[Moved from Am Politics] "Pro Life" Pharmacist is okay with woman bleeding to death

[lordbt]

It's still bull, because we're talking about a specific case where a pharmacist denied a prescription because of what she thought was going on.

Which makes neither my statement 'bull' nor the pharmacists actions immoral.

Had this woman died because of the pharmacist's "morally obligated refusal", the blood would've been on the pharmacist's hands. If you don't want to prescribe drugs because you think there was an abortion involved, don't become a pharmacist where you will put people's lives in jeopardy because of a "moral obligation".

Now death was imminent. Of course.

So irresponsible. The fact that this pharmacist comes off as being pro-life is disgusting.

Hardly. It is the unprincipled that undermine a just cause.

 

[lordbt]

How do you know there is no evidence? Are you a doctor? Are you trained in the ramifications of this drug and what instances it is or is not used for?

How do I know there was no evidence? Because I have seen no evidence. If you have some, lay it out there.

And if the other 10 pharmacies decide it is against their conscience to supply the drug then oh well, tough luck for this women and her medical needs?

You could always become a pharmacist.

 

[Gracchus]

Well, the important thing is, that the pharmacist got to take a slight risk, making her feel herself righteously principled, and morally superior. Better that, by far, than humbling herself and letting God sort out the facts and motives.

 

[lordbt]

Well, the important thing is, that the pharmacist got to take a slight risk, making her feel herself righteously principled, and morally superior. Better that, by far, than humbling herself and letting God sort out the facts and motives.

Well, the unprincipled are often put off by those who have them. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[metherion]

No, I get it. the trouble is, we are talking
ABOUT.

THIS.

CASE.

You cant argue the specifics of this case like what the pharmacist new and did not know, then criticize me for arguing the specifics of this case as well.

So, hypothetically, the pharmacist would have been in the wrong if she was the only working pharmacist in, say, an hour’s drive? Two? Four? If there had been some sort of snowstorm and were the only pharmacist open in the city, which was isolated by snow? IS the proximity of others who had not yet turned the prescription down is a major influence on the rightness or wrongness of the pharmacist’s actions?

If the proximity of others is NOT a direct factor in the rightness or wrongness, it is a red herring. If it IS a direct factor, then the pharmacist sure didn’t know how many had been or had not been tried, or were available, because she hung up rather than help, so she cannot be excused for knowing someone else would help.

My statement does not assume there was an abortion. I contend that there was insufficient evidence available for the pharmacist to conclude that his actions would not violate his principles. There is a difference there.

No, your statement does directly assume one took place. You stated, for the record,

It is not unreasonable to assume that this drug is part of the abortion if it is being used to deal with symptoms of an abortion.

Post #272.

The symptoms are not the symptoms of an abortion. To be dealing with the symptoms of an abortion, there needs to be an abortion to have symptoms of. Yes, I dangled a participle.



Metherion

 

[Jro]

Most people dont have that choice. When you work for someone you play be their rules. The issue here is that the people of the state of Idaho passed a law allowing people to opt out in the case of abortion.

That just says that it's legal for the pharmacist to make that decision. At one point in time slavery was legal, but we object to it on moral grounds, so it's clear that the two aren't exact matches for each other. It seems like you have no problems with the pharmacist's actions on moral grounds, even going so far as to say she's done nothing wrong. If that's the case, would you have a moral problem with other people opting out of their job, assuming it was legal for them to do so?

 

[metherion]

I would also like to talk about the law in question.

I use information from this website:

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2010/S1353.pdf

And I will specify the source of any other information, otherwise it all comes from the above source.

FIRST, the part in question:

(2) No health care professional shall be required to provide any health
care service that violates his or her conscience. 36

Fairly clear. Okay, let’s look at what a health care service is.

(f) "Health care service" means an abortion, dispensation of an
25
abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment
26
regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells,human embryo cloning or27
end of life treatment and care. 28

I think we can all agree that this has nothing to do with human embryos or end of life treatment or care. Which means an abortion or an abortifacient drug. The pharmacist, I think we can all agree, did not participate in an abortion, no? She was not present for it, she did not even know that it happened.

WHICH MEANS, we look if the bill says anything about abortifacient drugs. Would you believe it does?

his section:
"Abortifacient" means any drug that causes an abortion as defined
in 18-604, Idaho Code, emergency contraception or any drug the primary15
purpose of which is to cause the destruction of an embryo or fetus.
16

Okay, so... the primary purpose of the drug is not destruction of an embryo nor a fetus, but to stop bleeding. Neither is it emergency contraception. So let’s bop over to 18-604 Idaho code, shall we?



NEW SOURCE!
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH6SECT18-604.htm

"Abortion" means the use of any means to intentionally terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child except that, for the purposes of this chapter, abortion shall not mean the use of an intrauterine device or birth control pill to inhibit or prevent ovulations, fertilization or the implantation of a fertilized ovum within the uterus.

Alright. No knowledge that the medicine will cause the death of an unborn child, and birth control is already covered elsewhere.

