Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Sex! Sex! Sex!
(This post is part of the Blog Against Theocracy Blogswarm.)
OK, now that I have your attention . . .
. . . let's talk about sex. Or, more accurately, how religious nuts want to control your sex life, your access to information about sex, and your sexual health - all through the government.
Theocracy, anyone?
Specifically, I want to talk about how some in the health-related professions think that they should have the "right" to deny you services or information if something about your sex life disagrees with their religious beliefs.
First off, here's a nice bit from Illinois:
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A group of pharmacists asked the Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday to throw out a rule that forces them to dispense emergency contraception despite moral objections, claiming it amounts to illegal coercion.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued the rule in spring 2005, prohibiting pharmacies from turning away women seeking emergency contraception. The medicine is a higher dosage of typical hormonal contraception which, if taken within three days of having sex, greatly reduces the chance of pregnancy. It acts to impede conception, which in the eyes of anti-abortion pharmacists is tantamount to abortion.
In the closely watched case, which mirrors concerns raised in other states, the druggists argued that Illinois law protects them from choosing between violating their consciences and losing their licenses, and that they shouldn't have to wait until they're out of jobs to seek justice.
Grr. This is a very simple problem: don't take a job or go into a profession that requires you to violate your beliefs. A practicing Muslim shouldn't get a job in a liquor store. A Quaker shouldn't become a hit man for the mob. Simple. Easy. Avoid the problem.
But that's not what these people are doing. Rather, they take these positions *in order to force their beliefs on others*. That way, they can deny someone access to prescription meds that they think the other person shouldn't have. It would be like if a Jehovah's Witness got a job at the Red Cross and denied people blood for transfusions. Or if a Christian Scientist became a pharmacist, and only allowed people access to prayer tracts.
Another example:
The Bush administration says new ethics guidelines written by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists may violate federal "conscience" laws.
The guidelines require physicians to make referrals for abortions or other procedures they don't wish to perform themselves. But there is still confusion over whether a doctor would actually lose his or her certification as a specialist for refusing to make a referral.
At issue is an opinion released in November by the ACOG ethics committee. Among other things, it says physicians "have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive services that patients request."
Well, duh! This isn't saying that doctors have to perform abortions or other procedures, if that somehow violates their beliefs. It is simply saying that they have to provide a reference to another doctor who offers those services. That's it.
Again, this is really very simple: if you don't want to offer the standard services that your patients need, don't be in the job. A dental hygienist can't say "sorry, I don't clean teeth." But that is not even what is being asked by this professional organization - they are only saying that if the doctors concerned don't want to perform the procedures that they should simply say so and refer to patient to someone who will.
And look who they are arguing with: the Federal Government, who takes the position that it is OK to just deny patients that simple courtesy and basic information.
When your government takes this kind of position, protecting religious sensibilities of a few at the expense of the general population's health and well-being, then you are seeing theocracy in action. No, this isn't the mullahs imposing a death sentence for blasphemy - it is more subtle than that. But it is theocracy nonetheless.
UPDATE 3/26:
Thought I would add in this news item I came across last night:
Penalty for pharmacist's refusal upheld
WAUSAU, Wis. - A state appeals court upheld sanctions Tuesday against a pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills to a woman and wouldn't transfer her prescription elsewhere.
The 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment the state Pharmacy Examining Board handed down against pharmacist Neil Noesen did not violate his state constitutional rights, specifically his "right of conscience" to religiously oppose birth control.
"Noesen abandoned even the steps necessary to perform in a minimally competent manner under any standard of care," the three-judge panel said. The decision upheld a ruling by Barron County Circuit Judge James Babler.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin praised the ruling as important for women's access to reproductive health care. Several states have been wrestling with the issue of pharmacists who refuse on religious grounds to dispense birth control or "morning-after" pills.
Read the whole thing - this is a perfect example of this twit claiming that his religion (Roman Catholic) gave him the right to decide what prescriptions to fill . . . and getting slapped down for it, hard.
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Update information.
