…and this is a 
I guess it's not just deranged protestant fundamentalists
Category: Religion • Stupidity
Posted on: October 30, 2007 8:25 AM, by PZ Myers
Pope Ratzi confirms the bankruptcy of religion for me once again.
Benedict told a gathering of Catholic pharmacists that conscientious objection was a right that must be recognized by the pharmaceutical profession.
"Pharmacists must seek to raise people's awareness so that all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role," Benedict said.
Benedict said conscientious objector status would "enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia."
There is an interesting moral argument against enablng euthanasia, I think, but it doesn't apply here: pharmacists, as responsible and informed as they are, are not doctors, and are expected to dispense drugs as the doctor requests. It's fair that a pharmacist would warn the client ("This drug can kill you") or verify the prescription ("This combination of drugs can have risky effects—I'm going to call your doctor and make sure this is what she wants"), but this whole business of pharmacists refusing to do their job because of religious scruples is not tolerable.
The pope, being a deranged medieval nutcase at heart, of course carries his instructions far beyond the degree that should be allowed.
"We cannot anesthetize consciences as regards, for example, the effect of certain molecules that have the goal of preventing the implantation of the embryo or shortening a person's life," he said.
>
Right. Let's shut down the selling of birth control at Catholic pharmacies, and let's have Muslim bagboys shut down the sale of alcohol at stores (and the Muslim cabbies can end the transport of alcohol), and let's turn every flaky religious nut into a vigilante for his own weird personal beliefs, enjoined to enforce them on every other person in his neighborhood, whether they share his dogma or not.
This is simply a religious injunction to be intolerant, a denial of the plain fact that many non-Catholics (and, of course, even many Catholics) do not obey papal rules. But then, that's what religion teaches: to be intolerant and to deny reality.
Comments
If the Pope wanted to reduce the usage of birth control pills, he could always convince people of its immorality.
What? Persuasion by argument isn't part of religion any more? He's not transparently an authoritarian, is he?
A good litmus test: people who try to stop perceived social problems by attacking the supply and not the demand of some product tend to be authoritarians.
Posted by: RickD | October 30, 2007 8:37 AM
I'm picturing devout "conscientious objectors" in influential positions at telecom companies, deciding to shut down your net access because they find your browsing habits deeply troubling.
Posted by: Hank Fox | October 30, 2007 8:41 AM
Wait, so is he objecting to the regular ol' Pill? Because most birth control (estrogen and progesterone based) inhibits the release of an egg. They don't inhibit implantation, because there is nothing to implant! No egg = no risk of pregnancy.
I think the IUD *does* change something in the uterine lining that makes it resistant to implantation, but you can't get one of those from a pharmacist...
Posted by: LM | October 30, 2007 8:47 AM
This is exactly what you would expect from a guy that performs public rituals with a phallus on his head. What a dick head.
Posted by: J-Dog | October 30, 2007 8:51 AM
Okay, so suppose some religiot decides to refuse to serve me with something that his firm sells. I complain to the firm. Then they sack the religiot, eh?
Not necessarily - it depends upon the firm's policies, & on their staff's employment contracts. It also depends upon whether or not the firm's legal advice (if any) suggests that the employee can sue for wrongful dismissal.
What about my rights? It would be difficult & expensive for me to mount a legal challenge. So, by default, the crazies are left running the asylum!
Any lawyers here?
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 30, 2007 8:54 AM
For a truly chilling story of when "right to life" legistlation is taken to the ultimate, read this story about the new Nicaraguan anti-abortion law:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2185811,00.html
This makes me feel sick - and even the Pope seems a little queasy about it.
Truly, religious people are much more concerned with the non-existent than with everday reality.
Posted by: AnthonyK | October 30, 2007 9:00 AM
1. Cancer cells are alive.
2. Anticancer drugs kill cancer cells.
3. Catholic pharmacists should not dispense anticancer drugs.
Posted by: me | October 30, 2007 9:02 AM
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate...
Posted by: efp | October 30, 2007 9:10 AM
If Joey Rats ever has a medical emergency, I hope the ambulance crew will be conscientious objectors and will insist that only prayer can heal. Just strap him to the gurney and pray for him, praying until he's pronounced.
Posted by: Watt de Fawke | October 30, 2007 9:20 AM
You know though it is the overreach of laws supposedly designed to promote tolerance that now keep owners of pharmacies from judtly firing pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraception, and doing other things also known as their job. If we just lived without these legal protections for religions then Catholic pharmacists would quickly be fired or if they were proprietors they would go out of business. It is the protections we have for their beliefs that allow them to be imposed.
