Pharmacy vs. Pharmacists, Round Two

[Nellie]

you either like the government forcing people to ignore their sense of right and wrong or you don't

I'm sorry I just really cannot get my head round the idea of choosing a profession where you are putting yourself in a position that you might have to do something you don't agree with. Should a stripper, who took the job to be a stripper, be able to refuse to strip because she finds the act morally reprehensible or should she quit her job as a stripper?

I keep trying to understand why it is ok for a pharmacist, whose job is to dispense drugs, to refuse to fill out a prescription for a drug that is in stock in the place that they work because they don't agree with it and why that right should be protected.

If they're working in a pharmacy that refuses to stock the drug full stop then I have more sympathy for their stance because as the owner of the store I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to pick and choose what they stock. [edit] and I'm making a possibly false assumption that if the local GP is trying to prescribe something they don't carry that there is some mechanism in place, especially in areas where multiple local pharmacies aren't the norm, to communicate this fact.

[TriggerHappy]

I have no problem with the government saying that my sense of right and wrong is incompatible with my chosen career.

I do.

Even when your chosen career directly impacts the health of so many other people?

[Matthew Gallant]

How about insulin? Some diabetics could die within a day if a pharmacy didn't stock it.

True, and I'd classify most diabetics as people who are generally prepared in advance for their needs.

I don't know about that. Shit does in fact happen. A box of vials gets dropped, air conditioning/heating breaks down and spoils the supply, and RVs holding a vacation's worth of stocks get stolen. Luckily nobody has to deal with the local pharmacist refusing to give them insulin.

[Flowers]

You either like women or you don't. If you like women, you support the Illinois Law.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists! Seriously though, thanks for the heads up. I had no idea that I don't like my wife, daughter, mother, two sisters, step-mother, mother-in-law, grandmother. I'll be sure to them when I get home tonight.

How 'bout this, you either like the government forcing people to ignore their sense of right and wrong or you don't.

I like women, I am ok with the government forcing people to ignore their sense of right and wrong when it helps support women's rights. That's how much I like women.

Liking specific women because you are related to them is not the same as going out alongside them to support their right to be free and control their own bodies.

Sorry Squirrel, you just don't like women.

[Squirrel Killer]

Should a stripper, who took the job to be a stripper, be able to refuse to strip because she finds the act morally reprehensible or should she quit her job as a stripper?

This is not a case of a stripper who doesn't want to strip or a pig slaughterer who doesn't want to kill a pig. It's a bookseller who doesn't want to sell a book that's Neo-Nazi propaganda. It's a vegetarian grocery store clerk who doesn't want to sell meat products. It's a game developer who doesn't want to produce a game that rewards rape. It's an actor who refuses to play a role that is favorable to Bush. It's a doctor that refuses to perform an abortion. If the book store, grocery store, development company, director, or hospital are willing to accept the restrictions the employee has, why should the government step in?

Even when your chosen career directly impacts the health of so many other people?

Yes. Just as I shouldn't be able to have the government compel a qualified doctor to perform an abortion or a militant vegetarian to sell me meat.

[Squirrel Killer]

Sorry Flowers, you just plain like the government forcing people to ignore their sense of right and wrong.

For the record, I do support a woman's right to be free and control their own bodies, just as I support a pharmacist's right to be free and control their own actions.

[Nick Walter]

Sorry Flowers, you just plain like the government forcing people to ignore their sense of right and wrong.

There's not much point in debating Flowers when he starts trying to be funny. Treat him like Midnight Son, just chuckle at the posts and otherwise ignore them.

[Damien Falgoust]

I'm sorry I just really cannot get my head round the idea of choosing a profession where you are putting yourself in a position that you might have to do something you don't agree with.

What if you choose a profession where you are fine with doing 99.9999% of the job, but have moral qualms about doing the very-rare 0.0001%?

I'm a lawyer, but I don't have to represent every client that walks in my door. I can turn away cases that I find repugnant, as long as that's OK with my employer. This, in spite of the fact that the right to counsel in particular types of cases is far more clearly established than a right to particular medical prescriptions.

I mean, really: should every OB/GYN be required to perform abortions, regardless of their moral view of that procedure?

