Doing your JOB

[tocis]

So why are people throwing fits for being told to do thier jobs?

Totally absurd, no? Indeed, if you're suddenly shocked because, say, as a doctor or pharmacist you have to prescribe/hand out the "pill after", there's a problem indeed... and it is with you and your lack of thinking about "what kind of job is this I plan to make my bucks with?".

Compare to what happened in our Federal forces back in 1990, Desert Storm times. As soon as the rumor spread that maybe some of our soldiers would be sent down there to help with logistics, hordes of soldiers suddenly "discovered" their conscience and signed the official "I can't do service with a weapon - my conscience doesn't allow that" form. While I somewhat understand this happening with drafted recruits (I might have done the same if I had been serving my tern back then...), there were a number of sergeants and even higher ranks among the "no-fighters". What the (beep)?!Didn't they think for a single second about the fact that, if they become professional soldiers, they may end up in a war zone?!

If you can't live with having to point a weapon at another human, don't work as soldier (or cop for that matter). If you can't live with getting involved with abortions and the like, don't work in the medical field. If you decide to do anyway, blame no one but yourself if you end up in trouble.

 

[SallyNow]

Shop elsewhere, or mail order.

This is just an example of liberals trying to force conservatives to live by liberal values.

The pharmacist has no idea why the doctor has written the birth control prescription. There are no "liberal values" behind birth control pills as a medication: it is a medication.

A woman may be on the Pill to stop a pregancy that could lead to death, or she could be on the Pill to help with serious PMS or with very painful cramps. Or she could be on them because she, or she and her partner, and not in the proper situation to have children.

The pharmacist is there to fill prescriptions, be experts about the prescriptions, and to make sure there are not going to be any adverse drug reactions.

If someone becomes a pharmacist they must be prepared to fufill their job, and their job is to full prescriptions, not offer moral advice. If they want to offer moral advice they should go into ministry.

There are many towns that only have one pharmacy, and mail-order medication is not reliable, nor is it timely. A pharamcist who is too egotistical to allow the doctors to make decisions needs to find another job.

 

[Pikachu]

I dont see refusing to do your job as un-ethical. Taking a birth control prescription and filling it with sugar pills, THAT would be un-ethical.

Really? Like being a cop and refusing to arrest someone for violating a law you didn't think should be enforced? Is that what you mean?

 

[Steezie]

Really? Like being a cop and refusing to arrest someone for violating a law you didn't think should be enforced? Is that what you mean?

Ideally cops should arrest people who break the law. Realistically, not everyboddy that breaks the law is guilty or deserving of punishment.

Do you give someone a speeding ticket who's racing to get his pregnant wife to the hospital? Do you arrest a child for stealing food because they have nothing to eat? Do you arrest a teenager for tresspassing under a bridge because they have nowhere else to live?

Refusing to fill an important prescription is not the same as a cop letting the child go who stole a piece of bread because he didnt have anything to eat. Each choice is made on morals, true. But that does not mean that both choices are the SAME

 

[R0D]

The pharmacist has no idea why the doctor has written the birth control prescription. There are no "liberal values" behind birth control pills as a medication: it is a medication.

A woman may be on the Pill to stop a pregancy that could lead to death, or she could be on the Pill to help with serious PMS or with very painful cramps. Or she could be on them because she, or she and her partner, and not in the proper situation to have children.

Maybe some of that can be true, but it doesn't change what birth control pills are.
So, it doesn't require that the pharmacist know why. Besides, I guess you don't know why birth control pills were allowed by the courts anyway - the privacy reason that it is based on means the pharmacist doesn't need to know.

The pharmacist is there to fill prescriptions, be experts about the prescriptions, and to make sure there are not going to be any adverse drug reactions.

If someone becomes a pharmacist they must be prepared to fufill their job, and their job is to full prescriptions, not offer moral advice. If they want to offer moral advice they should go into ministry.

It isn't about pharmacists giving moral guidance. It is about pharmacists not being bullied into issuing a debatable and morality/ethics related drug. It is about trying to remove the First Amendment from the U.S. Constitution.

There are many towns that only have one pharmacy, and mail-order medication is not reliable, nor is it timely. A pharamcist who is too egotistical to allow the doctors to make decisions needs to find another job.