Posted by: Bill C. | October 30, 2007 9:27 AM
There's already an excellent way to avoid supplying products used for abortion. It's called not taking a job which involves the supply of products used for abortion.
Posted by: MartinM | October 30, 2007 9:29 AM
"If Joey Rats ever has a medical emergency, I hope the ambulance crew will be conscientious objectors and will insist that only prayer can heal. Just strap him to the gurney and pray for him, praying until he's pronounced."
Or even better, decide that they object on grounds of conscience to treating an anti-gay bigot. I imagine the Pope would be only to happy to support their position as he lay dying.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 30, 2007 9:34 AM
Isn't the logical end point of this for a pharmacist to join the Christian Scientists and refuse to dispense _anything_?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | October 30, 2007 9:35 AM
[1] Not necessarily - it depends upon the firm's policies, & on their staff's employment contracts. It also depends upon whether or not the firm's legal advice (if any) suggests that the employee can sue for wrongful dismissal.
[2] What about my rights? It would be difficult & expensive for me to mount a legal challenge. So, by default, the crazies are left running the asylum!
Any lawyers here?
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 30, 2007 8:54 AM
Not a lawyer, but we deal with these things in my profession:
1. Virtually all non-union employees are "at will" employees and they can be fired "at will" without recourse.
2. Welcome to the reality of the unregulated market place.
Posted by: Moses | October 30, 2007 9:37 AM
I love the "It's their choice and their conscience" argument.
I have had the opportunity to work for the security services and the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, here in the UK. I didn't.
Although I applied for the jobs, when I went to the interviews and found out what the job entailed (or more precisely, what the things I would be working on were to be used for) I turned the jobs down. I could not in good conscience, based on ethical principles I have decided I wish to adhere to as far as I can, accept those jobs.
THAT is the choice and act of conscience these people face. If you are trained a pharmacist and have consciencious objections to dispensing contraception or the "morning after pill", or if you are a retail clerk and you don't wish to sell alcohol: FIND A DIFFERENT JOB. Your choice to exercise your conscience does not extend to you exercising your conscience over me. You made the choice, you live with it.
That said, in large organisations it is perfectly possible to find jobs for people who object to certain acts on any basis. In a supermarket you don't have to sell alcohol, a colleague can do it for you, sure it's a pain but it can easily be accomplished. You don't have to stack alcohol on the shelves, you can stack bacon...no perhaps not...how about crackers. I think a little give and take is no big deal. However, in small companies, or one on one situations like a taxi driver or a local pharmacy you do the job in front of you or you simply do not do the job.
Don't want to carry people with alcohol? Don't become a taxi driver, or at least inform people when they phone you so that they are not inconvenienced. If you're the only cab in a deserted place and your possible passengers have a bottle of hooch with them, then tough! Sorry but your ability to do the job should not be impaired by your conscience, if your job and your conscience clash, do a different job. It's not like there's a lack of employment opportunities in the world. No jobs local to you? MOVE! We all have to do it.
I'm a firm supporter of people's right to choose. I never said those choices would be easy ones.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | October 30, 2007 9:38 AM
Whoops - messed up those tags in #14 big-time.
Posted by: Moses | October 30, 2007 9:39 AM
"1. Virtually all non-union employees are "at will" employees and they can be fired "at will" without recourse."
Wrong, at least within the EU.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 30, 2007 9:45 AM
Well, we should probably take his "conscientious objector" comment at face value. If you believe that for religious reasons you should not dispense birth control, and you are conscripted and forced to distribute pharmaceuticals that you believe should not be administered, then I think you should have the right to object. Like when you are instructed to drug prisoners illegally.
So yes, anyone who was forced to go to pharmacy school, and was forced to take a job dispensing drugs should have the right to refuse to dispense drugs, and should instead have the option of being reassigned to a job mopping the floors.
Posted by: IanR | October 30, 2007 9:45 AM
Catholics are not supposed to eat meat on various Fridays leading up to Easter. If the Pope has a minimum of consistency, he should require Catholic butcher shops to close down on Easter. Deep down, though, I know this is not going to happen.
Posted by: Luis | October 30, 2007 9:46 AM
Richard Harris -- One lawyer checking in! In the pharmacist context, one could argue that because pharmacists are granted a government license (essentially, a government-sanctioned monopoly) to dispense medication, they are obligated to fill any lawful prescription brought in by a member of the public. In First Amendment terms, this amounts to a "neutral law of general applicability" that only incidentally burdens their claimed religious rights, so they should not be exempted from application of the law.
