I already know Ben's views on a number of political topics, which leads me to give him all the respect he deserves.Originally Posted by Crispus
I tend to sit on the fence on the abortion issue in general -- like most Americans, I have less of a problem with day-after pills and early-term abortions than I do late-term procedures, even though I'm unable to come up with a philosophically consistent basis for where to draw the line as to when life begins -- and I'm arguing against governmental regulation.
Doctors aren't governmet employees, and theyre' still considering "public servants", providing a public service, no? This has just never come up because no one's been enough of a dipshit to do this prescription refusual stuff yet.
No, they are not, unless perchance they work for a government run hospital.
Of course, if the government is footing all or part of the bill, they can put restrictions on private enterprises, i.e., if Medicare is paying for any of your patients, you cannot refuse treatment on X, Y or Z grounds. But that isn't the same as the doctors being public employees. The doctors/hospital/whatever still have a choice in the matter.
That works for me, then. I have yet to see a pharmacy that didn't accept Medicare, and would be quite surprised if any even existed, just based on a couple years working with Medicare billing software for hospitals.
Just because they're not paid by the government doesn't mean they aren't performing a public service and get all sorts of deference here and there on those grounds. "Public employees", no, because they quite obviously aren't employed by the government.No, they are not, unless perchance they work for a government run hospital.
Of course, if the government is footing all or part of the bill, they can put restrictions on private enterprises, i.e., if Medicare is paying for any of your patients, you cannot refuse treatment on X, Y or Z grounds. But that isn't the same as the doctors being public employees. The doctors/hospital/whatever still have a choice in the matter.
There's some sort of vague "society has a larger interest in medicine than, say, television manufacturing" principle I'm trying to drunkenly stumble towards here.
Well, that's true of lots of professions. That's why we regulate them and demand adherence to certain standards. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc all must have certain professional certifications and abide by certain rules of professional conduct or they can be barred from practicing.
I'm really not sure about pharmacists, is there a professional certification beyond college degree or special licensing required to be a pharmacist?
Good point. If the government can tell airline employees they can't strike, why can't they tell pharmacists to fill their prescriptions? The public transportation union here in NYC is treatening to strike on Wednesday, but the city can fine each worker a $1,000 a day.Just because they're not paid by the government doesn't mean they aren't performing a public service and get all sorts of deference here and there on those grounds. "Public employees", no, because they quite obviously aren't employed by the government.
Both groups have a simple choice. Deal with what Uncle Sam tells you to do, because it's what's right for the general populace, deal with whatever fine is in place for not doing your job, or find another job. It's not like you can just graduate high school and start flying 757's.
Just reinforcing Jason's point that civilian occupations aren't always immune from goverment regulation.
Except that all of the above examples are examples of competence-based licensing. Basically, the state says you have to prove you know something about, say, the law before you can practice as a lawyer. This is because it is awfully easy for a lawyer (or doctor, or etc.) to royally fuck someone's life up through ineptitude, and it's awfully hard for the general public to know who is or isn't competent.
And yes, pharmacists are subject to similar regulations. So are engineers in some areas. Those regs are designed to ameliorate the problem of information cost to the general public.
Can the government do that to airline employees? I honestly don't know.
Public transit in NYC, howver, is a function of the city government, and the public transportation union's employees are all paid from the city government's coffers. Thus, it is a poor analogy to use.
Not entirely correct. If the core issue was just competence then we wouldn't see people being barred from practicing as lawyers/stock brokers/etc for ethical violations. Since we do see that, there is a bit more going on than just competence assesment in these professional licensing bodies.Except that all of the above examples are examples of competence-based licensing. Basically, the state says you have to prove you know something about, say, the law before you can practice as a lawyer. This is because it is awfully easy for a lawyer (or doctor, or etc.) to royally fuck someone's life up through ineptitude, and it's awfully hard for the general public to know who is or isn't competent.
And yes, pharmacists are subject to similar regulations. So are engineers in some areas. Those regs are designed to ameliorate the problem of information cost to the general public.
http://www.google.com/search?q=airline+employee+strike
Truman blocked railway employees from striking during the Korean War too, I think. Nebelous "national security = screw workers," but there you go.
Graeme- I'm not pro-life. Whoops. Guess you aren't as familar with my political views as you believe. But good move on throwing in the "American" jab. You cut me to the quick with that one.
Crispus- I believe shift6 is the only pro-lifer in this thread, though I'm obviously not sure about everyone.
McCullough- Doctors aren't considered public servants by anyone who knows what the term public servant means. What deference do they get on those grounds?