[Nellie]

This is not a case of a stripper who doesn't want to strip or a pig slaughterer who doesn't want to kill a pig. It's a bookseller who doesn't want to sell a book that's Neo-Nazi propaganda. It's a vegetarian grocery store clerk who doesn't want to sell meat products. It's a game developer who doesn't want to produce a game that rewards rape. It's an actor who refuses to play a role that is favorable to Bush. It's a doctor that refuses to perform an abortion. If the book store, grocery store, development company, director, or hospital are willing to accept the restrictions the employee has, why should the government step in?

If the pharmacy is prepared to employ two or more full time pharmacists to ensure that the full range of products can be dispensed then fine, but we seem to be dealing with people being turned away from places able to fill their prescriptions and I think that is a bit more serious than someone refusing to sell me a copy of Mein Kampf or the Koran or Harry Potter on moral grounds or the grocery clerk who wont ring my pack of bacon through the till.

And even so I think all of those people have chose jobs that clearly contradict their moral viewpoint and should be looking for alternative careers. If their employers are prepared to work around their limitations fine, if not they should be entitled to sack them for gross misconduct and hire someone prepared to work out the job description.

[Nellie]

What if you choose a profession where you are fine with doing 99.9999% of the job, but have moral qualms about doing the very-rare 0.0001%?

I'm a lawyer, but I don't have to represent every client that walks in my door. I can turn away cases that I find repugnant, as long as that's OK with my employer. This, in spite of the fact that the right to counsel in particular types of cases is far more clearly established than a right to particular medical prescriptions.

Perhaps the right to legal representation is stronger than the right to medical care, but what happens if you don't want to take a legal case but you are the only lawyer, for whatever reason, qualified to handle that particular case? (our no other pharmacies available situation)

regarding the original point, I think you have to accept that if you are taking the job on the basis of the 99.999% of the stuff you think is great then you have to accept that you might be called on perform the 0.001 that you find reprehensible. That was the risk I took with the forces (the 0.001 of the morally reprehensible bit was I might have to kill someone or get killed trying.) and fortunately I got away with just having to do the fun stuff. Refusing to do the other bit never crossed my mind.

[Jason McCullough]

I really think the "special" thing about this is the emergency nature of the request. It's hard to come up with comparable job duties in any other field where anyone would even think to refuse doing them.

[Graeme Dice]

This is not a case of a stripper who doesn't want to strip or a pig slaughterer who doesn't want to kill a pig.

It's a paramedic who refuses to treat people with nose rings.

Yes. Just as I shouldn't be able to have the government compel a qualified doctor to perform an abortion or a militant vegetarian to sell me meat.

Do you not understand the difference between asking a doctor to perform an operation that carries risks and a pharmacist that simply has to hand over a container containing medication? It's not the pharmacists call whether the patient gets the medication, that's the patients and Dr.'s call.

[Graeme Dice]

What if you choose a profession where you are fine with doing 99.9999% of the job, but have moral qualms about doing the very-rare 0.0001%?

Don't go into health care if the work causes you ethical problems. The pharmacist obviously wanted the benefits of working in a better paying health care job, so he should fulfill all of his duties.

I mean, really: should every OB/GYN be required to perform abortions, regardless of their moral view of that procedure?

No, simply because there's an actual risk involved that the Dr. might cause harm to the patient by performing a procedure that they aren't comfortable doing. It's the Dr. who bears responsibility, not the pill vending machine.

[Squirrel Killer]

It's not the pharmacists call whether the patient gets the medication, that's the patients and Dr.'s call.

You're absolutely right, it's not the pharmacist's call whether the patient gets the medication. It is, however, the pharmacist's call as to whether the patient gets the medication from them.

[Damien Falgoust]

Don't go into health care if the work causes you ethical problems. The pharmacist obviously wanted the benefits of working in a better paying health care job, so he should fulfill all of his duties.

Some aspects of the legal profession cause me ethical problems; does that mean I should forego being a lawyer entirely?

For that matter, if a medical student wishes to become an OB/GYN, but is morally opposed to abortion, should that medical student pursue a different line of study?

It's the Dr. who bears responsibility, not the pill vending machine.

I love how people on this forum, none of whom presumably have pharmacology degrees or have worked in the pharmacist's profession, are so willing to disparage pharmacists as mere "pill vending machines."

[Andrew Mayer]

I love how people on this forum, none of whom presumably have pharmacology degrees or have worked in the pharmacist's profession, are so willing to disparage pharmacists as mere "pill vending machines."