Posted by: Midwestern Gent | October 30, 2007 9:47 AM
To everything. Everything except the calendar method.
Though he probably knows that in this case he was talking about the morning-after pill... I hope.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 30, 2007 9:49 AM
"I'm a firm supporter of people's right to choose. I never said those choices would be easy ones."
This is a very good point. It seems that many who want to be able to opt out of performing certain tasks, or complying with certain requirements want to be able to do so without facing any consequences as the result of their decisions.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 30, 2007 9:52 AM
"1. Virtually all non-union employees are "at will" employees and they can be fired "at will" without recourse. "
It's a bit more complicated than that. An employer can fire someone for any reason except those prohibited by law or by contract. You can't fire someone because you don't like the color of their skin, but you can fire them if you don't like the color of their socks (unless the employment contract states, or the employees were told, that they could wear any color socks they like).
The issue is whether an employee's refusal to dispense a particular drug for religious reasons is protected. It's somewhat of a fuzzy area right now.
Posted by: Divalent | October 30, 2007 9:54 AM
Ridiculous. Christian Scientists might as well get on the bandwagon, become ER doctors, and refuse to treat accident victims with anything other than prayer.
Posted by: SeanH | October 30, 2007 9:55 AM
me said:
Good point. And just when you've got them confused, throw in a hydatidiform mole or teratoma and watch their heads explode. After all, they're derived from embryonic tissue and are therefore gifts from God!
Posted by: Peter Barber | October 30, 2007 9:56 AM
So do Hindu pharmacists have a right of conscientious objection to refuse to supply any pharmaceuticals derived from cattle or cattle products?
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 30, 2007 9:57 AM
The thing that bugs me is that sacrifice is supposed to be a major theme in Catholicism. Yet when it comes to birth control, doctors and pharmacists are never asked to sacrifice anything for their faith, like quitting and finding another profession. Instead they are only asked to force others, regardless of belief, to make the sacrifice for their own faith. It's far too easy to burden others. Leaving your job would be a real statement of faith.
I say, if you can't do your whole job, then you should get out of the way.
Posted by: carovee | October 30, 2007 10:00 AM
Can I just ask that is people are talking about what is legal or not legal they make it clear what jurisdiction they are talking about ?
Employment rights within the EU seem to be much greater than they are within the US. For example in the EU there are limited grounds for firing someone, such as incompetence or gross misconduct. You cannot just fire someone because you no longer wish to employ them unless you can 1) show that there is no longer any need for someone to do that job, and 2) pay compensation based on the length of service.
It could be possible for someone to be fired for wearing socks that are not a colour permitted within the dress guidelines for that employment but only after a number of warnings have been issued. In addition the employer would need to be able to show that the colour of socks was important, ie if the employee deals with customers then it may be relevant but if the empoyee never deals with the public then it is unlikely they could be sacked.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 30, 2007 10:02 AM
I've been arguing with lots of people, including future pharmacists about this (btw, for some reason Pharmacy school students have a higher percentage of conservative christians that I would expect), and it never ends up going anywhere. The line with the Muslim bagboys is great P.Z. If there's anything christians hate, it's giving muslims more power. I feel like the only way to keep out these laws allowing people to not do their jobs because of religion is to make a point that people of other religions will also be able to use the excuse.
Posted by: DrBadger | October 30, 2007 10:09 AM
Do you think the Pope would be happy to allow people to discriminate against Catholics because they happen to belong to a religious group that considers the Pope to be the anti-christ ? How about a school teacher in say, Northern Ireland refusing to teach a catholic child on the grounds that catholocism is an "evil" religion and the teacher does not in all conscience feel they can teach a catholic.
I somehow doubt it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 30, 2007 10:20 AM
Matt, it's very different in the US. "At will" is a totally accurate description of most employment here. A person has a right to equal employment opportunity, but there is no assumed right to be employed at all. So, for instance, an employer can't discriminate and fire you because he thinks you're too old, but he's perfectly free to fire you because he thinks you're too slow. An employee can be fired simply because an employer doesn't like working with them. Also, in most cases a fired US worker isn't entitled to compensation of any kind and length of service is generally irrelevant.
Posted by: SeanH | October 30, 2007 10:21 AM
People should be protected "from Conception to natural death"?
But isn't it natural that when a person gets severely sick - they die. Medical therapies are unnaturally interfering in the that natural process.
Thus no need for pharmacists at all!
Posted by: Tom in Iowa | October 30, 2007 10:24 AM
LM -
Wait, so is he objecting to the regular ol' Pill?
