Pharmacy Professors Who Want a Job, Step Forward! Not So Fast, Non-Christians…

I guess they are afraid those other than X-ian will fill Rx’s of Plan B, birth control pills, and alike. 🙄

It worries me too for so many reasons. It not only oppresses women, but such things can actually be life-threatening. It could also oppress other groups, come to think of it, because they could deny much needed medicine to others for various reasons. Like say an AIDS victim. They could attempt to deny medicine to them on some bizarre basis such as, “Oh that’s God’s punishment, therefore you MUST suffer.” 🙄 This is bad/wrong thinking, IMO, but even so, it could very well happen. 🙁

It’d be similar to if you two knuckleheads opened an atheist school, you wouldn’t hire a Christian to teach.

That’s wrong for so many reasons.

There’s no such thing as an “atheist school,” nor should there be. Only believers have a reason to Inculcate views about religion into captive minors. That shouldn’t be confused, or mixed, with education. As for a secular school, like you say, it would be silly not to hire a Christian or any other religious person; since their job description doesn’t include brainwashing children into accepting their beliefs, it doesn’t matter what those beliefs are.

Whereas, if their job description includes, say, filling prescriptions, they should fill prescriptions. (Though it’s the role of the employer, not the government, to fire employees who refuse to work, whatever their reasons – at least until health care becomes a publicly guaranteed right instead of a privileged commodity for sale on an open market.)

Yes there have been, monkeymind, and if I remember correctly, the court ruled that they had to fill women’t Rx’s even if the Rx is the morning after pill. Now sure about AIDS meds though, but it could happen if it hasn’t already.

And that is the problem. Until it goes to the Federal level and they say you have to fill the Rx’s regardless of religious views, the states can do what they want.

So, if this were the other way around and an classical atheistic/secular “no comment” institution were hiring a science position and said, “scientists who adhere to scientific creationism need not apply” would this not whittle out a large amount of Christians (whether explicitly stated or not)? Because, in my experience, this is the practice of most colleges and universities these days. If a Christian institution puts someone’s faith above their expertise it is really in keeping with Christian teachings. However, because the institutions call for Christian belief is not an indication they will not hire the most competent individual for the job. This argument always assumes that if you put stipulations on who is hirable then you will likely not get someone most qualified for the job (i.e. the most qualified person for the job could not “possibly” be a Christian).

I am so opposed to medical professionals who won’t dispense medication or provide treatment because of their moral squeamishness. Who are they to decide I can’t get access to a medication that my doctor has prescribed?

I also believe that those in the medical (or any) profession SHOULD appeal to their moral/religious beliefs when dispensing medicine or performing a procedure. Doctors who are uncomfortable performing certain procedures should not be forced to do them. Is it any more agreeable to force someone to perform a procedure you agree with simply because it is your “right”? People disagree on what “rights” people have–one should have no more power over the other. Which is why, if a doctor refuses to do a certain procedure, you can choose ANOTHER DOCTOR. (It ceases to amaze me why seeing another doctor is never an option on the table; it is as if that one doctor is the ONLY person on the planet able to perform whatever “rightful” procedure a person wants to have.) This way your “rights” are met and the doctor is not FORCED to violate his moral/religious code. (And this does not suppose only those who are religious have problems with certain procedures being administered because of someone’s “rights.”*

Christian institutions view theology as the “queen of sciences.” Everything else springs forth from this–anthropology, geometry, biology, psychology, etc. One may disagree with this, but it is how it is. Now, for most, theology falls beneath the category of “anthropology.” Because of this, it is easy to look at decisions like “Christians only” to fill positions makes no sense. But, this is how the decision ought to be understood–Christians and (for the purposes of this argument) atheists are simply coming from differing points of view.

YHWH’s pax.

*Some would argue that if you don’t have moral/religious/philosophical morals, then you’d just be handing out perscription medicine unscrupulously. The reason I don’t use that argument (nor do Christian institutions) is because it is untrue (in most cases).