If they're going to put personal ethics over medical ethics that's a better moniker than they deserve.

[Flowers]

Glorified pill pushers is the term I use.

[Flowers]

Some aspects of the legal profession cause me ethical problems; does that mean I should forego being a lawyer entirely?

Yes. Pussy.

[Damien Falgoust]

Yes. Pussy.

The mind boggles. Allow me to Godwinize.

Alan Dershowitz famously said he'd defend Hitler and win. Bully for him, but I don't think I'd consider another Jewish lawyer, perhaps one with relatives who died in the Holocaust, a "pussy" if he declined that particular representation on moral grounds.

There was a well-publicized internal debate at Cravath, Swain & Moore, one of the country's oldest and most prestigious law firms, on whether they should accept representation of certain Swiss banks in contesting claims of complicity with the Nazis in hiding Jewish assets during World War II. The debate centered on wholly moral grounds. Cravath ended up taking the representation, but had they not would the firm be one of "pussies?" Are those partners who argued against the representation "pussies"?

Look, I'm the first on the ramparts in defending the notion that you cannot judge a lawyer by his client, and that is entirely possible -- indeed, common -- to represent a client's position without personally approving of that client's position. But lawyers are people, too, popular opinion notwithstanding, and have individual moral views of their own, and in some cases those moral standards are felt so strongly that an individual attorney cannot in good conscience accept a particular client. In those instances, the proper thing to do is to decline the representation, not to run from the practice of law entirely. Such a lawyer isn't a bad lawyer, he's a person exercising individual conscience within the bounds of his professional responsibility. Telling such a lawyer that he shouldn't be a lawyer would deprive my profession of many good and talented people.

[Graeme Dice]

Some aspects of the legal profession cause me ethical problems; does that mean I should forego being a lawyer entirely?

If those ethical issues force you to be unable to represent somebody in an emergency situation (Do such things even exist in law?), and keep you from finding some other lawyer for the person, then you probably shouldn't be a lawyer.

For that matter, if a medical student wishes to become an OB/GYN, but is morally opposed to abortion, should that medical student pursue a different line of study?

They should expect to give out an awful large number of referrals to doctors who will perform the procedures.

I love how people on this forum, none of whom presumably have pharmacology degrees or have worked in the pharmacist's profession, are so willing to disparage pharmacists as mere "pill vending machines."

Then perhaps you can enlighten us all as to why the analogy is incorrect.

[Nick Walter]

I love how people on this forum, none of whom presumably have pharmacology degrees or have worked in the pharmacist's profession, are so willing to disparage pharmacists as mere "pill vending machines."

Then perhaps you can enlighten us all as to why the analogy is incorrect.

How . . . Koontzian.

[Flowers]

Yes. Pussy.

The mind boggles. Allow me to Godwinize.

Alan Dershowitz famously said he'd defend Hitler and win. Bully for him, but I don't think I'd consider another Jewish lawyer, perhaps one with relatives who died in the Holocaust, a "pussy" if he declined that particular representation on moral grounds.

Telling such a lawyer that he shouldn't be a lawyer would deprive my profession of many good and talented people.

Good and talented at what? Arguing only for things they believe in? And they want money for that? What do you think the money is for?

You will never be any good if you only take one side on each issue. You will never learn the weak points of each party's position. You will be a lousy attorney. You will end up like an angry dad lawyer.

Judging your client's actions to be so naughty that you won't even touch them with a ten foot memo is not what the job is about and it is something that you should have checked at the door. As sucj, Alan Dershowitz's Hitler remark is a good example of what you should strive for.

Telling people who can't handle blood to cheese it doesn't deprive the medical profession of any good surgeons, and telling law students to shut up and take the case or go be a lobbyist just reduces the population to the people who should be there.

[Damien Falgoust]

Good and talented at what?

Practicing law, perhaps? Writing, researching, advising clients, all that stuff? You know, WHAT LAWYERS DO.

Arguing only for things they believe in?

No, you barking maroon; suggesting that it's OK for a lawyer to have some lines that he won't cross is not the same as saying that a lawyer has to believe in every single client for whom he accepts representation. Indeed, I said as much in my post -- read the first sentence of my last paragrah.

And they want money for that? What do you think the money is for?