Yes. The RCC position on birth control is "nothing is allowed". They made an exemption sometime in the 60s (IIRC) to allow "rhythym methods" to prevent pregnancy, but nothing else is allowed.
The "theory" is that the Pill can cause fertilized eggs not to implant on the uterus wall, which to the RCC is the same as an abortion (because life begins at CONCEPTION). According to the RCC anything that "kills" even a fertilized egg is "taking human life" and therefore immoral.
This rationale is, of course, ludicrous. Because they then extend this ban to the use of CONDOMS and other "barrier" methods - whose entire purpose is to prevent fertilization in the first place. So then they have to justify THAT by saying that the barriers are also tampering with "God's will" and that every act of intercourse should be able to lead to conception with no interference from the participants. Except that they've made an exception for "rhythym methods" for family planning - so you're allowed to tamper with God's will as long as you use your knowledge of your biological cycle as the method of tampering and not anything else. BTW - "pulling out" without ejaculating is ALSO a sin according to the RCC - for a bunch of supposedly celibate guys they've certainly thought about this stuff an awful lot.
But this is all a lot of post-hoc justification for a stance that was taken long ago. And the reason the hard-line stance against contraception was taken was because Protestant churches started allowing married couples to use contraception for family planning purposes in the early 20th century. Given the history of it, I suspect that they came around precisely because of the difficulty of raising a family of 12 kids on a preacher's take from the collection basket every week. The RCC, of course, doesn't have this problem because they don't let their priests have families. So they don't actually have to worry about how these rules affect THEM. And anything that the Protestant churches were doing at the time that deviated even the slightest bit from established tradition was a way for the RCC to slam the Protestant churches. So the hardline stance was taken and we've been living with the repercussions ever since. The RCC has a very, very hard time admitting that they were wrong, and so has a very, very hard time changing stances on stuff like this (admission of fault implies fallibility, after all, and if God's messengers are fallible, why bother listening to them?)
(Interestingly enough, back in the 60s one of the more forward-thinking Popes convened a council of priests and laity to look into whether the church's stance on contraception should be revised. After a long, in-depth study of the issue the council voted with a fair-sized majority that the contraception issue should be revised and Church members should be allowed to use it. But by the time that all finished up, the papacy had changed hands and the new guy was more conservative. So he threw out their findings and said "the rule stands". And the RCC has been trending more reactionary and conservative ever since.)
Posted by: NonyNony | October 30, 2007 10:28 AM
Martyrdom-lite. You get to whine about how persecuted you are without the actual persecution.
Posted by: MartinM | October 30, 2007 10:32 AM
SeanH,
In the EU it is possible to fire someone for being too slow, as that would be covered by incompetence. However there is a caveat and that is the employer would need to show that they gave every chance to the employee to improve and that sufficient training was given. An employer would not be able to fire someone just because they do not like them: It such a situation the employer is expected to offer a probationary period first but unless the employer decides not to continue with the employment then the grounds for dismissal become much more restricted.
On the subject of compensation in the EU it is an issue of the reason for dismissal. If it is for incompetence or misconduct then no compensation would be payable, other than holiday pay still due, although in practice most employers would offer some kind of payment to avoid the possibility of legal action, ie if you agree to go we will pay you two months wages and you agree not to sue us. If the reason for dismissal is because the employer is say restructuring the business, or closes a branch then compensation would payable and for people with many years of service it can amount to tens of thousands of pounds.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 30, 2007 10:35 AM
Matt Penfold:
Yeah, same here in South Africa. When I first came here from the US, I hired a maid (almost everyone here has a maid). When I found out the rules around getting rid of her (not that I wanted to) I almost fell over. I think some of the rules are good, some have gone a bit too far IMO.
If someone knows of a religion that can get me out of my weekly teleconference with me US side client, please let me know... it's not fun (because of the time difference).
Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | October 30, 2007 10:42 AM
It seems like conception is the trigger here. I would really like to see this explored. Perhaps a debate between a biologist and the Pope on the reasons for or against.
Posted by: Phaedrus | October 30, 2007 10:47 AM
His hats must be colored with Sudan Red IV - the cancer has obviously rotted his brain.
Posted by: shpx.ohfu | October 30, 2007 10:48 AM
This thinking always bugs me. With the exception of the 'earth is 6000 years old bunch' Protestant churches are far superior and less full of woo-woo than the RCC which is essentially buried in woo.
I don't see how one can be a rationlist and pretend to be catholic.
This same discussion happened with the divorce issue. They are doctrinally wrong and alot of priests know it but for the reasons you mention above they didn't change.
