[Commentary] If You Cannot Do the Job, Then You Need to Leave the Profession

[belinus]

I know I have probably touched on this topic once before but since it seems to be making a comeback I think it needs to be addressed again. Of course I am talking about the movement in the Pharmacist profession to legally allow pharmacists to deny patients prescriptions based on so-called "moral" grounds. The latest one to consider this is Wyoming

Comments

[devx1101]

Ok, I don't understand this...

Let's use an entirely hypothetical example scenario:

I go to my usual doctor for really bad seasonal allergies. He runs some tests, asks some questions, prescribes Allegra, tells me everything will be fine and sends me on my way. I go to the pharmacy to pick up my prescription and the pharmacist on duty tells me he refuses. In this case, let's just say that he wrongly heard Allegra was tested on animals or something and he's against that.

Now what are my options exactly? Are you saying this new legislation will allow the pharmacist to deny me just like that? Is the patient's only recourse to try pharmacy after pharmacy until they find one that will give them what they want? This regulation sounds like it will help fuel an underground aftermarket drug industry and pharmacies that tout "Will fill ANY prescription" as their advertising slogans. If you deny people drugs they need, they'll go somewhere else to get them, even if the legality of their source is a bit gray.

[belinus]

If you're lucky, they will give you the prescription back and you can take it to another pharmacy. There have been some cases, and I imagine lawsuits to follow, where women seeking birth control have been unable to get the prescription back from the refusing pharmacist (I have only seen one documented case and I believe the pharmacist involved was either terminated or sanctioned just this side of termination

[weebax]

My question is this: why than be a pharmacist if you plan to deny people their rights based on your ebeliefs that's bullshit!!

[belinus]

Because in America Christians think their "morality" trumps everyone else.

[weebax]

Canadian Right Wing Christians aren't any better. They tried to push recently to get the age of concent raised to 16. It was defeated inthe house.

Where they sit around acting as if they are superior to everyone instead of getting their hands involved in real issues (like putting Bush's Ass out on a split after he and his adminstration fucked up so bad in New Orlean's!) But not hey will forgive hima nd hypotesise that NO diserve what they got because of their amoral lifestyle thus increaing the wrathe of "god."

Sad indeed.

[belinus]

Exactly. People are be starving on the streets, children and the elderly are be dying because they cannot get the medical care they need, the poor are getting poorer. Of course all of that is secondary to stopping abortion, birth control, gays getting married, etc.

One thing I have noticed about the Canadian Right Wing is that they seem to try to emulate the US Right Wing too much. Like in the fight against gay marriage they brought in a few "consultants" from the US to help them and one thing I have observed in terms of Canadian politics is that Canadian people get very offended by the notion that Canada should do whatever the US does.

Hopefully the Canadian right Wing will suffer the same meltdown the US one is since both centers of power in either house of Congress are getting nailed right now.

[roadrage19]

I agree with you 100% on this. That is ridiculous. It's just like the gay marriage deal here in Canada... religious groups are not obligated to perform the marriages if they don't believe it in. But where does this end? Should clerks who fills out the marriage licences be allowed to refuse to do it on moral grounds? What about the clerk at the Office of Vital Statisitics? Like where does it stop!

[belinus]

Agreed. Religious entities are private and therefore not subject to a lot of requirements. I agree with that stance just as I agreed with the Boy Scouts of America v Dale decision because private entities should be able to choose who they will and will not associate with even if it is on fundamental grounds like homosexuality or atheism. (On a side note, BSoA cannot seem to comprehend that the ruling works in two directions and that other entities are not required to associate with them).

As for the clerks, I think they should be fired if they refuse to do their job. They are paid with public money to serve the public and that includes any individual of groups they disagree with. If they do not want to have to serve homosexuals, then they need to remove themselves from the job that might require them to do so.

[vorpal]

So what's the dealio, Cornelius? Did you get your car back? Will you be gracing us with your presence today? Jeff was supposed to e-mail you and ask you, but I think he forgot. Oh! I've also been told that if you come, I'm to remind you to bring all of Jeff's mail :D.

*many hugs and a little spank or two*