This is beyond obnoxious, and it is getting worse
Where do some people get the idea that they are allowed to force others to follow their morality? Fundamentalists of all of the branches of the religion tree (all religions share common attributes, so they may all be considered branches of a larger religious philosophy), be they Christian, Muslim or other, are so convinced their morality is better than everybody else's that they try to enforce that morality on people who don't follow their faith. The arrogance is truly astonishing. What makes them so sure they're right, first of all? We call it 'faith' because it cannot be proven. It is, by definition, an uncertain thing. Second, even if they're positive their interpretation is correct, why do they think their certainty counts more than someone else's certainty? Or even someone else's doubt? One human's morality is not more worthy than another human's. And the morality of one million people is still not more worthy than one other person's. To those who think their faith means they're better than everyone else, I've got some news: that arrogance makes your opinions worth less than everyone else's, not more.
What triggered my most recent rant about the Christian Right (which is neither, in my not particularly humble opinion)? This moron. Here we have a pharmacist who not only refuses to fill a valid birth control prescription, he also refuses to allow another pharmacy to complete a transfer of the script so that they could fill it. So here we have one person imposing their morality on not only a legitimate customer of his services, but also on that customer's physician AND another pharmacist.
Let's start at the beginning. This is all pretty easy, really. A pharmacist is not responsible for prescribing medicine. That's the doctor's job. The pharmacist is simply supposed to fill the prescription. For a pharmacist to refuse to fill a doctor's prescription because it violates their morality is like a bartender refusing to provide alcohol because he's a tee-totaler. News flash for this genius: filling birth control prescriptions is part of your JOB. If you can't morally do that because you're so arrogant in your so-called faith that you don't think others deserve to make their own decisions, get a new job! Doctors who are morally opposed to abortion don't take jobs at abortion clinics. Lawyers who can't bring themselves to defend potential criminals in court don't become criminal defense attorneys. True pacifists do not join the military (and if drafted are transferred to non-combat branches). This is NOT a difficult concept, folks.
Just watch, though. The oh-so-oppressed Christians in this country (yeah, that's sarcasm) will complain that the pharmacist is being forced to violate his religious faith by filling these prescriptions. Leaving aside the question of why it is a violation of one's faith to allow others to do something that violates one's faith (you are going to burn in eternal damnation if I practice birth control?!?), this is an irrelevant claim. If my religious beliefs meant that I couldn't come to work during the daytime, it is not my employer's obligation (legally OR morally) to provide me with a job that fits that requirement, it is my personal responsibility to find a job that doesn't conflict with my faith. So don't believe the 'persecution' claim. In reality, this joker persecuted the woman with the prescription and overruled her doctor's medical judgment out of sheer arrogance.
What triggered my most recent rant about the Christian Right (which is neither, in my not particularly humble opinion)? This moron. Here we have a pharmacist who not only refuses to fill a valid birth control prescription, he also refuses to allow another pharmacy to complete a transfer of the script so that they could fill it. So here we have one person imposing their morality on not only a legitimate customer of his services, but also on that customer's physician AND another pharmacist.
Let's start at the beginning. This is all pretty easy, really. A pharmacist is not responsible for prescribing medicine. That's the doctor's job. The pharmacist is simply supposed to fill the prescription. For a pharmacist to refuse to fill a doctor's prescription because it violates their morality is like a bartender refusing to provide alcohol because he's a tee-totaler. News flash for this genius: filling birth control prescriptions is part of your JOB. If you can't morally do that because you're so arrogant in your so-called faith that you don't think others deserve to make their own decisions, get a new job! Doctors who are morally opposed to abortion don't take jobs at abortion clinics. Lawyers who can't bring themselves to defend potential criminals in court don't become criminal defense attorneys. True pacifists do not join the military (and if drafted are transferred to non-combat branches). This is NOT a difficult concept, folks.