Triggerhappy-The government can tell anyone to do anything they want. They've got all the guns, after all. What the government should do is the debate.If the government can tell airline employees they can't strike, why can't they tell pharmacists to fill their prescriptions?
I still stand by my eliminate the need for prescriptions solution.
And anybody who disagrees with me must be in the pocket of Big Pharma. :lol:
Lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their clients -- his trustworthiness is part of his competence.
Is there a job that this isn't true for?
What about certain private doctors? Under your interpretation, are appointment-only proctologists also public servants? How about dermatologists? Radiologists? Opthamologists?
Also would this definition of public servant apply to jobs like the bridge engineer who has to meet certain public safety expectations? Or the pilot who flies hundreds of routes per year? How about the hot dog vendor who needs to make sure he isn't selling nasty weiners in front of the LA expo center during E3?
Honest questions here; I too am trying to figure out your drunken stumbling. :wink:
Striking is a government-protected activity (labor laws, etc). In this case, the government is rescinding an activity it normally allows for a specific purpose. Same with Reagen and the airlines in 198x. If the government didn't specifically allow striking, then anytime the workers hit the pavement, management would probably start dealing pink slips like ninja stars.
And all of them can decline to help whomever they like, except in the very specific case of doctors and time-critical life-saving medicine. Yet we still certify them and allow them to practice and allow them to take actions that may expose them to sanctions from their employer as well as civil/criminal liability to their clients. All of which I think you agree with, BTW, I'm just extending the analogy. :)
Whoa there, partner. Not me. I'm pro-death. previous thread.
In fact, I intend (for whatever that's worth) to post a ginorm... uh, huge article on my blog by the end of the year on why the Bible doesn't say that there is a human being (soul) in the womb, the claim that most pro-life religious zealots make. I also want to do a piece on why the earth isn't only 6000 years old, but that's not the topic here. :)
You have countered my argument that professional licensing bodies judge ethics by pointing out that they actually judge competence (which you define as ethics + proper skills to do the job). So, um, sure. You win man.Lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their clients -- his trustworthiness is part of his competence.
Either way, the original point I was making stands. Society finds it necessary to regulate the behavior of certain important professions, and this includes governing their professional ethics and behavior, not just testing their skills and knowledge.
Shift, I guess the difference is "bridge engineers aren't providing emergency treatment of any kind." Firefighter engineers, maybe?
Yes. Most of them. "Fiduciary" means a heightened standard of care with respect to your clients.Is there a job that this isn't true for?
By that rationale, doctors are only public servants while they are actually in the act of providing emergency care. Correct? How about a pilot who normally isn't flying in an emergency but then when some mechanical shit hits the fan manages to land the plane saving the lives of 100 passengers?
Also, a continually ignored question I've posed: how is using the EC pill within three days a medical emergency like a car crash, when another pill (RU-486) is available which is effective during the first 7 weeks? Seems to me that this other non-abortion option which gives a huge window of viability completely removes the time-critical aspect.
What does this response have to do with anything? The issue isn't public opinion but the availability of drugs in anti-abortion enclaves (which, if you looked at the election map, might well equal 1/2 of the land area in the US, if not in the urban areas). And if things were so nuanced how does Texas, the second largest state, churn out nothing but anti-abortion representatives? Again, i think you're grossly mischaracterizing this movement.Poll after poll after poll shows Americans deeply divided on the abortion issue, and while the numbers tend towards anti-abortion in some areas, it's hardly that huge a split. Furthermore, most Americans have a fairly nuanced view of abortion; many, if not most, who self-describe as anti-abortion are opposed to later-term procedures, and have much less of a problem with dealing with things at the zygote stage. Finally, you assume that self-describing as anti-abortion necessarily means a certain depth of conviction. I suspect most people see the issue as a little more abstract than that, and would never think of altering their work practices -- simply because it would never occur to them to do so.
Self-described anti abortion advocates are, like most Americans, generally apathetic. But giving this easy 'window' of opportunity would spread anti-abortion advocacy to any sort of OTC abortion drug, and quite possible, many kinds of birth control.
Just to help frame this debate (from the American Prospect):
This situation does not describe one where there is a moderate and statesmanlike approach to the anti-abortion movement, but a rabid fundamentalist fervor to ban it in every situation and every place. 75% of 16% banned gay marriage in Texas, but banned it is, however "nuanced" the overall population is or small the proportion of votes.A scorecard on Maloney's Web site shows that from Feb. 14, 1995, to July 29, 2003, Congress held 185 votes on abortion issues. Of those, 152, or 82 percent, were anti-abortion. As Maloney's scorecard notes, "Of the remaining 33 pro-choice votes, many are categorized as such not because a pro-choice measure was passed but rather because an anti-choice measure failed. That constitutes a far more modest victory for pro-choice members."
