortion in anyway, you're automatically excommunicated.

Queso

Oct 24, 2006, 09:59 AM

No, if you are an accessory to abortion in anyway, you're automatically excommunicated.
So what you're saying is that the pharmacist actually had no power to make the decision and/or follow their own conscience, because the decision had already been made for them by someone else and they had no right to think for themselves.

And you don't think there's anything wrong with this situation at all?

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 10:06 AM

So what you're saying is that the pharmacist actually had no power to make the decision and/or follow their own conscience, because the decision had already been made for them by someone else and they had no right to think for themselves.

And you don't think there's anything wrong with this situation at all?

No, that's not what I said. You know, just because you don't agree with religion doesn't mean you should be so disparaging all the time. Your ignorance of religion is overwhelming. Please take the time to understand the things that you're against.

And no, the pharmacist wasn't denied the power to make their own decision. He decided to believe in his religion, and if he believes it's right, then there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sorry, but I'm really having a hard time arguing with you about this because you really don't seem know anything about religion.

mpw

Oct 24, 2006, 10:08 AM

And this pharmacist meets those expectations. He does everything a pharmacist is expected and required to do....
No he doesn't.

...But the fact of the matter is that the morning after pill is controversial and therefore it is not required of all pharmacists...
It is? What's the controversy around the morning after pill, does it not work as it is intented? does it have harmful side effects?

Surely the controversy lies with the differing religious beliefs of the people involved in the scenario. In fact there isn't really any problem with controversy between the religious beliefs, the problem is purely one person denying another something because of those beliefs.

...Just because you sit on one side of this debate doesn't mean you can force your opinion on others...
Well excuse my desire for democracy and personal freedom. Maybe I do force my beliefs on people, but as I believe people should be given as much freedom over their own choices as possible and should act in such a way as their choices have the least impact on those around them I hardly fall into the burn-at-the-stake/nail-to-a-cross/blow-up-a-bus category.

...Argue for the merits of the pill, assuage the misgivings of this pharmacist. Don't just force your belief on him. You're arguing the wrong thing...
There's nothing to argue merit wise for or against the pill as far as I'm aware and I think the pharmacist would agree from a clinical POV. The only argument is based, in this case, on his religious beliefs being put before the personal choice of his customer.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 10:13 AM

No he doesn't.

It is? What's the controversy around the morning after pill, does it not work as it is intented? does it have harmful side effects?

Surely the controversy lies with the differing religious beliefs of the people involved in the scenario. In fact there isn't really any problem with controversy between the religious beliefs, the problem is purely one person denying another something because of those beliefs.

Well excuse my desire for democracy and personal freedom. Maybe I do force my beliefs on people, but as I believe people should be given as much freedom over their own choices as possible and should act in such a way as their choices have the least impact on those around them I hardly fall into the burn-at-the-stake/nail-to-a-cross/blow-up-a-bus category.

There's nothing to argue merit wise for or against the pill as far as I'm aware and I think the pharmacist would agree from a clinical POV. The only argument is based, in this case, on his religious beliefs being put before the personal choice of his customer.

Ever hear of medical ethics? Yes, there exists such a thing, even among the secular world. The morning after pill is controversial in the realm of medical ethics, a very legitimate field.

And now you're just being ridiculous with the burn-at-the-stake/nail-to-a-cross/blow-up-a-bus thing. Who was doing these things to deny someone the morning after pill? And the problem isn't "purely one person denying another something because of those beliefs." If the guy was forced to sell the pill, then it would have the same thing. Someone would have been forcing something because of their beliefs.

Mord

Oct 24, 2006, 10:16 AM

What it comes down to is that you cannot ever have positive discrimination.

I'm atheist and left wing for the most part and for birth control, but if it's against someone's beliefs to distribute a drug as part of their job working at a chemist I see no reason why that beleif should stop him from pursuing the career he chose. He referred them on to a chemist which would sell what the girl needed, it's like blameing a vegeterian shop owner for not stocking meat in a one shop town, sure it's inconvenient but it's his/her right.

skunk

Oct 24, 2006, 10:19 AM

Well put, Mord.

Don't panic

Oct 24, 2006, 10:22 AM

had the pharmacist been Catholic. Had the pill caused an abortion, the guy would have been automatically excommunicated
sorry, but this one you completely made up.

do you think that all the pharmacists selling condoms (or every employee of every drugstore in the us) are automatically excommunicated?
talk about laughable arguments.

mpw

Oct 24, 2006, 10:29 AM

Ever hear of medical ethics?...
Isn't that where the practitioner assess a situation against the following six principles?
Beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
Non-maleficence - "first, do no harm" (primum non nocere).
Autonomy - the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
Justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment.
Dignity - the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to dignity.
Truthfulness and honesty -the patient should not be lied to, and deserves to know the whole truth about his/her illness and treatment.

