You should subscribe to the Ziztur.com RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
It seems that before Bush leaves office, he is planning to pass the Right of Conscience rule, which will broaden the current rules allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions to a new rule that permits doctors, nurses, and other health care workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly artificial insemination and birth control. If this law passes, that means that the government will have the ability to force employers to retain employees, such as pharmacists, for not participating in certain morally-objectionable procedures such as dispensing contraceptives.
Pardon me, but I am going to have to switch into scathing mode for a moment:
< scathing commentary >
You are a pharmacist. Your job is to follow the pharmacological code of ethics and fill people’s prescriptions. Your job is not to pass moral judgment on the individual asking you to fill the prescription, or the doctor who prescribed the prescription. I know you want to harp on about how your freedoms are being violated, but they aren’t. Consider this, and read it slowly:
My mother takes contraceptives. My father had a vasectomy. My mother is 49 and she has three adult children. My mother takes contraceptives to regulate her hormones. Without these contraceptives, my mother bleeds profusely and is intense pain. These contraceptives are prescribed to her by her doctor to prevent this pain, not to prevent pregnancy.
Because my menstrual periods are quite wacky, it has been suggested that I take contraceptives to prevent osteoporosis. Other non-birth control reasons might be: PCOS, as hormone therapy for women who have hyperthyroidism or other hormonal disorders, endometriosis, etc.
Even if you are morally opposed to contraceptives, how do you know that your patient is taking said contraceptive pills for birth control, or for some other medical reason? The only way for you to know is to disrespect the autonomy and dignity of your patient. The only way for you to know is if you ask. But it is not your job to pry into the personal lives of women to ask if they are taking birth control because they have cancer, or if they are taking birth control because they have sex.It is also not your job to undermine the doctor-patient relationship.
Your job is to be a pharmacist. That means you do your job. Your job is to fill prescriptions. your job is not to decide if a prescription prescribed by a doctor is appropriate for your patient – that has already been decided for you. If you find part of your job morally or religiously questionable, find a new job.
< / scathing commentary >
It’s simple. Should a meatpacking company be forced by the govornment to retain an employee who refuses to work because he morall opposes the killing of animals? Should Planned Parenthood be forced by the govornment to retain an employee who opposes abortion and so refuses to give any information about abortion out over the phone?
Should doctors be allowed to refuse to perform abortions? I think so, actually. A doctor who opposes abortion would be rightfully performing surgery outside of his scope of practice – he would not be the best individual for the job. If a doctor knows another doctor would be better suited to provide care for his patient, he is obligated to refer his patient to someone else. I don’t know of any doctors who were forced to perform abortions or any other surgical procedure they did not feel qualified to do. But should an abortion clinic be forced by the govornment to retain a doctor who was hired to perform abortions but now refuses? No.
Contact Ziztur at ZizturIsWrong at gmail dot com.
Follow Ziztur on Twitter
You have missed the point of my post.The point is that employers should not be forced to continue to employ an individual that is not fulfilling the requirements of his or her job.You are setting up a seriously ridiculous strawman with your entire comment. We are not insisting a doctor MUST perform a service at all.Of course doctors have the right to refuse to not do their job duties – and employers have the right to fire them.