Just watch, though. The oh-so-oppressed Christians in this country (yeah, that's sarcasm) will complain that the pharmacist is being forced to violate his religious faith by filling these prescriptions. Leaving aside the question of why it is a violation of one's faith to allow others to do something that violates one's faith (you are going to burn in eternal damnation if I practice birth control?!?), this is an irrelevant claim. If my religious beliefs meant that I couldn't come to work during the daytime, it is not my employer's obligation (legally OR morally) to provide me with a job that fits that requirement, it is my personal responsibility to find a job that doesn't conflict with my faith. So don't believe the 'persecution' claim. In reality, this joker persecuted the woman with the prescription and overruled her doctor's medical judgment out of sheer arrogance.
- 



Comments
Here is a hypothesis: the pharmacist is a good person. He believes in helping people, in providing them with the medication they need to cure their pains. PAINS. He does not believe in birth control though-in his eyes it is a horrible sin (read-crime) to disallow a being to enter this world. Almost like murder (maybe he hypothesises about what a soul experiences before being put in the body of a human baby; maybe he thinks it is torture). So why should he, a good man, support murder?! Because some amoral women wants to murder her child?! Or because you say his morals don't matter?!
Sure, I know what you'll say "It is not that they don't matter, it is that her's take precedence". Well, you don't doubt the fact that they do, why do you expect him to be better than you and admit that it is not his decision?! Think about it from his point of view.
Lastly-he is an independent pharmacist. It is his choice whether or not to provide his service to anyone. When he decided to be a pharmacist, he might not have considered all the consequences. Maybe he just felt like he would not be forced to kill people, if he agrees to heal them.
Posted by anonymous At 12:04:04 AM On 10/18/2004 | - Website - |
Do you propose that this same moron should refuse to sell condoms to men, in his role as salesclerk (a role pharmacists do take on)? Would that then be an "amoral man choosing to murder his child?!?" It is the same argument. Do you suggest then, following the same logic that produces this so-called "sin" that masturbation is also murder? What about the world-famous and remarkably ineffective "coitus interruptus" birth control method? Or *gasp* oral sex? After all, in each of those cases, that semen was supposed to result in a child. That's what the Bible says (idiotic literalists). Birth control is simply not the same as abortion - it is not a moral question and it is not debatable. People who think birth control is a sin are, in my not even remotely humble opinion, unbelievably stupid.
Note: pharmacists DO NOT HEAL PEOPLE! Doctors heal people. Pharmacists are glorified clerks. For a pharmacist to overrule a doctor's medical judgment in their quest for healing is WAY beyond absurd.
Note the second: It is NOT up to him whether to provide his service to anyone. He works for a chain. It is up to his EMPLOYER whether or not he provides services. As the article clearly states, he refused to transfer the doctor's prescription to another pharmacy, explicitly declaring his ownership of that 'script and his refusal to allow ANYONE to fill it. As I said originally, WAY beyond obnoxious.
Final note: Come back and debate some more if you like, but sign your name next time or your comments will be blocked.
Posted by Captain O At 04:35:14 AM On 10/18/2004 | - Website - |
Just to provide clarity on one point though: I think the reason some pro-lifers are against the pill is not because they're against contraception in principle, but because (as I understand it) the pill's action is not purely contraceptive: it reduces the likelihood of a woman conceiving, but the same physiological changes will also result in a woman aborting the foetus if she does conceive. The pill's effectiveness is a result of it being a double-whammy system. It's conceivable that a woman who's been on the pill has aborted a number of times without even knowing it.
I'm pro-choice m'self, but I have to concede these fundamental nuts are often being truer to their principles than pro-lifers who do take the pill. Even so, they have no business imposing their beliefs on others.
Posted by Colin Pretorius At 05:38:39 AM On 10/18/2004 | - Website - |
There is a school of thought which considers one of the mechanisms by which the pill prevents pregnancy to be, in fact, an abortion. Specifically, if the egg is fertilized, the changes caused by the pill should prevent the egg from attaching correctly. So you have a fertilized egg which does not develop into a fetus. This is considered by mainstream physicians to be the prevention of pregnancy, not the abortion of an existing pregnancy.