Where in that list is Religious Beliefs?

Queso

Oct 24, 2006, 10:44 AM

No, that's not what I said. You know, just because you don't agree with religion doesn't mean you should be so disparaging all the time. Your ignorance of religion is overwhelming. Please take the time to understand the things that you're against.
I am not attempting to be deliberately disparaging. I am merely questioning your reasoning, and since I do not have the religious faith which you appear to have, I cannot simply accept that something is right just because.

I'm arguing that the decision over whether that pill was taken, with the resulting potential abortion, is ultimately in the hands of the woman. She is the only one in this situation that knows all the circumstances. If the pharmacist had chosen to try and reason with her, and to dissuade her from her course of action there would be no discussion from my point of view. But by refusing to sell, the pharmacist is denying the woman the power to make that decision, and doing so based on values she herself does not hold. Whatever the Earth-bound political heirarchy around a religion says, God gave that woman both a brain and a conscience to use in that situation. It is ultimately between her and God as to whether that pill is swallowed or not. For all you know, God himself designed the entire situation as a test for her, so the pharmacist just went against God's wishes by preventing the test from occurring*

You can also argue that there are other pharmacies, but as mpw said above, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. What if the extreme religious right decide to buy up every pharmacy in an area, simply to ensure that this treatment could not be obtained?

Lastly, as for the consequences to the pharmacist, we are all free to choose whatever careers we wish. If you do not think an action is moral, you should not take on a career where you will be reasonably asked to go against your core beliefs on that action. Otherwise you are doing a disservice to yourself and to your customers/patients/clients.

* Not attempting to be fascescious there. Just pointing out that if God exists, nbne of us know what he/she/it is thinking.

skunk

Oct 24, 2006, 11:01 AM

skunk

Oct 24, 2006, 11:18 AM

You can also argue that there are other pharmacies, but as mpw said above, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. What if the extreme religious right decide to buy up every pharmacy in an area, simply to ensure that this treatment could not be obtained?This situation has existed for years without comment from anyone. I wonder why nobody raised it before? We are not talking about any extremists here, just a man following his convictions to nobody's disadvantage. It's not like he's a bloody jihadi: he just thinks it's wrong. It seems civilised to allow him to choose, too, in the very limited range of circumstances where his own belief might be in conflict with the requirements of his job.
Lastly, as for the consequences to the pharmacist, we are all free to choose whatever careers we wish. If you do not think an action is moral, you should not take on a career where you will be reasonably asked to go against your core beliefs on that action. Otherwise you are doing a disservice to yourself and to your customers/patients/clients.But he went into a profession where it was accepted and understood that such conflicts were not an insurmountable problem. You just have to refer the customer to someone else.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 01:20 PM

sorry, but this one you completely made up.

do you think that all the pharmacists selling condoms (or every employee of every drugstore in the us) are automatically excommunicated?
talk about laughable arguments.

I did not say that selling birth control was grounds for automatic excommunication. I said that being an accessory to an abortion was grounds for automatic excommunication, and unlike condoms, the morning after pill has the possibility of causing one.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 01:22 PM

This situation has existed for years without comment from anyone. I wonder why nobody raised it before? We are not talking about any extremists here, just a man following his convictions to nobody's disadvantage. It's not like he's a bloody jihadi: he just thinks it's wrong. It seems civilised to allow him to choose, too, in the very limited range of circumstances where his own belief might be in conflict with the requirements of his job.
But he went into a profession where it was accepted and understood that such conflicts were not an insurmountable problem. You just have to refer the customer to someone else.

I completely agree. We aren't talking about an extreme situation, but one in which a moderate religious person should be able to hold and act upon his own beliefs.

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 01:28 PM

Isn't that where the practitioner assess a situation against the following six principles?
Beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
Non-maleficence - "first, do no harm" (primum non nocere).
Autonomy - the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
Justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment.
Dignity - the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to dignity.
Truthfulness and honesty -the patient should not be lied to, and deserves to know the whole truth about his/her illness and treatment.

Where in that list is Religious Beliefs?

I never said that medical ethics had a clause for religious beliefs, but that medical ethics require beliefs themselves and that the morning after pill does not squarely fall on the side of medically ethical even within the framework you provided.

First of all, who determined these guidelines? And who determines what "do no harm" means? Does it mean do not harm the unborn fetus? Does it mean do not harm the mother? Who are we not harming? We don't know when life begins, so the morning after pill, which has the possibility to cause an abortion, might be doing harm. At the same time, having the baby come to term might be harmful to the mother, whether physically or emotionally. Who trumps whom? We can't say because medical ethics and the general consensus of the population has not come down on either side.