I will assume you agree it is right an individual be free to become a doctor or pharmacist or nurse or what have or, instead, become a fireman, journalist, accountant, artist, etc. If you agree with the liberty to choose a profession, then, to be logically consistent, you must also agree one is free to provide a service or product for free or for payment or not to offer it at all. It always surprises me that individuals, particularly in the United States, will not hesitate to say they have the right to invite this person or that one or not to a house party and then immediately afterward claim a doctor MUST provide assistance to another even though, fundamentally, the two individual choices are the same. I will assume you do not believe doctors, nurses, pharmacists, or other health professionals to be slaves to the needs of those in need, i.e., because one IS a doctor one has no choice but to provide one’s knowledge, talent, skill and experience to another, however, for another or for society as a whole to advocate dictatorial control over their professional lives is precisely that. These professions aren’t slavery or mandatory service to others, they are voluntary professions. There is no difference in their making personal choices regarding who to serve and who not to serve and a storekeeper deciding to sell one brand of detergent over another … or refusing to sell any detergent at all.If one earns a medical degree or certification, do you claim one MUST be a doctor merely because one has the education, training and certifications? If a certified doctor later decides to become a writer, is society within its rights to insist he work or continue working as a doctor? If a pharmacist decides to instead sell used cars, is it right to compel him to remain a pharmacist?There is no inalienable right to medical assistance. One has an inalienable right to seek assistance, however, there isn’t and cannot be an inalienable right to the services of another. If that is true, your neighbor has an inalienable right to your cooking services any time they request it. You certainly have the inalienable right to purchase birth control, however, you have no such right to demand birth control from anyone simply because they are qualified as a pharmacist. Your right extends only to those who are willing voluntarily to sell you that product.I am a professional translator, however, I no longer translate and instead occupy myself with writing poetry, fiction and non-fiction. Because I CAN translate several languages, does society have the right to demand I translate instead of pursue my other interests because I value them more than my previous profession?You cannot compel another to sell you a thing or service neither simply because they have it or are qualified to provide it nor simply because you have need of it. Perhaps you believe you are free to go into any home you choose and raid the refrigerator simply because you are hungry and are suffering. Your shortcomings aren’t the automatic obligations of others.To demand a product or service of a health professional without freedom of refusal is precisely the same as demanding the shoes from their feet for free. To compel trade is fundamentally the same as outright theft. It is a slap in the face of free commerce and the right of self-determination.
This is actual text from the proposal:The fourth conscience provision, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(d), provides that “[n]o individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by [the Department] if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions”Pharmacists, being employed individuals, and “dispensing contraception” being a part of a health service, does fall under the blanket of “any part of a health service program” – they don’t have to mention pharmacists filling prescriptions specifically because the their wording.
The proposal Bush is finalizing simply enforces federal laws that already exist, by putting penalties in place for facilities getting federal funds that subject pro-life doctors to discrimination over abortion. It also protects facilities that don’t want to do abortions on their property against law suits. There is nothing in the proposal that has been revealed that even touches on a pharmacists right to deny filling a prescription. There are 3 existing federal laws already in place that provide conscience clauses on surgical abortions for medical centers and personnel and allow an opt out of dispensing the abortion drug mifepristone, or RU 486, and the morning after pill, which is not a prescription at all. There is nothing in the proposal about contraceptions at all. As a matter of fact, the proposal states that those in the medical field can simply refuse to give advice, and since you don’t want them prying anyways…
Exactly as Ziztur said. That’s a truly incredible strawman you’ve attempted to create there.To use your previous profession of Translator, we are absolutely NOT saying that you must translate something whenever someone tells you to. That’s a truly bizarre distortion there, guy. We’re saying that if you WERE ACTUALLY HIRED TO TRANSLATE, and were on the clock as a translator, yet refused to translate something specifically within the duties of your employment, then your employer has the right to fire you. This law would prevent your employer from being able to fire you for refusing to perform your job.We obviously do consider a person to have a right to not do a job. If a person does take a job, however, their employer absolutely should have the right to fire them if they specifically refuse to do any part of their job.This will sound harsh, but to be perfectly frank, it is beyond me how you thought that your absurd strawman was even remotely honest or valid.
Highboy said:”As a matter of fact, the proposal states that those in the medical field can simply refuse to give advice, and since you don’t want them prying anyways…”Errrr . . . Have I missed something here? I seems like you’re equating ‘giving advice’ with ‘prying.’ How on earth do you come to the conclusion that being required to give advice or counsel on a service when asked equates to “prying” into the patients private lives?
*because OF their wording.