The pharmacist isn't making a doctor's decision.
People so arrogant enough to try and tell everyone else what their job is or even what religion should be established, abolished is the issue. It is about a person being forced to do something that goes against their protected rights and about institutionalizing religious prohibition.

 

[rosesandravens]

An excellent counter-example.

One which, it seems, has been ignored.

 

[RealityCheck]

One which, it seems, has been ignored.

Probably because most Christians refuse to recognize Scientology as a legitimate religion. Which isn't surprising, given that L. Ron Hubbard is reputed to have told friends at one point that he intended to create a religion because "that's where the real money is."

Of course, makes you wonder about a lot of other cults and religions too... just substitute "money" with "power"...

 

[MooCar93]

It isn't about pharmacists giving moral guidance. It is about pharmacists not being bullied into issuing a debatable and morality/ethics related drug. It is about trying to remove the First Amendment from the U.S. Constitution.

Fine. The pharmacist has his/her right to freedom of religion. And the company s/he works for, then, should have the freedom to fire them for refusing to do their job.

Freedom is a two-way street, folks.

 

[R0D]

Fine. The pharmacist has his/her right to freedom of religion. And the company s/he works for, then, should have the freedom to fire them for refusing to do their job.

Freedom is a two-way street, folks.

The laws are being hammered out as we speak, but most of the states do not agree with you.

 

[Blackmarch]

This came up with the whole pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions and I saw it again in a thread in the News forum about doctors not disclosing treatment options that were against thier moral beliefs.

What really just blew my mind was there were people who were saying that its OK for someone to refuse to do thier job because of moral beliefs.

Why do certain professions get a free pass to refuse to do something that is thier JOB if they are morally against it? Its not like you had NO idea what you'd be doing when you took the job. If someone signs on to be a doctor, its a pretty good bet that one of your future patients may need birth control or an abortion. If you're going to object to reccomending those procedures, then why be a doctor? You KNOW when you train to be a pharmacist that you will, one day, have to fill birth control prescriptions. So if you are morally against filling them, why be a pharmacist?

I could understand if people were being asked to do something they felt was immoral and outside of thier normal duties, but pharmacists fill prescriptions. That is thier JOB.

I used to work for a daycare center. If I had said that something that was part of my job was against my moral beliefs, I would have been fired and rightly so. Either someone does thier job or they dont, and the ones that dont get canned.

So why are people throwing fits for being told to do thier jobs?

I'd say make sure that that is covered in the contract...
and if they go agianst that contract, give them the boot.

 

[MooCar93]

The laws are being hammered out as we speak, but most of the states do not agree with you.

Yeah, it's totally unfair. If this were a totally free country, no one would have the right to birth control.

 

[violetchick]

Hello? Are birth control pills a new fangled idea in the USA?
I could have sworn they'd been around for 40+ years.
Surely anyone opposed to birth control pills would think that if they trained to be a pharmacist they might have to actually fill a prescription for them once in a while. I mean, it's not like it's a new form of medication that's come in since they have been trained.

I personally don't want a career where I might have to shoot somebody so I've studiously avoided careers in the armed forces and the police - it seems pretty straightforward to me. If there's a part of a job description that is against your moral principles then perhaps it's not the right career for you.

 

[RealityCheck]

Hello? Are birth control pills a new fangled idea in the USA?
I could have sworn they'd been around for 40+ years.
Surely anyone opposed to birth control pills would think that if they trained to be a pharmacist they might have to actually fill a prescription for them once in a while. I mean, it's not like it's a new form of medication that's come in since they have been trained.

I personally don't want a career where I might have to shoot somebody so I've studiously avoided careers in the armed forces and the police - it seems pretty straightforward to me. If there's a part of a job description that is against your moral principles then perhaps it's not the right career for you.

Awesome.

 

[flicka]

The turning the doctor's office and pharmacy into a religious superiority battleground at the expense of patients who've got their hands already tied is just the worst perversion of a religion.

Thank you. This is absolutely correct.

 

[Pikachu]

Ideally cops should arrest people who break the law. Realistically, not everyboddy that breaks the law is guilty or deserving of punishment.

Do you give someone a speeding ticket who's racing to get his pregnant wife to the hospital? Do you arrest a child for stealing food because they have nothing to eat? Do you arrest a teenager for tresspassing under a bridge because they have nowhere else to live?