Well, I believe the money is for good and competent representation. A lawyer who believes in his client has no less earned his fee than a lawyer who holds his nose and does the work.

You will never be any good if you only take one side on each issue. You will never learn the weak points of each party's position. You will be a lousy attorney. You will end up like an angry dad lawyer.

Kindly point out where I said it was a good idea to always invariably take "only one side" on an issue in one's professional capacity.

Also: all those lawyers who work for, say, the ACLU -- I guess they must suck, because they never defend the forces of censorship. They must be composed entirely of "lousy attorneys."

Judging your client's actions to be so naughty that you won't even touch them with a ten foot memo is not what the job is about and it is something that you should have checked at the door. As sucj, Alan Dershowitz's Hitler remark is a good example of what you should strive for.

Oh, bullshit. Cravath partners make, on average, several million a year. Anyone who makes partner at that firm can rightly be called a good and successful lawyer. I think they know "what the job is about," and those partners who argued against the representation of Swiss banks are not suddenly bad lawyers because they have some personal lines they will not cross.

Telling people who can't handle blood to cheese it doesn't deprive the medical profession of any good surgeons, and telling law students to shut up and take the case or go be a lobbyist just reduces the population to the people who should be there.

What an utter crock of shit. This isn't the same as telling people who can't handle blood to not become surgeons (that would be akin to telling people who hate to write to avoid the profession). "People who should be there" are people who have the brains and skill to do the job well. Those people don't suddenly cease to have brains and skill just because they have personal ethical standards.

[TriggerHappy]

You're absolutely right, it's not the pharmacist's call whether the patient gets the medication. It is, however, the pharmacist's call as to whether the patient gets the medication from them.

No one's trying to force pharmacists to go against their personal moral code. Some of us are just saying that if their moral code would keep them from doing their damn job, they should probably find another one.

[Squirrel Killer]

No one's trying to force pharmacists to go against their personal moral code.

You need to re-read this thread. That's exactly the question at hand.

[extarbags]

No one's trying to force pharmacists to go against their personal moral code.

You need to re-read this thread. That's exactly the question at hand.

No, not actually. Or maybe I missed it... where did anyone say that pharmacists should be forced at gunpoint to dispense any drug someone has a prescription for? I think pretty much everyone has been saying that pharmacists should be forced to make the same choice everyone else is: do their job, or quit their job. It's really pretty simple.

[Squirrel Killer]

No, not actually. Or maybe I missed it... where did anyone say that pharmacists should be forced at gunpoint to dispense any drug someone has a prescription for? I think pretty much everyone has been saying that pharmacists should be forced to make the same choice everyone else is: do their job, or quit their job. It's really pretty simple.

Force != gunpoint.

Force = government telling the pharmacist's employer that they have no choice but to fire the pharmacist in question.

[extarbags]

No, not actually. Or maybe I missed it... where did anyone say that pharmacists should be forced at gunpoint to dispense any drug someone has a prescription for? I think pretty much everyone has been saying that pharmacists should be forced to make the same choice everyone else is: do their job, or quit their job. It's really pretty simple.

Force != gunpoint.

Force = government telling the pharmacist's employer that they have no choice but to fire the pharmacist in question.

No. When you force someone to do something, you leave them no choice but to do it. Not only are we arguing that pharmacists should have a choice, we're arguing that they have to make a choice: do their job or quit their job.

[Nick Walter]

No. When you force someone to do something, you leave them no choice but to do it. Not only are we arguing that pharmacists should have a choice, we're arguing that they have to make a choice: do their job or quit their job.

Telling someone to do something morally repugnant or else abandon a lucrative career and flush years of college (pharmacists go almost as long as doctors) down the pooper is indeed forcing them. Not quite as bad as gunpoint, but pretty close. To everybody about to reply pointing out that they can choose to quit, I'd like to point out that people at gunpoint can choose to die.

I'm not saying that the public policy interests can't justify forcing someone to go against their morals, but let's call a duck a duck here. There are a lot of people in this thread that are in fact calling for laws to force pharmacists to go against their morals.

[Flowers]

Good and talented at what?

Practicing law, perhaps? Writing, researching, advising clients, all that stuff? You know, WHAT LAWYERS DO.

Lawyer to lawyer, applying your personal ethical standards to clients is what pussies do.