Posted by: Uber | October 30, 2007 10:52 AM
Well, as crass and as wonderfully as bill hicks put it...
Posted by: Willey | October 30, 2007 11:05 AM
Haven't they already done that in Minneapolis? Now they're trying to codify it. You can't argue with a fatwa. Until I read that, I didn't realize they also refuse to serve blind people with seeing-eye dogs. For shame.
Firing pharmacists because of religious beliefs that don't interfere with work is evil, but the employer should be allowed to fire them for not doing their job, whatever excuse they give.
So the solution for the government is simple: if pharmacists don't fill prescriptions, revoke their licenses. That's tidy. Although it could mean rural parts of the country will either have no pharmacists or unlicensed ones.
Where does a customer - er, patient - go to ask for a health care professional's license to be revoked?
Posted by: Epistaxis | October 30, 2007 11:15 AM
Most Catholics in this country just ignore the Pope when they feel like it. Following every bizarre medieval rule of the church would cause brain damage.
The proof of this. The average family size of Catholics in the US is almost exactly equal to the national average family size.
I know a few devout Catholics from here and there. When the priests start rattling on about birth control they just smile and nod. And ignore it. A celibate old male has no business telling people how many children they can or should have.
One advantage of living in a democracy. People get used to making their own decisions and taking responsibility for them.
Posted by: raven | October 30, 2007 11:20 AM
I'm a cop, I just busted two dudes transporting 8 keys of pure Peruvian blow in the trunk of their car. But I don't believe that cocaine should be illegal, so I let it go. :)
Posted by: Chris | October 30, 2007 11:29 AM
I blogged about the very same subject earlier. When researching it I found this little extract in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's Code of Ethics :
Make sure that your professional judgement is not impaired by personal or commercial interests, incentives, targets or similar measures.
I was just wondering if there is a US version of this Code of Ethics and what that might have to say on the matter?
Posted by: PsychoAtheist | October 30, 2007 11:47 AM
But if you drop dead because you don't have your insulin isn't it just god's will?
I notice he doesn't mention Viagra. Would could be more immoral than giving an 90 year old man a boner?
Posted by: E in MD | October 30, 2007 11:54 AM
The lawyer comments above are relevant here, I think. The general argument here is about freedom of commerce, and that businesses (and thus their employees) are allowed to chose who and what to sell. However, pharmacies are a special case. They are granted special license by the government to sell substances that other businesses are not. In exchange, the government is fair to impose responsibilities upon them. Among those is the responsibility to dispense what the doctor prescribes. If an employee is not willing to dispense prescribed medication, then they should not be allowed to have a pharmacy license.
The pharmacist can certainly play an important role, particularly in identified potentially dangerous interactions between drugs. If the pharamacist suspects that a prescription is not appropriate for any reason, they are most certainly within their rights to question it. The way to do that is to consult with doctor who made the prescription and verify that it is appropriate. However, the pharmacist, not being a licensed physician, is not authorized to decide unilaterally that a patient should not receive a medication. I have likened this in the past to practicing medicine without a license. Only doctors are allowed to diagnose and prescribe. A pharmacist refusing to dispense prescribed medication has effectively determined that the medication is not needed for treatment of the patient. Amazingly, they have made that diagnosis without ever having conducted a physical exam!
In terms of free business practice, it is reasonable that a business chose not to supply a particular medication, for whatever reason. Therefore, it need not be immediately available. However, I would say that if that is the case, and a patient presents a prescription for it, then the pharmacy must offer to order it for them. OTOH, if it is sitting on the shelf, the pharmacist has the responsibility to fulfill the doctor's prescription.
If businesses aren't happy with the government regulations on what they have to sell, then they can just give up their pharmacy license, and they can have the freedom to not sell whatever they want. However, it is the height of hypocrisy to hold a pharmacy license and complain about the government interfering in your business practice. The government has allowed you the ability to sell stuff that other stores can't. You already have a major perk.
Posted by: Pablo | October 30, 2007 12:05 PM
PyschoAtheist,
My understanding is that here in the UK a pharmacist may refuse to dispense contraception, or the morning after pill but only if in doing so they do not impair the woman's right to have the prescription fulfilled. What I take that to mean is that they cannot refuse if in doing so they would cause a delay that would mean the effectivness of the pill would be negated. An issue more relevant to the morning after pill I suspect.