Guess what. No proof of abortion, medicine not related to the legal definition of abortion, not an abortifacient drug.

Anyone disagree with any of this? It’s all from the Idaho code.

So, the pharmacist did NOT participate in an abortion, nor was it an abortifacient drug she declined to dispense.

SHE IS IN THE WRONG.

Objections?

Metherion

 

[Skaloop]

I would also like to talk about the law in question.

I use information from this website:

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2010/S1353.pdf

And I will specify the source of any other information, otherwise it all comes from the above source.

FIRST, the part in question:



Fairly clear. Okay, let’s look at what a health care service is.



I think we can all agree that this has nothing to do with human embryos or end of life treatment or care. Which means an abortion or an abortifacient drug. The pharmacist, I think we can all agree, did not participate in an abortion, no? She was not present for it, she did not even know that it happened.

WHICH MEANS, we look if the bill says anything about abortifacient drugs. Would you believe it does?



Okay, so... the primary purpose of the drug is not destruction of an embryo nor a fetus, but to stop bleeding. Neither is it emergency contraception. So let’s bop over to 18-604 Idaho code, shall we?



NEW SOURCE!
Statutes



Alright. No knowledge that the medicine will cause the death of an unborn child, and birth control is already covered elsewhere.

Guess what. No proof of abortion, medicine not related to the legal definition of abortion, not an abortifacient drug.

Anyone disagree with any of this? It’s all from the Idaho code.

So, the pharmacist did NOT participate in an abortion, nor was it an abortifacient drug she declined to dispense.

SHE IS IN THE WRONG.

Objections?

Metherion

That is precisely the specific information I needed to make a determination in this case, I just didn't have the chance to look it all up. Kudos to you for digging it all out. And I agree with your conclusion; I look forward to seeing what (if any) the counter-arguments are.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So any way you slice it, the pharamcist never had a legal leg to stand on in the first place. Thanks metherion!

 

[Gracchus]

Well, the unprincipled are often put off by those who have them. Thank you for pointing that out.

People who put "principles" ahead of the needs of others make me ...
Well, let's just say that the "principle" the pharmacist manifested was a small exercise of a small power. It was not, however, exercised to protect a child. It did no good. It was exercised to punish some person whose motives and actions were unknown but imagined by the pharmacist. It was an act of blind, perverse, and petty vengeance.
It was certainly not very horrendous, not some cataclysmic or egregious cruelty. The "principle" somehow led the pharmacist to a small act of viciousness. And that is positively the best interpretation that can be put on it.

Admittedly, most of us have probably done worse. But that doesn't make it pretty.

 

[Archer93]

How do I know there was no evidence? Because I have seen no evidence. If you have some, lay it out there.

You've seen no evidence either way, apart from the (undisputed?) fact that a properly qualified medical healthcare professional felt that their patient's bleeding warranted medication to stop it.

Do you know why deaths due to childbirth have decreased so much in industrialised countries? In case you're not sure, it's because of advances in medicine.
Better hygeine reduces the risk of post partum infections, and if one does still occur there are antibiotics to treat them.
Bleeding is still a common aftereffect of birth, but due to medicines like the one refused to the patient in question it can be stopped quite easily and the woman is unlikely to bleed out over several hours.

Chances are that the bleeding was not immediatly dangerous. But it could easily have become so if untreated.
Which would be rather rough on this woman, whom I am going to assume suffered a miscarriage.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You've seen no evidence either way, apart from the (undisputed?) fact that a properly qualified medical healthcare professional felt that their patient's bleeding warranted medication to stop it.

Do you know why deaths due to childbirth have decreased so much in industrialised countries? In case you're not sure, it's because of advances in medicine.
Better hygeine reduces the risk of post partum infections, and if one does still occur there are antibiotics to treat them.
Bleeding is still a common aftereffect of birth, but due to medicines like the one refused to the patient in question it can be stopped quite easily and the woman is unlikely to bleed out over several hours.

Chances are that the bleeding was not immediatly dangerous. But it could easily have become so if untreated.
Which would be rather rough on this woman, whom I am going to assume suffered a miscarriage.

It was never about evidence, it was about the pharmacist's "right" to be a sanctimonious twerp -- a right which, as metherion pointed out, the pharmacist never had in the first place.

 

[Belk]

How do I know there was no evidence? Because I have seen no evidence. If you have some, lay it out there.

OK. She was proscribed a drug to stop bleeding by a doctor. Are you a medical professional? Are you qualified to say what is or is not a life threatening situation?

You could always become a pharmacist.

And you can dodge the question. If all of the pharmacists in that local decide to not supply the drug because it goes against their conscience then what? Why is this pharmacists conscience more important then the medical decisions between a doctor and their patient?

 

[lordbt]

So, hypothetically, the pharmacist would have been in the wrong if she was the only working pharmacist in, say, an hour’s drive? Two? Four? If there had been some sort of snowstorm and were the only pharmacist open in the city, which was isolated by snow? IS the proximity of others who had not yet turned the prescription down is a major influence on the rightness or wrongness of the pharmacist’s actions?