Just wanted to point out that the original entry has been updated with more news information related to the post.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Christian Pharmacists - Bill Maher's New Rules
This post reminds me of 'Real Time' with Bill Maher from April 5th, 2005.
Man, nothing like a Maher rant.
Brilliant. Thanks, Dirk.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
So, does anyone think the
So, does anyone think the same people so anxious to play with our health by forcing their superstitions on us would be content if the tables were turned, for example, by an atheist pharmacist refusing needed heart medication to a religious nut, on the grounds that helping such people survive goes against his or her beliefs. What if the pharmacist was a satanist, a recognized religion (at least as per the IRS, AFAIK)?
They only way I could even consider going with such a horrible policy of letting pharmacists (and other professionals) hide behind their "beliefs" as a way of refusing treatment or help to those of whom they disapprove is if they and the institution that employs them were held fully liable for the consequences of their (in)action. For example, if a pharmacist refuses a woman emergency contraception and she has a baby, said pharmacist must pay full child support (including college tuition) until that child is 21; their wages would be garnished so as to ensure no disruption of payment. Or, in the case of the EMT who refused to help the gay man with the head injury, well, in addition to being financially liable, the EMT would be held criminally liable if any harm resulted from their refusal to treat, up to and including charges of voluntary manslaughter.
However, as stated above, when the state licenses one to do a certain job, one must fulfill all of the requirements of that job, or find a field which doesn't require one to "act against one's belief." Having an imaginary friend doesn't entitle one to play god with other people's lives, nor to get a legal exemption to do so.
Which reminds me...
Have you seen this ?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=115852&title=pill-...
Had not.
Yup. Dead-on.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
The Intent Is Clear
In Michigan, a Jesusistani EMT refused to give emergency first aid to a gay man with a bleeding head wound (thankfully, the man was OK after getting someone to drive him to a local ER.)
In California, a Jesusistani pediatrician refused to treat a child because the child's parents had tattoos.
In Pennsylvania, another Jesusistani pharmacist refused to give a woman a prescription for birth control that she had been filling at that very pharmacy for YEARS. And it should be kept in mind that a lot of women are prescribed hormonal contraceptives for a lot of reasons other than birth control.
The aim of these medical professionals couldn't be clearer. They do indeed want to create an environment that forces you to be as they are, or die-literally.
The natural progression from here follows. Jesusistani Doctors refuse to treat unmarried women for STDs because they disapprove of their lifestyles, infertility clinics with Jesusistani staff refuse to help mixed-race couples conceive, Jesusistani pharmacists refuse to sell gay men condoms... this simply cannot be allowed to happen. Any medical professional is obligated to treat any member of society the same way, moral mumbo-jumbo be damned. "Moral" grounds are way too interpretive and can be used to justify almost any stance.
More sel-righteous meddling
This time it's the self-righteous meddling of Bush's "moral" views affecting text books.
This last year my daughter had to take the obligatory 9th grade health class. She was appalled that the only method of preventing pregnancy and STDs that was mentioned was abstinence. Not a word about any other form of birth control or condoms.
You've said it for me
I'm sick to death of the moral grandstanders who want to force their religion on others via their jobs. I'm a vegetarian atheist, yet when I worked with disabled individuals I wouldn't dream of refusing to prepare meat for their meals or to take them to church if they requested to go. I was there to do my job--to provide care and assistance to them--and that's what I did.
If I ever encounter a situation where somebody tries to refuse me service of any kind because it "violates their religious beliefs" I'll not only raise a ruckus but gladly boycott the business in question. Any place that allows employees to get away with that nonsense doesn't deserve my money.
Yes and No
Mostly I do agree that permitting health care practitioners to arbitrarily deny health care is unethical. But still, medical practices cover a huge spectrum and no one doctor or pharmacist does everything her colleagues may do. Some doctors may wish to practice general medicine but not practice abortions, or not practice cosmetic surgery, on moral grounds. I have no objection to this. They can refer patients to other doctors in those cases. Pharmacists are a little bit different, in that they are really dispensers of medicine and not doctors themselves. At least, that's how I view them -- pretty much as clerks. I don't expect the cashier at my grocery store to refuse to ring up my beer just because she does not drink. Thats also what I expect of pharmacists. But it's oversimplifying to suggest that it's easy to avoid moral conflicts by avoiding whole professions. Any profession could pose moral problems you might not have expected when you signed on.