On an related issue there has a been a debate here in the UK in the last week or so into abortion. Not into whether it should be legal, there is not much disagreement between the political parties here about that, but over time limits and access. At present abortion is legal up to 24 weeks (or unlimited if the mother's life is at risk) but requires the signature of two doctors. It has been suggested for abortions at or before 12 weeks that requirement be removed and the agreement of one doctor be sufficient. As part of that debate the issue of objection of religous grounds came up and it seems there is a gray area. Doctors can currently refuse to sign to allow an abortion on legal grounds, and that right is protected by law (an issue I think needs addressing!). What is less clear is the issue of referral. Some doctors claim not only can they not sign the forms they can also refuse to refer a woman to a doctor who will. The legal protection for such a position is not clear (it does not seem to have been tested in the courts). There seems to be a consensus that whilst a doctor might refuse to be directly involved he/she should provide a referral if asked.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 30, 2007 12:05 PM
I agree with the sentiment 100%. The solution here is to put more power in the hands of pharmacy owners and employers. Right now, the pope hopes, a pharmacist fired for objecting to birth control would be able to sue his employer and keep his job. Certainly a pharmacist has the right not to sell anything he doesn't want to, but his employer must also be allowed the right to fire him. That way we'll get catholic employers running catholic pharmacies for catholic baby factory families and the rest of us can just avoid them.
Posted by: Jolly Bloger | October 30, 2007 12:06 PM
uber
What does that mean exactly? As doctrine is basically whatever the church abitrarily decides it should be, I can't see how it can be wrong. The problem is having doctrine in the first place.
Posted by: reason | October 30, 2007 12:08 PM
It is the protections we have for their beliefs that allow them to be imposed.
Posted by: Bill C. | October 30, 2007 9:27 AM
True, but it's ridiculous that we're protecting these people.
Should we protect the Wiccan clerk at Staples because she doesn't want to sell paper because trees are sacred?
Should we protect the Jewish McDonalds cashier because he refuses to sell hamburgers because they're not kosher?
Should we protect the Muslim SPCA worker who refuses to care for dogs because they are Haram?
Should we protect the Vegan EMT let a Christian die afer a car crash because the Christian is wearing a leather belt?
No. Each of these is equally ridiculous and if some follower of any of these religions tried to claim the right to do this, Christians would be up in arms protesting just like they do with the bullshit 'War on Christmas' every year.
These people are hired to do a job an if they are incapable of doing said job the business owner SHOULD fire them. We're not talking about asking for a day off to dance naked under the full moon during a Sabbat or wanting to take off for Yom Kippur. We're talking about an employee refusing to do his job because he believes his moral concerns are more important that the moral concerns of the people he or she is servicing. That is ludicrous! You don't go to a pharmacist to be proselytized to, you go to a pharmacist to get drugs prescribed to you by a doctor. These people have every right to their opinions but they have no right to make moral decisions about another person's life.
The bottom line is, I'm the customer. I don't give a damn what your* opinion is on anything other than on the drugs themselves. That is what I am paying my $50 copay for. Not for you to make unsolicited decisions for me and my sex life. Just fill my script and shut the hell up. I don't go soliciting marital advice from the bathroom attendant.
This is just yet another example how the Christian majority is expecting to get special rights above everyone else, plain and simple. A statement I will retract and apologize for when Christian groups start vocally supporting other religious groups getting the same rights they are demanding.
* You & your referring to these holier than thou pharmacists
Posted by: E in MD | October 30, 2007 12:13 PM
We're now more than a quarter-century into the AIDS era, yet -
Ratzinger's esteemed predecessor publicly urged Italy's pharmacists to remove all condoms from their shelves;
and very recently one of Ratzinger's subordinates scared those foolish enough to believe him with a lie that some condoms are deliberately contaminated with HIV.
The Catholic hierarchy has no claim whatsoever to any voice in discussions of morality, ethics, or health.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 30, 2007 12:19 PM
Pharmacists are licensed to dispense drugs. They are not licensed to practice medicine or judge other people's decisions.
If they can't put aside their religious doctrines and do their jobs, they should not have become pharmacists in the first place.
Posted by: raven | October 30, 2007 12:23 PM
So then they have to justify THAT by saying that the barriers are also tampering with "God's will" and that every act of
Yup. All powerful, all seeing, ever present creator of the universe.
Defeated by a penis shaped piece of latex. If you ignore how ridiculous religion is by design the very idea that such a being could be thwarted in his goal by anything mortal man wanted is absurd.
Uh huh... This one always amused me. If God wanted you to get preggers... you'd get preggers anyway.
Posted by: E in Md | October 30, 2007 12:25 PM
2007:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2603966.ece
"Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs. ...
A small number of Muslim medical students have even refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. ...
