Index.php - Revision history

Aschlafly: Reverted edits by DrownedbyVondoIs (Talk) to last revision by Deborah

2010-08-20T19:31:29Z

Reverted edits by DrownedbyVondoIs (Talk) to last revision by Deborah

DrownedbyVondoIs: EDIT SUMMARY

2010-08-20T19:27:56Z

EDIT SUMMARY

Deborah: Redirecting to Main Page

2008-06-17T00:56:10Z

Redirecting to Main Page

NathanG: /* deletion proposal */ created by error

2008-06-16T21:24:23Z

deletion proposal: created by error

AdenJ: /* Yes */

2008-06-16T21:21:13Z

Yes

New page

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat.....
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==No==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, August 20, 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~Drowning in vandalism!~~	+	#redirect[[Main Page]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, August 20, 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~#redirect[[Main Page]]~~	+	Drowning in vandalism!

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:56, June 17, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~{{delete}}~~	+	#redirect[[Main Page]]
−	~~== Premise ==~~
−
−	Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.
−
−	~~== Yes ==~~
−
−	Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[~~User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP~~]] ~~15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)~~
−
−	:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp\|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
−
−	::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
−	:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
−
−	::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp\|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
−
−	:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc\|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
−
−
−	Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat.....
−	~~[[User:AdenJ\|AdenJ]] 17:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)~~
−
−	~~==No==~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, June 16, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{~~debate~~}}	+	{{delete}}
	== Premise ==		== Premise ==