Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
There is a very good reason why you never, ever, ever appease the Christian Right on anything, no matter how innocuous it seems. Because they won't ever be satisfied.
Apparently some pharmacists are now refusing not only to fill women's prescriptions for emergency contraception and other methods of birth control, but also for antibiotics or vitamins. I want to say something like, "tell me this is about life now" or point out that the hypotheticals we used to propose about pharmacists refusing to dispense medication for cholesterol drugs and the like are no longer hypothetical, or that in fact, that parallel is deeply flawed because apparently some pharmacists' moral beliefs only mean not dispensing medications to women. But really, I can't say anything because my jaw is sitting on the floor.
This is nuts. These pharmacists should be handed their walking papers. Period. They clearly aren't interested in performing their jobs. If it's against your religion to come in contact with blood, you don't become a surgeon. Same logic holds here. Go find another profession. Ezra suggests an excellent thought experiment.
Since we've now got pharmacists expanding their conscientious objector status to non-contraceptive prescriptions written at clinics that perform abortions, here's a question: scientologists, who are recognized, for tax purposes, as a religious sect, do not believe in antidepressants. They believe in vitamins. How do you think society would react if a significant number of scientologist-pharmacists at major drug stores ceased filling prescriptions for Paxil and Prozac and began offering vitamins instead? And if you don't think folks would be pleased, explain to me why it's a different, more-pernicious state of affairs.
Yes, do tell us.
TrackBackI don't even understand that as a moral position. The antibiotics don't have anything to do with making the abortion happen -- it's already happened. Are they claiming to have a moral objection to serving sinners?
Posted by: LizardBreath at April 12, 2006 04:57 PMGod will curse you with a deadly infection if you kill a womb-baby and the pharmacist cannot interfere with God's will.
Posted by: apostropher at April 12, 2006 05:00 PMMore in the spirit of a boycott, I think, as in South African athletes or Israeli academics. Indirect pressure on an entity or institution, so as to feel you're taking a stand, doing something, and not engaging in enabling commerce with evil.
Posted by: I don't pay at April 12, 2006 05:02 PMOh, obviously because denying people health care is bad. Denying it to women is just a-ok.
I'm especially irked by this story b/c I delivered PK at Swedish. Fuckers.
Posted by: bitchphd at April 12, 2006 05:07 PMMen take anti-depressants. Such legislation would be tossed out quickly.
Get them in line for a calaswing with the calabat. (I should start a blog where I bat one person per week. Like whack-a-mole.)
Posted by: Cala at April 12, 2006 05:25 PMI'm sure not everyone on the Christian Right supports the pharmacists' actions. So please, let's speak of Christian Right extremists.
(Annoying, I know, but every time I post about Muslim protests, intolerance, repression, or what have you, I get reminded to insert the word "extremist".)
Posted by: Gaijin Biker at April 12, 2006 09:59 PMPerhaps that's because "Muslim" describes every adherent of a religion, while "Christian Right" describes a specific political movement?
Posted by: Matt Weiner at April 13, 2006 10:04 AMThat was a little broad-brush, so: Sure, there are people who are both Christian and conservative who do not support conscience clauses. But the organized conservative movement that invokes Christianity most often has thrown its weight behind them.
Posted by: Matt Weiner at April 13, 2006 10:07 AMWell, as soon as they start refusing to fill prescriptions for Viagra, Cialus, or Levitra they'll all be fired immediately.
Posted by: dAVE at April 13, 2006 11:55 AMAre you kidding? Slippery "logic" such as theirs can be twisted in a million different ways. It is like the play-doh of rational thought. They can refuse to fill a Viagra prescription for someone who is unmarried on moral grounds, then turn around and fill it for someone who is married because it supports the "full quiver of children" thing (nevermind that a marriage license is no guarantee of fidelity or morality). The bottom line is that if they want to do something, they'll do it, and if they don't, they won't. Anyone can weasel any reason to do or not do as they wish. These people are, obviously, seeking mastery of this skill.
What I don't get is why someone who felt this way would become a pharmacist in the first fucking place. It would not be tolerated if the customer service rep at the cable company refused on moral grounds to activate the Spice Channel for a subscriber, or if a dentist refused on moral grounds to use numbing agents for a root canal, or if a waiter refused to serve meat to a customer in a restaurant. We would, instead, wonder what had made them seem like these were good career choices instead.
Posted by: Robust McManlyPants at April 14, 2006 01:12 PM