There are also medical situations during which the use of the pill may make a more traditional spontaneous abortion more likely. This is a medical issue, though, to my mind, and simply reinforces the need for the advanced medical knowledge of your physician to be used when deciding on birth control methods.
I guess this goes back to the debate about exactly when the creation of life occurs, but for context consider that the people who hold to this point of view (including some physicians: http://www.aaplog.org ) believe that all the contraception methods I described above are, in effect, violation of God's will and de-facto abortions because they prevent the creation of life. In essence, these people believe that birth control itself is evil. They also claim that using a condom to prevent STDs is playing Russion roulette because they think condoms are ineffective at that purpose (contradicting all medical evidence). Neither of those positions inspires me to believe them on this issue.
My opinion remains unchanged. Birth control is birth control; abortion is abortion. I'm not an expert on the science of this, but I will see if my wife (who is an expert, being a physician) has any comments.
I agree, by the way, that these folks are at least more consistent than many. I've frequently pointed out that the Roman Catholic Chhurch considers ALL birth control to be a sin, and the religious basis for that rule is that there is no acceptable reason to have sex other than reproduction. Amazing how few Catholics agree with that policy. Heh...
Posted by Captain O At 08:48:05 AM On 10/18/2004 | - Website - |
The conversations I've had around abortion have (thankfully) not been with out-and-out fundamentalists, but rather just people who mull the "when is life created?" issue and try to reconcile that with a woman's right to choose. That the pill could result in a fertilised egg being terminated/aborted/etc, can challenge views about the nature of "abortion" and frames the discussion differently. Which isn't a bad thing, and results in a more mature and measured consideration of the issues.
I have no faith in those sorts of honest discussions having any effect on violently pro-life people though.
Posted by Colin Pretorius At 10:55:53 AM On 10/18/2004 | - Website - |
It is true that one of the effects of the pill is to make the uterus less hospitable to a fertilized egg IF an egg was released by the ovary and IF the egg/sperm could travel the fallopian tube normally and IF the sperm could pass the inhospitable mucous of the cervix, etc, etc. The uterine lining is usually too thin to accommodate the fertilized egg if it made it that far. I don't have any statistics on how often an egg does get fertilized then aborted. We know that 0.1% of WELL APPLIED oral contraception does result in pregnancy but in the general population, OCPs are NOT well applied so the pregnancy rate is closer to 2-4%. I usually quote 96% effective to my patients - IF you are taking it correctly. It's pretty much impossible to figure out if an egg, that later gets shed, was fertilized or not.
Remember that some forms of Emergency contraception are basically HIGH dose birth control pill. It inhibits ovulation, transport in the fallopian tubes, prevents implantation of a fertilized egg or may stop the hormonal maintenance of the uterine lining (the ovarian remnant, the corpus luteum, that keeps the uterine lining present if a fertilized egg is around until the placenta is big enough to do so), therefore not allowing a fertilized egg to implant. That is not considered the same as a therapeutic abortion b/c implantation happens up to seven days after an egg is fertilized and some would not consider a fertilized egg viable UNTIL it implants. There are LOTS of naturally occurring reasons that a fertilized egg might not implant so the definition of "viable" for many is an IMPLANTED fertilized egg. That's mucky waters for some so may be easy to argue one way or the other.
It is unlikely, once a blastocyst is established in the uterine wall, for the OCP to cause an spontaneous abortion once it is started its implant procedure (neither would emergency contraception). There are tons of reasons why embryos spontaneously abort (about 1/3 do) so it would be difficult to pinpoint the OCP as the reason.
Note from the Captain:
You are all, as I've said before, welcome to pick an argument about medicine with my wife, the doctor. I only ask that you allow me enough advance warning to sell tickets to your butt-kicking. The phrase "way out of your league" just sort of leaps to mind...
Posted by Captain O At 04:41:54 PM On 10/18/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Joan At 03:30:00 AM On 10/19/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Colin Pretorius At 06:25:20 AM On 10/19/2004 | - Website - |