Reality doesn't care about your expectations
Muslim checkout staff get an alcohol opt-out clause
One of the hardest lessons I've had to learn is that reality doesn't care about your expectations.
--
"Ponies are atheists, you know, technically."
- Me
Muslims and alcohol
Well, that certainly seems silly to me, but I'm also pretty sure that no store will let you walk out the door without selling you that alcohol. Just as I often see underage checkers having to summon an over-21 coworker to sell shoppers beer, I'm sure another checker will hurry over and help anytime this comes up.
The thing about the pharmacists is that there's usually only one pharmacist in the store at any one moment.
Having been in a number of customer service type jobs, I have a hair-trigger when it comes to good customer service. If a checker ever refused to sell me alcohol for sectarian reasons, I have to say I'd probably feel that was inferior customer service.
But it's oversimplifying to
But it's oversimplifying to suggest that it's easy to avoid moral conflicts by avoiding whole professions. Any profession could pose moral problems you might not have expected when you signed on.
What person training to be a pharmacist nowadays doesn't realize that birth control is a common prescription they are going to have to fill? Pharmacists are granted the privilege to serve the public good and if they can't fulfill that obligation then they should not become pharmacists. So yes, if you have problems with women controlling their own reproduction then you should not become a pharmacist. The only reason that this shit is even considered legitimate is because the objections are based on religious belief. Religion gets a free pass merely because it is religious. If the pharmacists were arguing instead that they didn't want to fill birth control prescriptions because all women are whores and they deserve to get pregnant if they have sex, then nobody would even listen to them.
Happens to me all the time
I'd listen to them and just assume they meant to say "I'm Catholic" but couldn't think of the exact word so they described it instead. Like when I say "turn on the thing with the blades that spin and push air" when I meant to say "turn on the fan".
--
"Ponies are atheists, you know, technically."
- Me
Hypocrites
It's funny that these people are trying to use a Federal "conscience" law to get out of doing their job yet they are probably the same people who would be the first to argue that abortion is a State's Rights issue and the Federal government has no right to intervene.
Pharmacists are licensed by the state. It is a privilege granted by the state and in return for that privilege they have to uphold certain obligations on their end. One of those obligations is to dispense perfectly legal medication to those who need it. If they can't fulfill their obligation then they need to find another job. The state has every right to require pharmacies to carry certain medications and to require pharmacists to dispense those medications. It's a public health issue and it trumps anyone's personal religious beliefs.
There are a ton of jobs out there that don't require a license and won't pose any moral or ethical dilemmas for these religious types. Someone give them the link for monster.com.
phamacists
One important point that I have never seen mentioned is that many drugs including birth control pills have multiple uses. For example, these pills are not infrequently prescribed for acne or for menstrual problems. Unless he asks the patient, he has no knowledge of the purpose of the prescription. The pharmacist, in this case, by refusing to fill a prescription would be behaving presumptuously and arrogantly interfering with patient care.
The same could be said for so many other medications including RU486 which has been used experimentally for other diseases. As the pharmacist almost never knows the details of a patient's medical issues, he needs to stay out of the decision making as to what is the best medication for an individual patient. The roll of the pharmacist is to assure that a prescription is appropriately written, to dispense prescribed medications and assure that there is no conflict between medications and that there are no allergies to a given medication and to provide information as to possible side effects of medications.
What the pharmacist therefore should not permitted to do is to refuse to fill a prescription with inadequate skills or information. By doing so, they jeopardize the patients well-being.
Doesn't matter
One important point that I have never seen mentioned is that many drugs including birth control pills have multiple uses.
I think you don't hear it mentioned much because it is beside the point. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for taking a certain medication. That is between the patient and his/her doctor. If a pharmacist wants to play doctor, then he/she should go to back to school.
Post new comment