So, if a doctor is the ONLY option for a person, that makes violating his conscience less of a problem for you? I’m sorry, but there are no eye doctors I know of who use their religious/moral underpinnings to deny someone any type of care. As for “rights” that have to do with women, most are referring to birth control (which is available without a prescription and through Planned Parenthood for FREE) and most hospitals deny abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger (which accounts for less than 3% of all abortions in the US) or she has been traumatized through rape (which accounts for 1% of all abortions in the US). As a general practice, they refer you out. Whether you have a car or not is not something doctors take into consideration. And we’re certainly not talking about pain pills here. You and I both know doctors aren’t arguing over whether or not to prescribe pain pills based solely on religious convictions. Doctors who don’t take pain medication themselves for religious/medical reasons generally place those within the realm of deeply held “personal” convictions and will not impress those beliefs on others. It is not a “deal-breaker” so to speak. You have now left the realm of personal convictions that effects you and have entered the realm where other people’s lives are deeply affected by what you are doing and the choices you must make. However, women’s “rights” is a horse of a different color and I think we both know that. If we’re talking about women’s “rights” not being recognized, that generally refers to birth control or abortions. But, doctors refer to their religious convictions and oaths (religious language) they took upon becoming doctors when it comes to topics such as end-of-life care/euthanasia. You COULD argue that if they are squeamish about such tough issues they ought not be doctors in the first place. But, that is an entirely different conversation. As things stand now, because a person lacks a choice because of insurance companies and insurance plans giving them limited options should NOT force a doctor to violate his principles or beliefs, religious or otherwise. You job as a deli slicer and personal choice of vegetarianism ought not be elevated to the level of life and death choices doctors have to make on a daily basis when caring for patients and traversing the medical/moral/spiritual/philosophical world that is HIS job. Even the more, in cases where doctors will not care for a patient because of such convictions, their referral, for such reasons, as a general rule are covered by most insurance carriers.

Calvin, if a woman is raped and the emergency personnel take her to the closest hospital to the crime scene, which happens to be a Catholic institution, she may be denied access to the “morning after” pill within the short range of time that it is effective to prevent pregnancy. The ER docs there may simply neglect to even tell her she has the option to get the pill and be quite assuredly spared the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

If she’s hospitalized there for other injuries, and can’t get out to another institution to have the pill prescribed, or she doesn’t have access to a friend or relative who can get it for her, she’s SOL if the rape results in a pregnancy.

How in the hell can you imagine that some ER doctor has the right to make a decision like that for an adult woman who has every right legally in this country to make that decision FOR HERSELF?! That is the height of arrogance and it’s illegal and frankly immoral for a doctor or other medical person to impose their religious convictions on someone else when they have taken an oath to give care to anyone who needs it.

Karen,

Even if it disagrees with a Catholic doctor, he is, by law, required to tell you of your options. He would likely be sued for malpractice if he or she did not let the woman know her options. So in such a case the law of the land supersedes his religious beliefs. And, in the case of a rape victim, I’m not sure a Catholic doctor would not prescribe the morning after pill (just to be safe).

But, by and large, we’re not talking about rape victims as, as I stated earlier, rape victims comprise 1% of all abortions. If this is the case, then doctors are CLEARLY prescribing the morning after pill in the case of rape on a large scale. Is this not a hard thing to see? In most cases we’re talking about a person’s desire to do as the please without feeling judged for doing it.

The modern version has dropped allusions to the Green Pantheon and the proscription against abortions, but the oath still stems from a clearly religious understanding of what the gods or someone above and beyond wants from those who handle the lives of others.

The Hippocratic Oath, for the record, was written by a fringe group of unpopular doctors 2000 years ago. In addition to banning abortion, they ban all surgery. Don’t you hate it when doctors violate the Oath?

Second, the people I have known who have used Planned Parenthood are generally from low income families as nearly 90% of Planned Parenthoods are in urban locations–black and Hispanic areas. So, you are likely correct about a person needing to be in a certain income bracket in order to receive free services and birth control. I will have to look into it more. Still, they hand out condoms like lollipops and then provide abortions when they are not used properly.

Again, as a person who has actually been to a Planned Parenthood, I can assure you that white people use PP too. In fact, there are more minorities in urban areas- but there are also more people, period, and that is why PP’s end up in urban areas. They just opened a PP in Aurora, Illinois, an area that is 81% white. Are they targeting minorities? And if I want condoms from PP, they cost me money. Now, the people at the PP are very nice, for the most part, and I have heard of people getting their appointments at even more reduced prices when they flat out stated that they just couldn’t pay for contraception. But I have paid for every service I have received, and full price, so I don’t know where you are getting that condoms=lollipops.

Which brings me to my third problem. I’m going to assume your freedom and desire to have sex free from consequences is a big area where we differ. I believe people should be married in order to have sex.

Good for you. Enjoy celibacy. I am sure that you are one of the 5% of people who don’t have sex before marriage, as a recent study indicates.

Why is your sex life more important than a doctor’s deeply held religious beliefs?

Because my sexual health is as important as my physical or mental health. Because it is the doctor’s job to worry- and help me regarding- my sexual health.

He simply says, “I cannot, in good conscience, do these things without violating my religious beliefs or my understanding of the oath I took upon becoming a doctor.”

Which, to me, will come off as judgmental. Let’s imagine that doctors hate smokers. Can a doctor, in good consciousness, say, “I don’t believe smoking is good for you, and I think your lung cancer is punishment for smoking when you knew it was unhealthy. I cannot in good conscience help violate God’s punishment”? How can a doctor asy they are too morally pure to help me with my health without coming off as jerks?