The scorecard also doesn't include the late-term ban and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, both of which were signed into law and severely restrict a woman's right to choose.
Republicans are also loath to consider more moderate alternatives. In February, by a vote of 229 to 186, the House defeated Representative Zoe Lofgren's amendment to make it a federal crime to commit a violent assault against a pregnant woman that causes her to lose the baby. Instead, the House passed, by 254 to 163, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which gives legal status to the fetus. And Representative Nancy Johnson was the only GOP lawmaker to show up last week at a press conference to introduce legislation aimed at preventing unintended pregnancy, improving women's health, and reducing the number of abortions.
The situation in the states is also dire. As The Washington Post reported Sunday, 450 laws restricting abortion access have been passed by state legislatures in the nine years since the GOP took control of much of the government following the 1994 Republican revolution.
Legally defining fetuses as murder victims is, whatever you might sputter in defense of, simply another tactic to wedge fetal rights precedents into law.
[/quote]If that were to happen it would all work out, because aliens from the planet Zebular V would come down and eat the fundamentalists. Hey, if you can posit a crazy-ass situation, I get to posit a crazy-ass solution.
We can create half-assed conspiracy theories that would have Dan Brown rolling his eyes all day, but that isn't particularly useful or productive. We live in the real world, so you'll forgive me if I don't rise to your bait.
I must congratulate myself on winning this debate! Apparently instead of answering directly you must resort to round about diversions and humor; of course, if you had answered it you would have lost. Because in a hypothetical country where virtually all pharmacists had anti-EC beliefs and refused to prescribe them, legislation would have to be passed compelling them or making other measures to be able to distribute these drugs to those whom want them. But admitting a legislative solution in such a situation admits a legislative solution to this situation, so you dance around it and pretend it's not a valid question.
I don't know what else to say; if you don't recognize that pharmacists are an irremovable boundary separating patients from drugs then you're, i don't know, something that needs to be built a bridge out of, or tossed into a river to see if you float like a duck.And pharmacists are not public servants
I understand what you're saying shift, but the difference between conscientious objection and obstructionism is the difference between a Quaker and this pharmacist. One refuses to do something but whose decision affects no one else; the pharmacist has the right, which i respect, to refuse to distribute something they consider immoral BUT they also have the obligation to the patient to provide them another manner to fill their prescription. If they refuse to help the client fill said prescription then they are being obstructionist and forcing others to suffer on behalf of their moral choices. This isn't a case of forced good Samaritanism because (again, for emphasis) THEY PROVIDE THE DRUGS. Whatever Damien says about them being a 'free market' provider is hogwash - they are an agency that was created outside of market forces to safely handle and distribute drugs. There is no reason we can't sell drugs at the local tire store or Mexican themed restaurant otherwise.Here's a good analogy: a gun store owner refuses to sell a gun to a guy because he thinks the guy is going to use it to shoot his wife vs. a gun store owner refuses to sell a gun to a guy who says he is going to shoot his wife.
I thought it pretty self-explanatory: that even in so-called anti-abortion enclaves, it is unlikely that a significant number of pharmacists would decide of their own accord to refuse to dispense day-after medications.
This sets you off on a completely unrelated tangent related to legislation: you correctly point out that depth of conviction can trump breadth of opinion in the legislative process, and that the squeaky wheel usually gets the grease. Which is fine; I don't dispute that.
But that isn't the situation we're discussing. We're discussing the likelihood of a large number of pharmacists deciding en masse to refuse to dispense day after pills. Pharmacists are people, and as you point out most people are apathetic. They don't go to rallies or write their congressmen or do any of that shit. Even if they are "anti-abortion" in some abstract way, they're unlikely to actually do anything to further that cause. And thus, your worry is misplaced.
For the record, as far as I can tell the Texas law I cited earlier is not a new thing.
And how convenient for you that you can cite examples of the law not treating the fetus as a person as objective evidence that the fetus is, in fact, not a person, but when I bring up counterexamples, they suddenly becomes nothing but a venal political ploys that can be safely discarded as valid examples. You don't get that luxury; you have to choose one approach or the other. Either both of our examples are equally valid evidence of opposing positions, or both examples must be discarded.
How very....Jose Liz-ish of you.
Well, no, actually, it doesn't: positing a crazy-ass insane scenario that could never happen does not mean that a legislative solution to said crazy-ass insane scenario is equally valid for a normal, real-world scenario. Which is why I refuse to engage in that kind of stupid sophistry.