The religious objections by students have been confirmed by the British Medical Association (BMA) and General Medical Council (GMC), which both stressed that they did not approve of such actions."
2001:
http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/670
"Britain's Evangelical Christians have condemned transsexuality as "a fantasy and an illusion", arguing that sex-change operations should be banned. Instead, says the Evangelical Alliance, which claims to represent one million churchgoers, transsexuals should pray for normality."
Posted by: Colugo | October 30, 2007 12:38 PM
If your job presents you with a moral issue perhaps you need to find a new job.
Posted by: ckerst | October 30, 2007 12:47 PM
"The "theory" is that the Pill can cause fertilized eggs not to implant on the uterus wall..."
But that's absurd. The regular run of the mill Pill just keeps eggs from being released from the ovaries. The eggs can't be fertilized because they just aren't THERE. I'm not surprised that people lie about the pill, though. When I taught developmental bio and we talked about the effects of estrogen, inevitably leading up to a discussion on birth control pills, about 99% of my kids were like, "OH! THAT'S how it works???"
Oy.
Posted by: LM | October 30, 2007 12:51 PM
"Certainly a pharmacist has the right not to sell anything he doesn't want to"
No, they do not have the "right" to do that. With their license, comes responsibility. If they are not willing to do their licensed job, then they should have their license revoked. Then they can not sell anything they don't want to.
They can chose to not sell anything they don't want to, but if they don't they have to live with the consequences. It doesn't mean they have a right to do it.
Posted by: Pablo | October 30, 2007 12:52 PM
I'm a pharmacist. I hate to say it, but my compatriots trend conservative: it's the money, really.
I think the conscientious objection laws are stupid. I mean, if I worked in a retail chain and refused to dispense, say, Clomid on the grounds that artificially-induced pregnancy is morally wrong, I'd be fired faster than a bullet.
Posted by: C. Diane | October 30, 2007 1:05 PM
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 30, 2007 12:05 PM
PyschoAtheist,
My understanding is that here in the UK a pharmacist may refuse to dispense contraception, or the morning after pill but only if in doing so they do not impair the woman's right to have the prescription fulfilled. What I take that to mean is that they cannot refuse if in doing so they would cause a delay that would mean the effectivness of the pill would be negated. An issue more relevant to the morning after pill I suspect.
I'm not entirely sure mate though that sounds about right given our government's pandering to the PC brigade.
On an related issue there has a been a debate here in the UK in the last week or so into abortion.
Yeah, I blogged about that as well. The major factor was that some individuals who were to present evidence to the committee had not disclosed their links to Christian anti-abortion groups.
I've been following it closely, the anti-abortion crowd have been throwing out the old canards about 'increased risk of cancer' and 'psychological damage' which are being shot down by the real scientists in the room.
Posted by: PsychoAtheist | October 30, 2007 1:29 PM
Damn! forgot to close the italic tab after the world 'suspect' in my last post.
Sorry
Posted by: PsychoAtheist | October 30, 2007 1:37 PM
'Word' not 'world'.
Keyboard and brain checked in for service first thing tomorrow.:|
Posted by: PsychoAtheist | October 30, 2007 1:39 PM
Fair enough, to clarify the position they take is based on faulty reasoning.
Posted by: Uber | October 30, 2007 1:41 PM
The meeting of pharmacists at which Benny held this speech was in Italy and the Italian Government has already reminded Italian pharmacists of their legal obligation to fulfil all prescriptions written by doctors.
Posted by: Thony C. | October 30, 2007 1:51 PM
That's not.
I am amazed that so many posters here claim to be empathic, caring, left-leaning individuals but are always more than ready to force their views on others. If a taxi driver doesn't want to transport alcohol, it is your right to give your money to a different taxi driver. It is not your right to force the first driver to behave they way _you_ want him to.
The same applies to pharmacists. If a pharmacist takes a job knowing that he will have to dispense contraception, refusing to do so should be grounds for dismissal. On the other hand, if a company is willing to support that refusal, potential customers are free to patronize other pharmacies. Initiating force to compel others to behave as you would like them to is simply wrong.
If you really want to be a decent, moral person, pay attention to which way the gun is pointing.
Jack
Posted by: Jack | October 30, 2007 2:00 PM
What if pharmacists demanded a marriage license before dispensing Viagra?
What if pharmacists demanded a notarized statement from the wife that the sex was going to be with her?
Let's see pharmacists who treat birth-control-pill-seeking women like dirt, try making Viagra-seeking-older-men feel like dirt.
Posted by: AR | October 30, 2007 2:14 PM
At a university?