Basically, what I hear you saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that your right to do whatever you please with your body in whatever manner you please is no concern of the doctor’s and he should cater to you because its his job to give you whatever you want to make sure you can have a sex life free of consequences? Does that about sum it up?

What is the deal with you and sex and consequences? I think you need to look deeply into your beliefs and ask yourself if the basis of these beliefs has anything to do with punishing women for their sexuality- because that is how I am reading you. Prescribing me birth control is not catering to my every whim, it is doing the job a doctor signs up to do. Do car manufactures include seat belts to let me drive without consequences? If I get sick as a result of a lifestyle- say not eating healthy or not getting enough sleep or falling and twisting an ankle when I am dancing for the pure sexy fun of it— does that mean the doctor is catering to me and my life free of consequences? Or does it mean she is helping me when I need help?

On the reverse side of that, patients must realize that they need to take responsibility for their actions

.

You, of course, realize that people’s choices are a result of our society and the lives we are born into and how we are raised and our DNA and many other factors beyond our control, right?

A person should not have sex with everyone they want just because they know they can get an abortion.

So can I have all the lesbian sex I want, then?

(I think we both agree that prostitution is wrong, for religious and societal reasons. I also do not think you are arguing for wanton sexual promiscuity in your own life.)

Again, not about my sex life, and you have no idea what my views are on prostitution based on anything I said here. Let’s not draw conclusions that have nothing to do with the conversation, mkay?

Where does a person draw the line? Can we do whatever we want and just expect a doctor to violate his conscience any time because our “rights” always supersede his or her personal convictions?

Why, again, should the doctors right to be a religious person supersede my right to get medical care that I need?

Yes, what a doctor does say or prescribe does affect us. However, you seem to be disregarding the biggest equation. YOU. You affect yourself more than any doctor ever will and in bigger ways than any doctor will. I’m not clear on the numbers of doctors making horribly bad decisions (so this may seem bigger than it is for the purposes of our conversation), but I should hope people realize (before they see a doctor) how much their own lifestyles and practices affect them.

Um, ok. I get that. I know that sex will leave me pregnant and suicidal and worthless to future suitors (pretty much verbatim on my high school sex ed class, BTW). But that doesn’t mean doctors can ignore my health needs even if they are the result of poor choices.

By the way, how the heck did we move from Lipscomb’s hiring practices to THIS conversation?

Because it is an important conversation to be having in light of all the recent pharmacists who refuse to fulfill birth control prescriptions for women.

Even if it disagrees with a Catholic doctor, he is, by law, required to tell you of your options. He would likely be sued for malpractice if he or she did not let the woman know her options. So in such a case the law of the land supersedes his religious beliefs. And, in the case of a rape victim, I’m not sure a Catholic doctor would not prescribe the morning after pill (just to be safe).

Here’s a study from 2003:

A recent survey found that the majority of Catholic hospitals said they would not give women emergency contraception, even those who have been raped.
…
The survey, commissioned by Catholics for a Free Choice, a Washington-based advocacy group that promotes issues of gender equality and reproductive health, found that only 28 percent of Catholic hospitals in 47 states and the District of Columbia would provide emergency contraception, also known as the “morning-after pill” or EC, to rape victims. Fifty-five percent of Catholic hospitals wouldn’t dispense emergency contraception under any circumstances.
…
Washington State, Illinois and California each has a law that requires emergency rooms to provide rape victims with information about emergency contraception. In Washington State, hospitals must provide the pills to rape victims if the women aren’t already pregnant. But 6 out of 18 Catholic hospitals here told women inquiring about emergency contraception over the telephone that it wasn’t available in their emergency rooms.

I’m not making this stuff up. It’s a real problem for women and if we start excusing it, it’ll only get worse. Only 3 states have laws (as of 2003, it may be more by now) and even in them, the Catholic hospitals were not following the law because they are claiming they have to obey their religious training above the laws of the state.

How is that “doing no harm” to women they are supposed to be providing care for, Calvin? It seems to me that you’re arguing they should be able to do as they please and as their particular religion dictates, even if they’re squashing a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body and her life.

But, by and large, we’re not talking about rape victims as, as I stated earlier, rape victims comprise 1% of all abortions. If this is the case, then doctors are CLEARLY prescribing the morning after pill in the case of rape on a large scale. Is this not a hard thing to see? In most cases we’re talking about a person’s desire to do as the please without feeling judged for doing it.

Rape victims are only the most egregious victims of this kind of mindset. In other instances, women trying to get a prescription for birth control pills filled at their neighborhood pharmacy have been told to go elsewhere because the pharmacist on duty doesn’t believe in contraception and won’t dispense the pill.

That’s ridiculous. A pharmacist’s job is to safely and accurately dispense medication prescribed by a doctor and requested by a patient. If they can’t bring themselves to do that non-judgmentally, they need to change professions.