My point is that in medical ethics, the morality of the morning after pill is in debate, not just in religion. So by forcing a pharmacist to sell it, you're foregoing the processes of medical ethics and forcing your beliefs about a morally grey area onto someone else.

Don't panic

Oct 24, 2006, 04:30 PM

The morning after pill has the possibility of causing one.
Let's clear one thing.
The 'morning after pill" does NOT work by procuring abortion.
That's RU-486, a completely different chemical.

It is a contraceptive. like condoms, IUD or the pill (it is the pill, just different dosage)
It normally prevents ovulation and fertilization. Only rarely (and not efficiently) it could block implantation (there is actually no real evidence for this).
It will NOT affect a pregnancy, at any stage. That's why it has to be used early.

the earlier it is used, the most efficiently it will work; the later it is used, the more chances it might block implantation, rather than ovulation/fertilization.

Ironically by preventing early access to contraceptive treatment, the catholic church (and our friendly chemist) is de facto, forcing women to seek it later, therefore being a direct accessory to an increased number of abortions.

automatic self-excommunication for the pope?

Macaddicttt

Oct 24, 2006, 05:17 PM

Let's clear one thing.
The 'morning after pill" does NOT work by procuring abortion.
That's RU-486, a completely different chemical.

It is a contraceptive. like condoms, IUD or the pill (it is the pill, just different dosage)
It normally prevents ovulation and fertilization. Only rarely (and not efficiently) it could block implantation (there is actually no real evidence for this).
It will NOT affect a pregnancy, at any stage. That's why it has to be used early.

the earlier it is used, the most efficiently it will work; the later it is used, the more chances it might block implantation, rather than ovulation/fertilization.

Right here, see, it may block implantation, i.e. an abortion. This, not contraceptives, would be automatic excommunication. I didn't say that the morning after pill always performed an abortion, but has the possibility to.

Ironically by preventing early access to contraceptive treatment, the catholic church (and our friendly chemist) is de facto, forcing women to seek it later, therefore being a direct accessory to an increased number of abortions.

automatic self-excommunication for the pope?

Okay, now you're just being ridiculous. Your ignorance is astounding. Really, you should know about the Church before you start saying things as ridiculous as this. Preventing early access to contraceptives does not "de facto" force women to seek abortions. The Church, and I'm sure this Muslim chemist, wants to prevent both the use of contraceptives and abortions.

If they had to choose between an abortion or contraceptives, I'm sure they would choose contraceptives. But as I pointed out, the morning after pill has the distinct possibility to cause an abortion. You'll notice that the chemist in question was not refusing to sell condoms or the pill or any other contraceptive, but one that had the possibility to cause an abortion.

solvs

Oct 24, 2006, 05:33 PM

It seems civilised to allow him to choose, too, in the very limited range of circumstances where his own belief might be in conflict with the requirements of his job.
Then he should have another job. It may be that her insurance can be used somewhere else, but that's not the case. The job requires it. If he can't do that for religious reasons, he needs to find another job that will better cater to him. Having worked at a hospital run by nuns, if I was an atheist, but didn't have a problem with religion, it would have been fine. If I did, I shouldn't have worked there. Though they couldn't have fired me for not being religious because it works both ways. Your rights end where mine begin. If he can't do the job, he shouldn't do it. Not like he could be an abortion doctor either.

That, and this isn't an abortion pill. :rolleyes: I don't know why people call it that. For those who are confused, go read up on how long it takes for the egg to become fertilized and start to become a viable embryo or even fetus. He shouldn't refuse condoms or birth control either for the same reasons.

"If taken after sex but before ovulation, it can prevent ovulation and so prevent pregnancy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone)

mactastic

Oct 24, 2006, 05:34 PM

So if you go to the grocery store and the vegan working the register refuses to sell you your meat, is that acceptable?

How about an Earth First!er working as a state parks employee who refuses you entry to the park?

solvs

Oct 24, 2006, 05:48 PM

So if you go to the grocery store and the vegan working the register refuses to sell you your meat, is that acceptable?
Yeah, I was going to say you aren't going to a vegan shop and expecting meat. It's more like going to a steak house and the waiter refuses to serve you meat because he thinks it's murder. But he'll serve other things that have animal byproducts in them and may even wear leather shoes himself. Yours is good too though. ;)

And I forgot to mention the forcing your beliefs on somebody thing. Isn't he forcing his belief on her? She isn't forcing him to get an abortion, why does he get to decide what's best for her?

Don't panic

Oct 24, 2006, 06:50 PM

Right here, see, it may block implantation, i.e. an abortion. This, not contraceptives, would be automatic excommunication. I didn't say that the morning after pill always performed an abortion, but has the possibility to.