Refusing to fill an important prescription is not the same as a cop letting the child go who stole a piece of bread because he didnt have anything to eat. Each choice is made on morals, true. But that does not mean that both choices are the SAME

"IDEALLY"? No, LEGALLY everybody that breaks the law should be handled according to established protocol; whether that means a ticket or a trip to the station. It does not mean a cop should be able to do whatever he/she pleases to rectify the situation in his/her mind. It is no different than enforcing the law selectively. Any cop that does that should go to jail as well.

 

[Steezie]

"IDEALLY"? No, LEGALLY everybody that breaks the law should be handled according to established protocol; whether that means a ticket or a trip to the station. It does not mean a cop should be able to do whatever he/she pleases to rectify the situation in his/her mind. It is no different than enforcing the law selectively. Any cop that does that should go to jail as well.

There are two parts to the law

The Letter, and the Spirit.

Now there is a law that states that you are NOT allowed to take things from stores without paying.

A child that steals food because he/she has nothing to eat and nowhere to stay has violated the Letter of the law. The child however has not violated the Spirit of the law. The child did not steal out of a malicious nature to deprive someone else of thier property. The child stole for survival, out of necessity, not out of desire. The Spirit of the law has remained un-broken.

A true offender is one who breaks both the Letter and the Spirit of the law. Someone who breaks the Letter is not necessarily guilty or deserving of punishment.

Crime and punishment is not a black and white subject. One man who kills annother may deserve the electric chair, annother man who kills a man may deserve to walk free. Both for the same crime.

 

[trunks2k]

I think it comes down to this:

If you own your own pharmacy, it's your choice to stock whatever you want to stock, that is if the state doesn't have guidelines on what must be stocked (IIRC, MA has a law that pharmacies must stock commonly used drugs). If there is a drug you have an issue with, don't stock it and let it be publically known that you don't stock it. However, if you are a pharmacist working for a pharmacy that does stock said moral issue drug, it is not your place to place moral judgement on those who want the drug. Your job is to make sure the dosage is safe, the drug does not conflict with other medications, the customer is not abusing the drug, and answer questions the customer may have about said drug.

 

[Pikachu]

There are two parts to the law

The Letter, and the Spirit.

Now there is a law that states that you are NOT allowed to take things from stores without paying.

A child that steals food because he/she has nothing to eat and nowhere to stay has violated the Letter of the law. The child however has not violated the Spirit of the law. The child did not steal out of a malicious nature to deprive someone else of thier property. The child stole for survival, out of necessity, not out of desire. The Spirit of the law has remained un-broken.

A true offender is one who breaks both the Letter and the Spirit of the law. Someone who breaks the Letter is not necessarily guilty or deserving of punishment.

Crime and punishment is not a black and white subject. One man who kills annother may deserve the electric chair, annother man who kills a man may deserve to walk free. Both for the same crime.

Okay then, what about the cop that comes to the US from a part of the world where it's morally acceptable to kill stray animals, who gets called out to investigate a person beating dogs in an alley? He gets there and finds the dogs bludgeoned to death and the perpetrator with a hammer in his hand. Is it alright for him to apply his personal morals and ignore the situation, or should he arrest the person for the violation?

What I'm talking about is selectively doing one's job, and ignoring the orders of a medical doctor to fill a prescription; not overlooking petty theft because a little kid is hungry and has to steal food to avoid starving.

I maintain that the pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription based on his religious morals is engaging in unethical behavior and should have his license pulled.

 

[Steezie]

Okay then, what about the cop that comes to the US from a part of the world where it's morally acceptable to kill stray animals, who gets called out to investigate a person beating dogs in an alley? He gets there and finds the dogs bludgeoned to death and the perpetrator with a hammer in his hand. Is it alright for him to apply his personal morals and ignore the situation, or should he arrest the person for the violation?

Considering that it IS illegal to kill stray animals in the US...

What I'm talking about is selectively doing one's job, and ignoring the orders of a medical doctor to fill a prescription; not overlooking petty theft because a little kid is hungry and has to steal food to avoid starving.

I maintain that the pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription based on his religious morals is engaging in unethical behavior and should have his license pulled.

And I dont disagree.