Over here how all manner of contraception works is taught in the 8th year of school.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 30, 2007 2:25 PM
I find the "conscientious objector" concept so offensive. I come from a family of conscientious objectors, and the idea that someone would use that phrase to deny women their reproductive rights is just horrible. No one is forced to be a pharmacist the way that the draft forces people to become soldiers. They already have an easy opt-out if they're morally opposed -- just get another job.
Posted by: julia | October 30, 2007 2:26 PM
Actually the RCC's stance on contraception is more about sin than anything else. You see, kiddies, sex is bad... bad bad bad... But without sex there are no babies and no babies eventually means no church, so obviously some sex should take place but only if you are trying to conceive a baby. Therefore, any act of sex that also tries to prevent conception is a deadly devious and possible evil sin.
So, you see they are really just trying to look after you... for your own sake of course.
BTW, if you follow the penitential rules for when you are allowed to have sex, then you end up with maybe 30-40 opportunities per year.
Posted by: laserboy | October 30, 2007 2:43 PM
Not necessarily. If the only grocer in the area refuses to sell my favourite ice-cream, I can always start my own shop and stock it myself. If I try to start my own pharmacy, on the other hand, I get arrested.
The pharmacist has a privileged market position, backed by government force. The price for this privilege is doing the damn job.
Posted by: MartinM | October 30, 2007 3:04 PM
That's another problem.
It is an insidious and specious defense of the initiation of force to claim that one instance of coercion is justified by another.
Posted by: Jack | October 30, 2007 3:20 PM
David Marjanović: Ayuh. These were mostly juniors and seniors, too!
Posted by: LM | October 30, 2007 3:30 PM
Gadzooks.
People, think about the proposed remedy here. Most people in this thread are telling the pharmacist that, rather than participate in what he believes to be the killing of a human being, he should quit his job and find one in another line of work... as if jobs grew on trees. Between the two costs for whom to favor in the legal presuppositions -- a customer who can (yes, allright, usually) take their business to another pharmacist, or a person being asked to choose between keeping his job and doing something morally equivalent to murder -- the easier cost seems to be the one we should reasonably impose, with exceptions dictated by special circumstances (I live in a rural area, there isn't another pharmacist; I'm homebound, I have to get my scrips by mail).
The "Muslim cabbie" issue differs in several points. The moral objection is far less than something the driver believes to be murder; the enabling contribution he makes to the consumption is far less direct; and so forth. It's easy to see these points if you'll just take a moment to put yourself in the service-provider's shoes. Come on, folks, we're liberals, we're supposed to be good at that.
Posted by: William | October 30, 2007 3:59 PM
That is the pharmacist's problem. It shouldn't be the problem of the doc, the patient, or his employer.
If the pharmacist refuses to do his job, he should and is free to seek other lines of work. In fact, the way the laws in the USA are structured, in most cases the employer will facilitate that. Most large stores with pharmacies now require prospective employees to read and sign their rules for service to customers. Which include filling prescriptions rather than playing god or priest.
If we wanted priests or ministers to prescreen prescriptions, we would hire them instead.
Posted by: raven | October 30, 2007 4:20 PM
This is simply a religious injunction to be intolerant, a denial of the plain fact that many non-Catholics (and, of course, even many Catholics) do not obey papal rules.
Don't know if anyone pointed this out yet, but Ratzi could easily mean it as a response to that last part rather than a denial.
Posted by: hf | October 30, 2007 4:21 PM
It is absolutely unacceptable for anyone to refuse to perform a service they were hired to perform based on "moral" objections to situations they knew (if they had an ounce of sense) would arise.
And it is despicable for someone to take such a job, knowing that such situations might arise, and seeing it as a chance to preach their "morals," as I'm sure happens.
It's not my job to go find another pharmacist; it's their job to fill my prescription, accurately, completely, and quickly. And if they will not, they need to find another line of work. And if they have the backing of the "company policy," then the company needs to find a new business.
No one is trying to force anyone to behave in any way; we're simply demanding, and rightly, that if you are hired to do a job, you do it. If you are unwilling to perform the duties of the job, you have no business being employed in that job. Full stop.
Posted by: markbt73 | October 30, 2007 5:13 PM
Doesn't your head hurt when you write self-contradictory statements so close together?
You are advocating forcing someone to behave in the way that _you_ want them to by _your_ definition of what _you_ want their job to be. The taxi driver who refuses to transport liquor and the pharmacist who refuses to dispense contraception do not define the job the same way.
It's not very "liberal" to be so intolerant of others' beliefs and so willing to control their lives.