And lawyers are an irremovable boundary separating clients from legal services, but that doesn't make me a public servant. To define pharmacists working in privately-owned pharmacies as public servants is to rip all meaning from the phrase.
You are aware that the government doesn't "create" pharmacies, right? You do realize that they are for-profit enterprises, started by entrepreneurs, correct? You also recognize that the only regulation of pharmacies is comptence-based, correct? Are hairdressers, engineers and accountants also "public servants" because they are subjected to the same kind of regulation?
I am infamous!How very....Jose Liz-ish of you.
How very... Damien Falgoust of you. I wish I had the restraint not to call for answers to purposefully absurd hypothetical questions, or crazy-ass scenarios, as the case may be. We will shortly be informed that I cannot tell the difference, thanks to this little stinker.How very....Jose Liz-ish of you.
Well, no, actually, it doesn't: positing a crazy-ass insane scenario that could never happen does not mean that a legislative solution to said crazy-ass insane scenario is equally valid for a normal, real-world scenario. Which is why I refuse to engage in that kind of stupid sophistry.
Emphasis, Jesus....
Of course, your example presents not a conflict of interest, but one of personal bias, which is a good example that deserves a reply.
Let's not get defamatory.
How can you care enough about this issue to write a post that long without reading back far enough to realize that Planned Parenthoods and emergency rooms both provide EC?I don't know what else to say; if you don't recognize that pharmacists are an irremovable boundary separating patients from drugs then you're, i don't know, something that needs to be built a bridge out of, or tossed into a river to see if you float like a duck.
...and RU-486, effective during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy.
Yeah, I'm gonna keep harping on it until one of the "emergency" zealots explains it away.
I don't have time at lunch to answer in much detail, so i'll just throw out a couple of Slashdot-esque quips back out there...
You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost.And lawyers are an irremovable boundary separating clients from legal services, but that doesn't make me a public servant.
No, because:Are hairdressers, engineers and accountants also "public servants" because they are subjected to the same kind of regulation?
Hairdresser: You can cut your own hair. It would look awful but it's possible.
Acountants: You can do your own taxes. You'll probably fuck everything up, but it's possible.
Engineers: This is one is more tricky. In countries like Japan faulty civil engineers are sometimes held liable for gross negligence if a public structure causes deaths, like in the tunnel collapse a few years ago. In the USA engineers aren't subject to direct responsibility (as far as i know, i could be wrong here), although their employer may well be. Generally though there is greater tolerance of failure or mistakes in the civil engineering world, at least on the level of the individual. However, the biggest difference is that an engineer will almost always work on a project that affects thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals; the pharmacist is hindering a specific individual they've purposefully chosen out of their clientel.
Pharmacist: If i can't get them to fill my prescription, and no one else will fill it in my holy-then-thou community, i'm SOL.
A question i used to ask, being apparently a Siddhartha like kid, was an ethical delimma: If two rich men each donate the same amount of money to the same cause, and each get's their name on a plaque, but one did it out of the real goodness of his heart, and the other out of a selfish desire for recognition - do their intentions matter to you, or to society?
To some extent the pharmacist's choice is a bit of both - he might be refusing to pass out these drugs because of personal conviction OR he may be refusing these drugs out after passing judgement against his client's "lifestyle". Does intention matter? Yes, it does, and you can tell intention by their subsequent behavior. If they don't want to personally handle this 'distasteful' drug, but still fufill their duty, they'll find someone else to fill the order. If they refuse because of their obstructionist tendancies they'll discourage the individual from fufilling the drug at all - at which point there needs to be intervention since their behavior is no longer simple moral objectionism.
I'll get to it tonight. Honestly though, i don't know enough about the availability of RU-486 to say anything right now.
...Which just means the state will pick up the tab, or (at most) will maintain a stable of public defenders, who are public servants. It doesn't mean all lawyers are public servants, even though there certainly are a lot of legal problems beyond the criminal justice system that ordinary people face. And they are problems that you must be a lawyer to address, because practicing law without a license is a crime.
One does not have to be a CPA to do people's taxes; H&R Block proves this every April. However, one must be licensed as a CPA to render an audit opinion. That fact, however, does not mean CPAs are public servants.
You are confusing liability for negligent conduct with the status of a "public servant." I've got news for you: licensed profession or not, you are always subject to liability for your own actions, especially if they rise to the level of gross negligence. That is as true for, say, a sign painter as it is for an engineer. You are confusing two entirely different concepts.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote