conscience protection
Replies
-
Where is the line drawn for those who oppose conscience protection? Please read this (it's a quick read regarding a NJ lawsuit about this topic)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-jersey-nurses-charge-religious-discrimination-over-hospital-abortion-policy/2011/11/15/gIQAydgm2N_story.html?hpid=z3&tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Wake Up Call NJ&utm_campaign=Wake Up Call
So, would these same nurses refuse to help a patient who went somewhere else to have an abortion and was having complications after the fact? They would refuse to help the patient based on what had occurred, but they had no part in the actual act. I don't see that as helping anyone, but judging. They aren't being required to assist with the abortion but to take care of their patient, regardless of the procedure. If they are allowed off of these cases it could lead to them picking and choosing their patients based on what the patient is there for.
Overall, I think that if you can't do your job then don't go into that line of work. There is more to it than that in some areas of the country. Some catholic hospitals won't sterilize you, they won't tie your tubes even if you are having a c-section. What if that's the only hospital in the area? What if you end up there based on an emergency situation and they simply won't honor your wishes?0 -
So the one nurse should be fired because she wouldn't catch the decapitated head of the baby? Where is the line drawn?Where is the line drawn for those who oppose conscience protection? Please read this (it's a quick read regarding a NJ lawsuit about this topic)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-jersey-nurses-charge-religious-discrimination-over-hospital-abortion-policy/2011/11/15/gIQAydgm2N_story.html?hpid=z3&tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Wake Up Call NJ&utm_campaign=Wake Up Call
So, would these same nurses refuse to help a patient who went somewhere else to have an abortion and was having complications after the fact? They would refuse to help the patient based on what had occurred, but they had no part in the actual act. I don't see that as helping anyone, but judging. They aren't being required to assist with the abortion but to take care of their patient, regardless of the procedure. If they are allowed off of these cases it could lead to them picking and choosing their patients based on what the patient is there for.
Overall, I think that if you can't do your job then don't go into that line of work. There is more to it than that in some areas of the country. Some catholic hospitals won't sterilize you, they won't tie your tubes even if you are having a c-section. What if that's the only hospital in the area? What if you end up there based on an emergency situation and they simply won't honor your wishes?0 -
So the one nurse should be fired because she wouldn't catch the decapitated head of the baby? Where is the line drawn?Where is the line drawn for those who oppose conscience protection? Please read this (it's a quick read regarding a NJ lawsuit about this topic)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-jersey-nurses-charge-religious-discrimination-over-hospital-abortion-policy/2011/11/15/gIQAydgm2N_story.html?hpid=z3&tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Wake Up Call NJ&utm_campaign=Wake Up Call
So, would these same nurses refuse to help a patient who went somewhere else to have an abortion and was having complications after the fact? They would refuse to help the patient based on what had occurred, but they had no part in the actual act. I don't see that as helping anyone, but judging. They aren't being required to assist with the abortion but to take care of their patient, regardless of the procedure. If they are allowed off of these cases it could lead to them picking and choosing their patients based on what the patient is there for.
Overall, I think that if you can't do your job then don't go into that line of work. There is more to it than that in some areas of the country. Some catholic hospitals won't sterilize you, they won't tie your tubes even if you are having a c-section. What if that's the only hospital in the area? What if you end up there based on an emergency situation and they simply won't honor your wishes?
Based on the article, that is not the hospital policy. Maybe the manager should be looked into. That would be a legitimate concern and I think the hospital would want to follow up - assuming they say what they mean. If they are allowing nurses to only care for the patient before and after the procedure but not force them to perform the procedure, then there should be an investigation.0 -
And you're willing to play Russian Roulette with a rural area Catholic hospital over sterilization? Because, trust me, they will close the doors to the hospital before going against their teachings/beliefs. Now, forcing them to choose (and they would rather close than compromise their souls and the souls of their flock) would be detrimental to that rural area. Those in non-rural areas should remember this when legislating and not allowing conscience protection.Where is the line drawn for those who oppose conscience protection? Please read this (it's a quick read regarding a NJ lawsuit about this topic)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-jersey-nurses-charge-religious-discrimination-over-hospital-abortion-policy/2011/11/15/gIQAydgm2N_story.html?hpid=z3&tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Wake Up Call NJ&utm_campaign=Wake Up Call
So, would these same nurses refuse to help a patient who went somewhere else to have an abortion and was having complications after the fact? They would refuse to help the patient based on what had occurred, but they had no part in the actual act. I don't see that as helping anyone, but judging. They aren't being required to assist with the abortion but to take care of their patient, regardless of the procedure. If they are allowed off of these cases it could lead to them picking and choosing their patients based on what the patient is there for.
Overall, I think that if you can't do your job then don't go into that line of work. There is more to it than that in some areas of the country. Some catholic hospitals won't sterilize you, they won't tie your tubes even if you are having a c-section. What if that's the only hospital in the area? What if you end up there based on an emergency situation and they simply won't honor your wishes?0 -
I think that that is what will happen, hence the lawsuit. No matter what, we should all always be alert because there are always people who try to cross the line thinking they won't be noticed.
So the one nurse should be fired because she wouldn't catch the decapitated head of the baby? Where is the line drawn?Where is the line drawn for those who oppose conscience protection? Please read this (it's a quick read regarding a NJ lawsuit about this topic)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-jersey-nurses-charge-religious-discrimination-over-hospital-abortion-policy/2011/11/15/gIQAydgm2N_story.html?hpid=z3&tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Wake Up Call NJ&utm_campaign=Wake Up Call
So, would these same nurses refuse to help a patient who went somewhere else to have an abortion and was having complications after the fact? They would refuse to help the patient based on what had occurred, but they had no part in the actual act. I don't see that as helping anyone, but judging. They aren't being required to assist with the abortion but to take care of their patient, regardless of the procedure. If they are allowed off of these cases it could lead to them picking and choosing their patients based on what the patient is there for.
Overall, I think that if you can't do your job then don't go into that line of work. There is more to it than that in some areas of the country. Some catholic hospitals won't sterilize you, they won't tie your tubes even if you are having a c-section. What if that's the only hospital in the area? What if you end up there based on an emergency situation and they simply won't honor your wishes?
Based on the article, that is not the hospital policy. Maybe the manager should be looked into. That would be a legitimate concern and I think the hospital would want to follow up - assuming they say what they mean. If they are allowing nurses to only care for the patient before and after the procedure but not force them to perform the procedure, then there should be an investigation.0 -
By the way, when I say "you" I mean the general, not you specifically.0
-
I would also like to point out the article says, “‘You just have to catch the baby’s head. Don’t worry, it’s already dead.’ ”, not "catch the decapitated head of the baby". There is a major difference.0
-
I'm sorry, you're correct.I would also like to point out the article says, “‘You just have to catch the baby’s head. Don’t worry, it’s already dead.’ ”, not "catch the decapitated head of the baby". There is a major difference.0 -
And you're willing to play Russian Roulette with a rural area Catholic hospital over sterilization? Because, trust me, they will close the doors to the hospital before going against their teachings/beliefs. Now, forcing them to choose (and they would rather close than compromise their souls and the souls of their flock) would be detrimental to that rural area. Those in non-rural areas should remember this when legislating and not allowing conscience protection.Where is the line drawn for those who oppose conscience protection? Please read this (it's a quick read regarding a NJ lawsuit about this topic)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-jersey-nurses-charge-religious-discrimination-over-hospital-abortion-policy/2011/11/15/gIQAydgm2N_story.html?hpid=z3&tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Wake Up Call NJ&utm_campaign=Wake Up Call
So, would these same nurses refuse to help a patient who went somewhere else to have an abortion and was having complications after the fact? They would refuse to help the patient based on what had occurred, but they had no part in the actual act. I don't see that as helping anyone, but judging. They aren't being required to assist with the abortion but to take care of their patient, regardless of the procedure. If they are allowed off of these cases it could lead to them picking and choosing their patients based on what the patient is there for.
Overall, I think that if you can't do your job then don't go into that line of work. There is more to it than that in some areas of the country. Some catholic hospitals won't sterilize you, they won't tie your tubes even if you are having a c-section. What if that's the only hospital in the area? What if you end up there based on an emergency situation and they simply won't honor your wishes?
Personally, yes, I would.0 -
Yes and no. If I go to a pharmacist for any contraception, and he decides that it's against his religious beliefs, he has the right to refuse. But I have the right to call his manager and say that I will be taking my business else where. In a free market system, this guy won't have a job for long. I guess he can go be a pharmacist at a convent or monestary where people don't have sex if that suits him. Because as long as I have money and a business wants my money, then provide the services I want or I'll find someone else. So I guess what I'm saying that these people who think should only have conscience protection when their beliefs correlate with th businesses. I don't want to have to bounce around from Walgreens to Walgreens because some bible thumper wants to sit in judgement. of me based on his interpretation of a Bible written thousands of years ago by some middle eastern goat herders.
One addition to that: pharmacies (and pharmacists) do not exist in a "free market" system. The operate under a license granted by the government. In addition to making rules under which they can operate, that license also protects them from competition by non-licensed individuals. So, they don't have the "freedom" to do whatever they want to do.0 -
Whether one agrees or not, to my knowledge, there has always been a distinction made between direct medical providers (e.g. physicians) and indirect providers (e.g. pharmacists) when it comes to "conscience-related" issues.
Direct providers have always been granted more leeway to refuse to perform procedures based on conscience. By that reasoning, an argument could be made that, since pharmacists are not writing the prescription orders themselves, they are not entitled to the same level of protection.
Some states have tried to work around this by placing the responsibility on the company -- saying that the company can allow pharmacists to refuse to fill certain prescriptions, but they must always have someone available who can dispense any legally prescribed product. As you might imagine, the costs of doing that are prohibitive so that has been pushed by the wayside.
This is one of those issues where I try to adopt a consistent position (even though I'm not sure I have one completely settled).
In a public society, and in our society, our individual rights are not absolute--there are limits when "the greater good of society" is involved. Examples: you can yell '"fire" in your house but not in a crowded theater; you can walk around naked in your house, but not on the streets, etc. There are some people who have developed the position that not only should their individual rights never be constrained, but they should never have to even be exposed to anything that they disagree with.
We live a a common society and we must all make compromises. I have worked in a number of faith-based health facilities and once taught in a Catholic high school. I disagreed with most of the religious teachings of these institutions, but, having willfully entered into employment, I respected those boundaries and principles and did not publicly attack them. I guess I feel the same way about pharmacies- it's like if I was a vegetarian, took a job in a butcher shop and then refused to sell meat because it was against my religious principles.
As I mentioned before, pharmacies operate under a privileged system -- it is not really a "free market" and I do not think they are entitled to the same amount of freedom to exercise personal beliefs. It's one thing for me--I live in the Chicago suburbs and there are literally a dozen pharmacies within a 5-min drive from my house. But in many areas, that is not the case. A woman, esp a poor woman, who needs a legal medical product such as contraceptives or even the morning-after pill should not be refused that legally prescribed product when they may have no other option. To me, that TRULY is "unconscionable".
Another reason why it is difficult to find a compromise is that there are many people--unfortunately, many of them christians--who are not content with following their beliefs as individuals. They feel their sectarian beliefs should be imposed on society as a whole. You combine that drive for "dominionism" with rigid fundamentalism and there is little room for common ground.0 -
Some states have laws that even privately owned pharmacies have to offer contraception if the perscription is requested to be filled. That's what I'm talking about when it comes to conscience protection, laws that require even privately owned pharmacists to go against their consciences.Let's stick with the Chic-Fil-A example. Say an employee got hired while the policy was still that they are closed in Sunday (which I love, BTW). Then Chic-Fil-A changes their mind and wants their employees to work in Sundays. It would be nice if they had insurance to protect them from having to choose losing their jobs or doing something they aren't comfortable with religiously.
The employees have the right to request it and try not to work. But if the business can't accomadate and this employee becomes a liability, then they have to go. Would this happen in this case. Maybe, maybe not. If you are a valuable employee, maybe they try and work something out. It's a complicated issue because I believe that employees do have rights, but so does a business owner. Who wins, who's rights are more important? I for one don't know. I just figure if I'm the boss, and I want to sell condoms, and one of my employees doesn't, they have to go. A persons religon or non-religion doesn't change the fact that I'm the boss and what I is what goes (legally of course).
Agreed with Adrian.
I'm also a former Chick-Fil-A employee, and loved that they were closed on Sundays, but for different reasons. It meant I always had a guaranteed day off. :laugh: It also meant I was an atheist working in a company very well-known for its Christian leanings, and I had to respect that. If it got to a point that they were doing things I didn't agree with so much so that I just had to leave, then I'd have left. Sure, I did quit that job, but not because I disagreed with the fact that they're a very Christian company.
If you're a pharmacist working at Walgreens or CVS or some other big-name pharmacy, and your company itself is not against contraception, then you need to put your big girl/big boy pants on and suck it up and do your job. I don't agree with diet pills, but hey, if it was my job to dispense them, then I'd do it. If someone is against contraception, then why take that job in the first place? I mean yeah, if someone is against them and THEY own a pharmacy, then obviously the stuff wouldn't even be sold or distributed there. But if it's sold and distributed there, then you need to sell or distribute it.
Ah, okay. Well in that case, no. If I'm a pharmacist, opening up my own private pharmacy, then I should be allowed to pick and choose what I want to sell and distribute. I probably won't make a lot of money, but it's still my business and no one else's. And I would expect the same of any employee I hired. So that is something I do not agree with.
I'll say it one more time to make the distinction: when dispensing prescription medication, pharmacies are not "free market" businesses, they operate under a privileged license (i.e. non pharmacists cannot compete with them) which grants them protection but also imposes restrictions. Because of that IMO, when it comes to filling legal prescriptions, they don't have to right to pick and choose which to carry and dispense. You made a good analogy with diet pills. What about painkillers? Tranquilizers? No one should have to play Lotto when they go to a pharmacy with their prescription--ordering the meds is the doctor's job.
Now for the other stuff--that's a different story. If a pharmacy doesn't want to carry condoms, or KY enhancement, butt plugs or whatever, that is their privilege.0 -
Some states have laws that even privately owned pharmacies have to offer contraception if the perscription is requested to be filled. That's what I'm talking about when it comes to conscience protection, laws that require even privately owned pharmacists to go against their consciences.Let's stick with the Chic-Fil-A example. Say an employee got hired while the policy was still that they are closed in Sunday (which I love, BTW). Then Chic-Fil-A changes their mind and wants their employees to work in Sundays. It would be nice if they had insurance to protect them from having to choose losing their jobs or doing something they aren't comfortable with religiously.
The employees have the right to request it and try not to work. But if the business can't accomadate and this employee becomes a liability, then they have to go. Would this happen in this case. Maybe, maybe not. If you are a valuable employee, maybe they try and work something out. It's a complicated issue because I believe that employees do have rights, but so does a business owner. Who wins, who's rights are more important? I for one don't know. I just figure if I'm the boss, and I want to sell condoms, and one of my employees doesn't, they have to go. A persons religon or non-religion doesn't change the fact that I'm the boss and what I is what goes (legally of course).
Agreed with Adrian.
I'm also a former Chick-Fil-A employee, and loved that they were closed on Sundays, but for different reasons. It meant I always had a guaranteed day off. :laugh: It also meant I was an atheist working in a company very well-known for its Christian leanings, and I had to respect that. If it got to a point that they were doing things I didn't agree with so much so that I just had to leave, then I'd have left. Sure, I did quit that job, but not because I disagreed with the fact that they're a very Christian company.
If you're a pharmacist working at Walgreens or CVS or some other big-name pharmacy, and your company itself is not against contraception, then you need to put your big girl/big boy pants on and suck it up and do your job. I don't agree with diet pills, but hey, if it was my job to dispense them, then I'd do it. If someone is against contraception, then why take that job in the first place? I mean yeah, if someone is against them and THEY own a pharmacy, then obviously the stuff wouldn't even be sold or distributed there. But if it's sold and distributed there, then you need to sell or distribute it.
Ah, okay. Well in that case, no. If I'm a pharmacist, opening up my own private pharmacy, then I should be allowed to pick and choose what I want to sell and distribute. I probably won't make a lot of money, but it's still my business and no one else's. And I would expect the same of any employee I hired. So that is something I do not agree with.
I'll say it one more time to make the distinction: when dispensing prescription medication, pharmacies are not "free market" businesses, they operate under a privileged license (i.e. non pharmacists cannot compete with them) which grants them protection but also imposes restrictions. Because of that IMO, when it comes to filling legal prescriptions, they don't have to right to pick and choose which to carry and dispense. You made a good analogy with diet pills. What about painkillers? Tranquilizers? No one should have to play Lotto when they go to a pharmacy with their prescription--ordering the meds is the doctor's job.
Now for the other stuff--that's a different story. If a pharmacy doesn't want to carry condoms, or KY enhancement, butt plugs or whatever, that is their privilege.
My keyword is SHOULD. If I want to open my own pharmacy, I SHOULD be able to stock whatever I choose. Like I said...if a pharmacy were to open up with that mindset, they probably won't make a lot of money, but I very much believe it should be their right to. It's not playing Lotto--they can call the pharmacy beforehand and ask them if that prescription could be filled there. If it can't, then they can go elsewhere. The thought of telling someone else what they can or cannot distribute in their own business makes me feel very uneasy.
But we all know that would never happen, because big chain companies like CVS, Walgreens, and Rite-Aid are all over the place, and they want to make money, so they won't ever restrict it. Same as mom&pop places...they (I assume, anyway) would want to make money, unless they very vehemently do not want to go against their personal beliefs. Plus I'm just proposing would-be scenarios.0 -
Some states have laws that even privately owned pharmacies have to offer contraception if the perscription is requested to be filled. That's what I'm talking about when it comes to conscience protection, laws that require even privately owned pharmacists to go against their consciences.Let's stick with the Chic-Fil-A example. Say an employee got hired while the policy was still that they are closed in Sunday (which I love, BTW). Then Chic-Fil-A changes their mind and wants their employees to work in Sundays. It would be nice if they had insurance to protect them from having to choose losing their jobs or doing something they aren't comfortable with religiously.
The employees have the right to request it and try not to work. But if the business can't accomadate and this employee becomes a liability, then they have to go. Would this happen in this case. Maybe, maybe not. If you are a valuable employee, maybe they try and work something out. It's a complicated issue because I believe that employees do have rights, but so does a business owner. Who wins, who's rights are more important? I for one don't know. I just figure if I'm the boss, and I want to sell condoms, and one of my employees doesn't, they have to go. A persons religon or non-religion doesn't change the fact that I'm the boss and what I is what goes (legally of course).
Agreed with Adrian.
I'm also a former Chick-Fil-A employee, and loved that they were closed on Sundays, but for different reasons. It meant I always had a guaranteed day off. :laugh: It also meant I was an atheist working in a company very well-known for its Christian leanings, and I had to respect that. If it got to a point that they were doing things I didn't agree with so much so that I just had to leave, then I'd have left. Sure, I did quit that job, but not because I disagreed with the fact that they're a very Christian company.
If you're a pharmacist working at Walgreens or CVS or some other big-name pharmacy, and your company itself is not against contraception, then you need to put your big girl/big boy pants on and suck it up and do your job. I don't agree with diet pills, but hey, if it was my job to dispense them, then I'd do it. If someone is against contraception, then why take that job in the first place? I mean yeah, if someone is against them and THEY own a pharmacy, then obviously the stuff wouldn't even be sold or distributed there. But if it's sold and distributed there, then you need to sell or distribute it.
Ah, okay. Well in that case, no. If I'm a pharmacist, opening up my own private pharmacy, then I should be allowed to pick and choose what I want to sell and distribute. I probably won't make a lot of money, but it's still my business and no one else's. And I would expect the same of any employee I hired. So that is something I do not agree with.
I'll say it one more time to make the distinction: when dispensing prescription medication, pharmacies are not "free market" businesses, they operate under a privileged license (i.e. non pharmacists cannot compete with them) which grants them protection but also imposes restrictions. Because of that IMO, when it comes to filling legal prescriptions, they don't have to right to pick and choose which to carry and dispense. You made a good analogy with diet pills. What about painkillers? Tranquilizers? No one should have to play Lotto when they go to a pharmacy with their prescription--ordering the meds is the doctor's job.
Now for the other stuff--that's a different story. If a pharmacy doesn't want to carry condoms, or KY enhancement, butt plugs or whatever, that is their privilege.
My keyword is SHOULD. If I want to open my own pharmacy, I SHOULD be able to stock whatever I choose. Like I said...if a pharmacy were to open up with that mindset, they probably won't make a lot of money, but I very much believe it should be their right to. It's not playing Lotto--they can call the pharmacy beforehand and ask them if that prescription could be filled there. If it can't, then they can go elsewhere. The thought of telling someone else what they can or cannot distribute in their own business makes me feel very uneasy.
But we all know that would never happen, because big chain companies like CVS, Walgreens, and Rite-Aid are all over the place, and they want to make money, so they won't ever restrict it. Same as mom&pop places...they (I assume, anyway) would want to make money, unless they very vehemently do not want to go against their personal beliefs. Plus I'm just proposing would-be scenarios.
There are some places that have no other options...what then? They have to drive two hours to get what they want? What if they can't get there, don't have a car - whatever. They are just out of luck because 'you' think they shouldn't be allowed to get it.0 -
Some states have laws that even privately owned pharmacies have to offer contraception if the perscription is requested to be filled. That's what I'm talking about when it comes to conscience protection, laws that require even privately owned pharmacists to go against their consciences.Let's stick with the Chic-Fil-A example. Say an employee got hired while the policy was still that they are closed in Sunday (which I love, BTW). Then Chic-Fil-A changes their mind and wants their employees to work in Sundays. It would be nice if they had insurance to protect them from having to choose losing their jobs or doing something they aren't comfortable with religiously.
The employees have the right to request it and try not to work. But if the business can't accomadate and this employee becomes a liability, then they have to go. Would this happen in this case. Maybe, maybe not. If you are a valuable employee, maybe they try and work something out. It's a complicated issue because I believe that employees do have rights, but so does a business owner. Who wins, who's rights are more important? I for one don't know. I just figure if I'm the boss, and I want to sell condoms, and one of my employees doesn't, they have to go. A persons religon or non-religion doesn't change the fact that I'm the boss and what I is what goes (legally of course).
Agreed with Adrian.
I'm also a former Chick-Fil-A employee, and loved that they were closed on Sundays, but for different reasons. It meant I always had a guaranteed day off. :laugh: It also meant I was an atheist working in a company very well-known for its Christian leanings, and I had to respect that. If it got to a point that they were doing things I didn't agree with so much so that I just had to leave, then I'd have left. Sure, I did quit that job, but not because I disagreed with the fact that they're a very Christian company.
If you're a pharmacist working at Walgreens or CVS or some other big-name pharmacy, and your company itself is not against contraception, then you need to put your big girl/big boy pants on and suck it up and do your job. I don't agree with diet pills, but hey, if it was my job to dispense them, then I'd do it. If someone is against contraception, then why take that job in the first place? I mean yeah, if someone is against them and THEY own a pharmacy, then obviously the stuff wouldn't even be sold or distributed there. But if it's sold and distributed there, then you need to sell or distribute it.
Ah, okay. Well in that case, no. If I'm a pharmacist, opening up my own private pharmacy, then I should be allowed to pick and choose what I want to sell and distribute. I probably won't make a lot of money, but it's still my business and no one else's. And I would expect the same of any employee I hired. So that is something I do not agree with.
I'll say it one more time to make the distinction: when dispensing prescription medication, pharmacies are not "free market" businesses, they operate under a privileged license (i.e. non pharmacists cannot compete with them) which grants them protection but also imposes restrictions. Because of that IMO, when it comes to filling legal prescriptions, they don't have to right to pick and choose which to carry and dispense. You made a good analogy with diet pills. What about painkillers? Tranquilizers? No one should have to play Lotto when they go to a pharmacy with their prescription--ordering the meds is the doctor's job.
Now for the other stuff--that's a different story. If a pharmacy doesn't want to carry condoms, or KY enhancement, butt plugs or whatever, that is their privilege.
My keyword is SHOULD. If I want to open my own pharmacy, I SHOULD be able to stock whatever I choose. Like I said...if a pharmacy were to open up with that mindset, they probably won't make a lot of money, but I very much believe it should be their right to. It's not playing Lotto--they can call the pharmacy beforehand and ask them if that prescription could be filled there. If it can't, then they can go elsewhere. The thought of telling someone else what they can or cannot distribute in their own business makes me feel very uneasy.
But we all know that would never happen, because big chain companies like CVS, Walgreens, and Rite-Aid are all over the place, and they want to make money, so they won't ever restrict it. Same as mom&pop places...they (I assume, anyway) would want to make money, unless they very vehemently do not want to go against their personal beliefs. Plus I'm just proposing would-be scenarios.
There are some places that have no other options...what then? They have to drive two hours to get what they want? What if they can't get there, don't have a car - whatever. They are just out of luck because 'you' think they shouldn't be allowed to get it.
Quite frankly? Yes. If you open a business, would you want people telling you what you can and cannot sell? Especially if it is against your values? Also, it has nothing to do with someone thinking they shouldn't be allowed to get it--it's just their choice of supplying it or not.
Some people already travel for their medications. Why would this be any different?
Also, doesn't every city/county have a health department, anyway? Where contraception is FREE and/or based off of your income?0 -
Also, doesn't every city/county have a health department, anyway? Where contraception is FREE and/or based off of your income?
There ARE such clinics available, although not in every county. They are called "Planned Parenthood" and they have been under unrelenting assault by the right wing for decades.
You do understand this is the United States we're talking about, right? Where a major political party to dedicated to a war on women for daring to even HAVE any sexual feelings (unless it's one of their mistresses) or daring to have any say over what happens to their bodies. A party that sees health care as a "privilege" reserved only for those who can afford it, a party that is determined to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on "abstinence only" education that has been proven ineffective in study after study after study.....
It would be easier to find a tea bagger who could spell than it would be to find enough political support to establish responsible community health centers that could address these issues rationally.0 -
There ARE such clinics available, although not in every county. They are called "Planned Parenthood" and they have been under unrelenting assault by the right wing for decades.
You do understand this is the United States we're talking about, right? Where a major political party to dedicated to a war on women for daring to even HAVE any sexual feelings (unless it's one of their mistresses) or daring to have any say over what happens to their bodies. A party that sees health care as a "privilege" reserved only for those who can afford it, a party that is determined to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on "abstinence only" education that has been proven ineffective in study after study after study.....
It would be easier to find a tea bagger who could spell than it would be to find enough political support to establish responsible community health centers that could address these issues rationally.
Wow. Nothing like receiving an unbiased education on the United States.
Planned Parenthood assists in killing the unborn. Thank God we have people who will speak up for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. I'm not interested in debating abortion (that would be hyjacking, no?). I'm only suggesting if you want to know the history of the United State's government, Planned Parenthood, Tea Baggers, or political parties, please read about both sides.0 -
I agree, it's much better than going around name calling and stereotyping oh, and believing your own point of view without questioning it.There ARE such clinics available, although not in every county. They are called "Planned Parenthood" and they have been under unrelenting assault by the right wing for decades.
You do understand this is the United States we're talking about, right? Where a major political party to dedicated to a war on women for daring to even HAVE any sexual feelings (unless it's one of their mistresses) or daring to have any say over what happens to their bodies. A party that sees health care as a "privilege" reserved only for those who can afford it, a party that is determined to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on "abstinence only" education that has been proven ineffective in study after study after study.....
It would be easier to find a tea bagger who could spell than it would be to find enough political support to establish responsible community health centers that could address these issues rationally.
Wow. Nothing like receiving an unbiased education on the United States.
Planned Parenthood assists in killing the unborn. Thank God we have people who will speak up for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. I'm not interested in debating abortion (that would by hyjacking, no?). I'm only suggesting if you want to know the history of the United State's government, Planned Parenthood, Tea Baggers, or political parties, please read about both sides.0 -
Please rationally explain why we sould support the intentional elimination of another human?
It would be easier to find a tea bagger who could spell than it would be to find enough political support to establish responsible community health centers that could address these issues rationally.0 -
Also, doesn't every city/county have a health department, anyway? Where contraception is FREE and/or based off of your income?
There ARE such clinics available, although not in every county. They are called "Planned Parenthood" and they have been under unrelenting assault by the right wing for decades.
You do understand this is the United States we're talking about, right? Where a major political party to dedicated to a war on women for daring to even HAVE any sexual feelings (unless it's one of their mistresses) or daring to have any say over what happens to their bodies. A party that sees health care as a "privilege" reserved only for those who can afford it, a party that is determined to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on "abstinence only" education that has been proven ineffective in study after study after study.....
It would be easier to find a tea bagger who could spell than it would be to find enough political support to establish responsible community health centers that could address these issues rationally.
I'm very well aware of Planned Parenthood. I get their emails, I subscribe to them, I like them, and I went to them for years. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the local health departments in every county. Or at least, I THOUGHT every county had a health department. My own county has several. In fact, my teeny tiny little town has one. Every other county I've lived in throughout the East coast of the U.S., and some in the mid-west, had them. I guess I just assume that every county has one.
Also, you're throwing way too much political bias my way, and I'm not even sure why. Especially when I agree with a lot of what you say. This country is almost equally divided, though, IMO, in regards to sex.
All I'm saying is, no one SHOULD have the right to tell a business owner what they must supply. If they're given government funding, then yes. If they're doing it 100% on their own somehow, then by all means, I don't feel anyone has a right to force them to carry something, just because someone else wants it.0 -
On this, I think we can agree!
All I'm saying is, no one SHOULD have the right to tell a business owner what they must supply. If they're given government funding, then yes. If they're doing it 100% on their own somehow, then by all means, I don't feel anyone has a right to force them to carry something, just because someone else wants it.0 -
On this, I think we can agree!
All I'm saying is, no one SHOULD have the right to tell a business owner what they must supply. If they're given government funding, then yes. If they're doing it 100% on their own somehow, then by all means, I don't feel anyone has a right to force them to carry something, just because someone else wants it.
:flowerforyou: Yes we can! I don't like the idea of forcing others to live their life according to my standards if they aren't hurting anyone.0 -
They can absolutely choose what to sell or not sell. But just like a Hindu butcher who won't deal with beef, they are pretty stupid to choose to open that business. They're cutting their own throat by not selling everything there is a demand for.
As a side issue, if someone is so adamant against abortion that they won't tend to a patient before or after the procedure or sell the morning after pill, etc then shouldn't' they also not sell birth control pills at all? They can be abortifacients too. For that matter, if they are already up on their high horse they probably shouldn't sell any sort of birth control product to someone who isn't married. I'd think someone that rigid in their morality that they want to inflict it on everyone else is probably also against unmarried sex too. And if they aren't, well they are a bit of a hypocrite. So now we have a pharmacy that doesn't sell the morning after pill, birth control pills, depo, Viagra, condoms, etc. We should probably throw in anything that cures or treats and STD too. So you end up with a pharmacy that just removed a very large part of any potential profits. Give up the pharmacy and open a Christian bookstore if you want to impose your religion on your clientele.0 -
Well, Catholic institutions are fighting because they do not want to provide contraception in their insurance because it is against the teachings of the Church: http://catholic.org/college/story.php?id=43667.They can absolutely choose what to sell or not sell. But just like a Hindu butcher who won't deal with beef, they are pretty stupid to choose to open that business. They're cutting their own throat by not selling everything there is a demand for.
As a side issue, if someone is so adamant against abortion that they won't tend to a patient before or after the procedure or sell the morning after pill, etc then shouldn't' they also not sell birth control pills at all? They can be abortifacients too. For that matter, if they are already up on their high horse they probably shouldn't sell any sort of birth control product to someone who isn't married. I'd think someone that rigid in their morality that they want to inflict it on everyone else is probably also against unmarried sex too. And if they aren't, well they are a bit of a hypocrite. So now we have a pharmacy that doesn't sell the morning after pill, birth control pills, depo, Viagra, condoms, etc. We should probably throw in anything that cures or treats and STD too. So you end up with a pharmacy that just removed a very large part of any potential profits. Give up the pharmacy and open a Christian bookstore if you want to impose your religion on your clientele.
Yes, I am a Catholic who is 100% against contraception, my husband and I practice NFP. Contraception is so dangerous for marriage, women's health, and a baby (as you have already pointed out).0 -
As a side issue, if someone is so adamant against abortion that they won't tend to a patient before or after the procedure or sell the morning after pill, etc then shouldn't' they also not sell birth control pills at all? They can be abortifacients too. For that matter, if they are already up on their high horse they probably shouldn't sell any sort of birth control product to someone who isn't married. I'd think someone that rigid in their morality that they want to inflict it on everyone else is probably also against unmarried sex too. And if they aren't, well they are a bit of a hypocrite. So now we have a pharmacy that doesn't sell the morning after pill, birth control pills, depo, Viagra, condoms, etc. We should probably throw in anything that cures or treats and STD too. So you end up with a pharmacy that just removed a very large part of any potential profits. Give up the pharmacy and open a Christian bookstore if you want to impose your religion on your clientele.
The "people on their high horse" can choose not to sell a product or perform a procedure without imposing their religion on others. It's not like they pull out a soap box, stand on it, and self-righteously declare they won't do something. They can speak to their supervisors to see what the appropriate manner of handling each situation is for the company.0 -
The appropriate manner of handling the situation is not to become a pharmacist in the first place.As a side issue, if someone is so adamant against abortion that they won't tend to a patient before or after the procedure or sell the morning after pill, etc then shouldn't' they also not sell birth control pills at all? They can be abortifacients too. For that matter, if they are already up on their high horse they probably shouldn't sell any sort of birth control product to someone who isn't married. I'd think someone that rigid in their morality that they want to inflict it on everyone else is probably also against unmarried sex too. And if they aren't, well they are a bit of a hypocrite. So now we have a pharmacy that doesn't sell the morning after pill, birth control pills, depo, Viagra, condoms, etc. We should probably throw in anything that cures or treats and STD too. So you end up with a pharmacy that just removed a very large part of any potential profits. Give up the pharmacy and open a Christian bookstore if you want to impose your religion on your clientele.
The "people on their high horse" can choose not to sell a product or perform a procedure without imposing their religion on others. It's not like they pull out a soap box, stand on it, and self-righteously declare they won't do something. They can speak to their supervisors to see what the appropriate manner of handling each situation is for the company.0 -
Well, Catholic institutions are fighting because they do not want to provide contraception in their insurance because it is against the teachings of the Church: http://catholic.org/college/story.php?id=43667.They can absolutely choose what to sell or not sell. But just like a Hindu butcher who won't deal with beef, they are pretty stupid to choose to open that business. They're cutting their own throat by not selling everything there is a demand for.
As a side issue, if someone is so adamant against abortion that they won't tend to a patient before or after the procedure or sell the morning after pill, etc then shouldn't' they also not sell birth control pills at all? They can be abortifacients too. For that matter, if they are already up on their high horse they probably shouldn't sell any sort of birth control product to someone who isn't married. I'd think someone that rigid in their morality that they want to inflict it on everyone else is probably also against unmarried sex too. And if they aren't, well they are a bit of a hypocrite. So now we have a pharmacy that doesn't sell the morning after pill, birth control pills, depo, Viagra, condoms, etc. We should probably throw in anything that cures or treats and STD too. So you end up with a pharmacy that just removed a very large part of any potential profits. Give up the pharmacy and open a Christian bookstore if you want to impose your religion on your clientele.
Yes, I am a Catholic who is 100% against contraception, my husband and I practice NFP. Contraception is so dangerous for marriage, women's health, and a baby (as you have already pointed out).
Whoa! Hold on! "Contraception is so dangerous for marriage"??? :huh: What? How do you figure that?0 -
The appropriate manner of handling the situation is not to become a pharmacist in the first place.
I agree that a person shouldn't enter into a profession that would require them to perform an act that would contradict with their religious beliefs. However, if the applicant is honest in the initial interview and the pharmacy is willing to support their employee, then why not?0 -
Whoa! Hold on! "Contraception is so dangerous for marriage"??? :huh: What? How do you figure that?
One reason is the Catholic church teaches that contraception puts a wall between the married couple and God. It's excluding God from the relationship by not being open to having children. A marriage should have God at the center, and not doing so can hurt the sacramental marriage bond. I realize this is not a popular belief (even for many Christians), but that is the explanation on that one.0 -
http://canonlaw.info/a_contraceptionanddivorce.htm from someone who's studied more than 1500 breakdowns of marriage.
Well, Catholic institutions are fighting because they do not want to provide contraception in their insurance because it is against the teachings of the Church: http://catholic.org/college/story.php?id=43667.They can absolutely choose what to sell or not sell. But just like a Hindu butcher who won't deal with beef, they are pretty stupid to choose to open that business. They're cutting their own throat by not selling everything there is a demand for.
As a side issue, if someone is so adamant against abortion that they won't tend to a patient before or after the procedure or sell the morning after pill, etc then shouldn't' they also not sell birth control pills at all? They can be abortifacients too. For that matter, if they are already up on their high horse they probably shouldn't sell any sort of birth control product to someone who isn't married. I'd think someone that rigid in their morality that they want to inflict it on everyone else is probably also against unmarried sex too. And if they aren't, well they are a bit of a hypocrite. So now we have a pharmacy that doesn't sell the morning after pill, birth control pills, depo, Viagra, condoms, etc. We should probably throw in anything that cures or treats and STD too. So you end up with a pharmacy that just removed a very large part of any potential profits. Give up the pharmacy and open a Christian bookstore if you want to impose your religion on your clientele.
Yes, I am a Catholic who is 100% against contraception, my husband and I practice NFP. Contraception is so dangerous for marriage, women's health, and a baby (as you have already pointed out).
Whoa! Hold on! "Contraception is so dangerous for marriage"??? :huh: What? How do you figure that?0
This discussion has been closed.