If the proximity of others is NOT a direct factor in the rightness or wrongness, it is a red herring. If it IS a direct factor, then the pharmacist sure didn’t know how many had been or had not been tried, or were available, because she hung up rather than help, so she cannot be excused for knowing someone else would help.

Each of those factors might have an influence upon the pharmacists decision, but it would still be the pharmacists decision.

No, your statement does directly assume one took place. You stated, for the record,

Post #272.

The symptoms are not the symptoms of an abortion. To be dealing with the symptoms of an abortion, there needs to be an abortion to have symptoms of. Yes, I dangled a participle.

No it doesnt. I was explaining how one could connect the drug to an abortion, not assuming an abortion took place.

 

[Skaloop]

Each of those factors might have an influence upon the pharmacists decision, but it would still be the pharmacists decision.



No it doesnt. I was explaining how one could connect the drug to an abortion, not assuming an abortion took place.

Are you going to address metherion's post regarding the actual laws surrounding this issue? Personally, I (and I expect many others) don't necessarily have a problem with the pharmacist's stance on abortion, or her personal moral issues with it that led to her refusal to fill the prescription. My main issue is that she did not follow the laws that were in place to protect her right to object. As metherion cited, the drug was not among the drugs that would fall under her objection protection. Furthermore, even if they had, she did not fulfill the requirement to offer alternatives.

Was she moral (or, at least, following her morals) in refusing to dispense the drug? Sure. Was it legal? According to the laws governing it, no. And that, I believe, is where the main issue is.

 

[lordbt]

That just says that it's legal for the pharmacist to make that decision. At one point in time slavery was legal, but we object to it on moral grounds, so it's clear that the two aren't exact matches for each other. It seems like you have no problems with the pharmacist's actions on moral grounds, even going so far as to say she's done nothing wrong. If that's the case, would you have a moral problem with other people opting out of their job, assuming it was legal for them to do so?

No, I wouldnt. But the proper way to handle these sorts of things is between employer and employee, and any moral difficulties one might have with a certain job should be ironed out prior them being offered and accepting employment. If a pharmacist applies at Walgreens and says I will sell every drug in here but this one, it would be up to the employer to decide whether or not he wanted such a person working for him, and if he did, strict guidelines would be set up between employer and employee on how to handle a situation where the drug in question was ordered during the employees shift. Companies should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves. If they were, the situation here would have been avoided.

 

[Justa Guy]

Growing up I too was involved with the "pro-life" movement and I have to agree with Nathan Poe. The behavior I saw, the conversations I was privy to led me to believe that for most of the protesters it is all about punishing women who they view to be wicked because they had sex outside of marriage.

Very rarely did I ever see any real concern for the future well being of the unborn or the woman outside of preventing an abortion. They may talk a good game about wanting to help, but there was never any backing to it. I never knew any of those people in the church who ever lifted a finger to help a pregnant woman or children after they talked her out of having an abortion.

Your experience is unfortunate but indeed is the minority.

 

[Justa Guy]

Sure. But I don't care about Orthodox morality, because I am not Orthodox.

I think the poster was referring to orthodox meaning right thinking not Orthodox as in Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Justa Guy]

What does "for most of us it's about saving all human lives" entail? Realistically, and as honestly as I can put it: I think pro-lifers are very adept at saying one thing to legitimize the movement, while saying something else completely among themselves. I mean, when Dr. Tiller was assasinated there was a thread on here that might as well have been titled: "Murdering Tiller was wrong, but thank God he's dead!" Pro-lifers condemned the action amidst their celebration.

However, I'm admitedly biased. My experience with pro-lifers is being physically assaulted for stating that I was a pro-choice atheist.

At least in my case and in the case of my peers it means exactly what it says. It means protecting the life of the convicted murderer, it means protecting the lives of victims of warfare, it means protecting the lives of the Dr. Tillers. I think if you reread the thread you are speaking of you will notice that most of the Christians who responded were opposed to the killing of Dr. Tiller. There were only a couple who were arguing that his killing was just.

I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with pro-lifers. Please try to remember however that these message boards tend to attract those on the extreme ends of the spectrum instead of those who fall somewhere in between. For example I have been called cowardly for treating those who disagree with me with respect. You and I may disagree on this issue but we are both human beings and neither of us more deserving of respect than the other.

 

[lordbt]

Are you going to address metherion's post regarding the actual laws surrounding this issue?

I was going in order and that post was next in line. But since you brought it up, yes it is entirely possible that the law will not support what the pharmacist did. I suspect that the case against the pharmacist is likely close to the one laid out by metherion. But I dont think we have heard the pharmacists side of the story yet (have we?) so we will have to wait and see. But yes, if this particular drug was not intended to be covered under this law then her moral objection will have no legal backing. And if she did not clear her objection to this particular drug with her employer in advance, she acted without the consent of her employer and in a way that may in fact be harmful to her employer and may very well be canned. And for the record, if all those things turn out to be true, then Walgreens would be morally justified in terminating her