Come down, mac.
First of all, the natural implantation rate is low, the initiation of a pregnancy is normally considered at implantation (the catholic church uses fertilization, I don't know about islam or other religions). many other contraceptives block implantation, but i don't see the outrage.

Anyways, even accepting fertilization as the starting point for a pregnancy, the fact remain that levonorgestrel (plan B) may block implantation, but there is no direct evidence that it does. The proven mechanism of action is by blocking ovulation/fertilization (see below). That it actually blocks implantation is purely speculative as of what we currently know.

A lot of things have 'the distinct possibility' of interfering with an actual pregnancy (which this drug does not) or to prevent one: alcohol, smoking, tons of drugs and lifestyles. Any time a bartender serves a woman a drink, there is the "distinct possibility" that she might be or getting pregnant and that the drink will reduce the probability of the pregnancy being successful. I certainly hope you don't think he's automatically hellbent.

Okay, now you're just being ridiculous. Your ignorance is astounding. Really, you should know about the Church before you start saying things as ridiculous as this. Preventing early access to contraceptives does not "de facto" force women to seek abortions. The Church, and I'm sure this Muslim chemist, wants to prevent both the use of contraceptives and abortions.

the only 'astounding' thing here is your arrogance. You don't know jack about me or what I do or don't know about the catholic church, so please refrain from any personal insult, because the only one making up stuff here is you (hopefully out of ignorance and not bad faith).

I didn't think I would need to spell this out, but here we go:

Women who look for emergency contraceptive obviously do not want to carry on the pregnancy.
the contraceptive efficacy of the pill is maximum immediately and up to 12 hours after intercourse, it remains effective later but it declines and it becomes completely ineffective at implantation or after 72-96 hours.
Simplifying, it works mainly by:
a) inducing a change in the cervical and uterine environments that 'paralyzes sperms' thus preventing fertilization;
b) blocking ovulation;
c) making ova more resistant to fertilization;
the claim that it acts on post-fertilization events is speculative: there is no direct evidence to support it, but it cannot be completely excluded.
if you assume that this occurs, it would be obviously more likely to be involved later rather than early given the physiology of fertilization.

so when a woman who wants to avoid a pregnancy goes to the local pharmacy (or a rape victim who is transported to a catholic hospital ER), and the treatment is denied, she will seek the treatment elsewhere (she doesn't want this, remember?).

how much later will depend on how easily she can find another source, and how traumatizing the first experience was. In any case her "contraceptive windows" is closing fast.

when she finally finds the treatment, the chances that it 'may' work post-fertilization rather then as a contraceptive are higher. certainly higher are the chances it will NOT work. In this case, the unfortunate girl will have to seek additional alternatives: RU-486 and other early pregnancy abortion procedures.
So your heroic stance not to provide a contraceptive, just lead to an abortion, which not only drags you in hell, but causes totally unnecessary economical, social, physical and psychological damages. bravo.

and before you put on your shining armor and charge claiming how 'ridiculous' this scenario is, please consider that, just in the US, there are 25-30,000 "rape pregnancies" each year, and that it is estimated that 'plan B' and similar drugs might reduce the over 3,000,000 yearly abortion procedures by 30%.

so maybe next time, before spewing judgments on other people I strongly advise you to try to get documented beyond what you priest feeds you.

Don't panic

Oct 24, 2006, 07:33 PM

sorry for the double post, but this exchange: Originally Posted by Don't panic
Let's clear one thing.
The 'morning after pill" does NOT work by procuring abortion.
That's RU-486, a completely different chemical.
It is a contraceptive. like condoms, IUD or the pill (it is the pill, just different dosage)
It normally prevents ovulation and fertilization. Only rarely (and not efficiently) it could block implantation (there is actually no real evidence for this).
It will NOT affect a pregnancy, at any stage. That's why it has to be used early.

Right here, see, it may block implantation, i.e. an abortion.

reminded me of this old joke (approximated from memory):

- But sweethart, I don’t understand.
Why are you leaving me? Everything was going great!
- No it wasn’t.
- So what is it,? I need to know.
- Well, a bunch of stuff. We fight all the time, we never really talk.
You don’t care about me. Never give a hand in the house, prepare dinner, say something nice, show that you care…
- Is it the sex?
- No, it is the fact that you go out to the bar and come home drunk, that you watch porn on tv and behave like a pig, and I still haven’t forgot about the stripper…
- Am I bad in bed? Is my penis small?
- That’s not the point, but if you want to know the sex wasn’t exactly that great, but it is much more than that…
- I knew it, you’re leaving me just because my penis is small…