WTF?

[forsyth]

Seriously, what the fuck? Pharmacists refusing to honor birth control pill prescriptions. Pharmacists refusing to honor prescriptions. That's their fucking JOB. A pharmacist isn't a doctor. A pharmacist is paid to take the prescription, and give the appropriate medicine to the patient. That's what they're licensed, trained, and hired to DO. They are NOT hired to enforce their particular religious interpretations on people. If you don't want to fill prescriptions, then don't be a pharmacist.

These people really don't give a shit about the "sanctity of life". Oh, there may be some who honestly believe that a fertilized egg is instantly equivalent to a human, but their trumpeting of the "sanctity of life" is utterly hollow. Once you're born, forget it. Unless you're on life support, apparently. But in between, fuck you, you're on your own. The real movies seem to be pushing sex as sinful, and control women's bodies. Never mind, of course, that without birth control and sex ed, there's more abortions, more unintended pregnancies, and more STDs.

But not dispensing stuff doctors have prescribed? That's their FUCKING JOB. If your religious views keep you from being able to do that, don't take the job! It's that simple, really. Just like if your religious views tell you not to, I dunno, build with electric tools, then you don't work at a building company that uses electric tools. That's not "trampling on your rights". It's not the free exercise of religion, because your right to exercise your religion doesn't mean you have the right to interfere with other people's freedoms. It's not discrimination, any more than any other hiring somebody is discrimination, if you won't agree to do the fucking job, then you don't get hired. That's not discrimination. And none of it gives the pharmacist the right to deny service based on their religious beliefs. What, are we supposed to allow a white-supremacist pharmacist to deny service to black people? Allow a Jack Chick pharmacist the right to not serve Catholics?

And what's this wimpy crap about the American Pharmacists Association requiring the pharmacists to find "alternative means" for the customers to get the medication? Um, how does this make any sense? Okay, let's see, they say they believe the Pill ends a human life, so they won't prescribe it, but they're going to give it to Billy over here and let him prescribe it? Do they honestly believe that's gonna happen? The whole POINT is to deny people access to contraception, if they really believe it's ending a human life, they're not gonna just stand there and let somebody else do it. They say so themselves. "Brauer, of Pharmacists for Life, defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill prescriptions themselves but also to refuse to refer customers elsewhere or transfer prescriptions." The pharmacist's job is to fill the prescription. If they can't do it, they shouldn't be a pharmacist.

This ties back to my entry about tolerance earlier. It's not "tolerant" to allow somebody to not do their job. This isn't a situation where you're trying to "protect the rights" of the pharmacist. The pharmacist isn't doing their job. They're making a big stink for political reasons to try and draw attention and try and push their radical agenda, since they figure they've got buddies in high places. It's people being tiny theocrats, forcing their religious choices on other people. And this is all leaving aside the non-birth control uses of birth control pills. Seriously, what the shit?

And I would also like to damn the articles for doing the stupid "he says"/"she says" thing, where they present "both sides" and treat them equally, without any reference to which side is actually, y'know, right on the facts. The "Pharmacists for Life" are pushing a radical religious agenda based on dodgy science. Just because they say they're religious doesn't mean they're not full of shit. And doesn't mean you can't call them on it. Except, of course, the media's afraid to.

Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles, Religion, News, Sex, Links

Comments

[forsythferret.livejournal.com]

"shouldn't be fought on moral grounds, but on scientific grounds."

I disagree with that completely. While we should fight this on scientific grounds, because, like you said, it's bad science, not fighting on the moral grounds basically concedes the moral ground to the extremists. That's a bad thing. That's part of why the media's so easily manipulated by the fringe religious folks.

Okay, in the first case, in rural areas, where there's only one pharmacy, that essentially puts the pharmacist in the position of doctor, deciding who gets to fufill which 'scripts, and hold the entire area hostage to their religious views, basically. Pharmacies are licensed by the state, not a church. And when someone goes to a pharmacy, there's the expectation that they're there to fill 'scripts, not pick and choose which they'll do. That being their job and all.

Like I said, they make the moral choice, and they have to accept the consequences, which could include being fired or losing their license for not doing their job. And I addressed the APHA's statement about that with the problems and one of their spokespeople, "Brauer, of Pharmacists for Life, defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill prescriptions themselves but also to refuse to refer customers elsewhere or transfer prescriptions." Because if it's their moral choice that it kills, they're not going to just give it back and let it go happen somewhere else, now are they? Besides the fact that they're wrong on the facts, as you mentioned.

And I agree about the part with the morning after pill, that's a bigger problem, and one of the reasons that pharmacists are generally required to be neutral in filling out 'scripts. If you have moral issues with something a job would require you to do, then you shouldn't take that job. This should, I think, be fairly obvious.

Although, I did see another thing this morning, that made me stop and think. These two articles are about how many incidents? A dozen? Two dozen? Not very many, though we don't know how many don't get reported, of course. But this is a radical view about birth control, at least in most of the US. It's not some epidemic. Which feeds my suspicions that some of this is just being flurried up for political grandstanding and trying to make the radical view seem a lot more common than it is and tie it to the whole Terri Shavio thing.

[leticia.livejournal.com]

The moral ground, Fors, is murder.
I'm sorry, I don't see that as debateable. It's the ludicrous science calling it murder that should be fought.

[leticia.livejournal.com]

Let me clarify: The moral ground they are claiming is murder. This is based on bad science, which was probably initially made up to justify not giving out birth control period.
However, this doesn't mean that everyone who has been convinced by bad science is doing it based on birth control.

[forsythferret.livejournal.com]

The moral ground they're claiming is murder, yes. And the only way to argue that is say no, it's not murder. Which involves science, and morals, and other stuff. It's not just a matter of giving up the moral ground. That would be to say "Yes, this would be murder, except that's not what it does." But I, and many other people, don't think it's murder, otherwise we'd think the morning-after pill was murder, and so on. By arguing the science and not their moral claim, you're giving their moral claim legitamcy and weakening your position.

[leticia.livejournal.com]

You don't think it's murder. But science can not prove a soul or humanity; those are a matter of faith.
Nor is it a matter of morals but belief what point a fetus becomes a human.
If you want to argue that, then you are arguing a belief, not morals, and not science.
And beliefs, according to our constitution, can not be forced on anyone.

[forsythferret.livejournal.com]

And that's exactly what they're doing by refusing to fill the prescriptions. Which was one of my original points.

[leticia.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry. Refusing to do something that violates your morals is not forcing your beliefs on someone.

It's like the person I heard complaining because a (privately owned) utility company was closed on Good Friday. "Don't we have freedom of religion?" Yes. And that means the owner of the utility company has the right to close on Good Friday, even if that's the most convenient day for you. They're not forcing their religion on you; they're exercising it themselves.

I'm not saying there are't people out there using it as an excuse to push their agenda on others. But there may also be those out there who honestly have moral qualms - thanks to the manipulation of the first group, perhaps - and their rights are as valid as anyone else's.

[forsythferret.livejournal.com]

Okay, so what makes this a different case than, say an advertising guy, who says he won't push the company's stuff, because that's bearing false witness and againt his religion, and then gets fired because he's not doing his job?

[leticia.livejournal.com]

Also, you're behind the times; I've seen articles about this for months, so I don't really think that at least initally there was any intent to tie it to Terri Schiavo. No, it's NOT happening often. It's not like everyone in some rural town too small and isolated to have access to another pharmacy (or two different pharmacists on different shifts in the same pharmacy) or the internet is now unable to get birth control. And it's not like there aren't other options for contraceptives, including condoms, which aren't prescription material and thus don't depend on pharmacists.