Dallas Observer column (Morning After Pill incident)

Well, I got my sarcastic stuff in yesterday. I think the tone of the thread has been dictated by the tone of the original article though, which was too polarized to get any other reaction, really.

I think people saying the pharmacists are paid to fill subscriptions and not make moral decisions are falling into a danger of compartmentalizing. To use an extreme analogy, it's like a deathcamp guard saying it was his job to turn on the ovens, not to push the Jews into them, so who was he to complain?

Since when is disobedience as a form of protest unacceptable (especially for the Left)? That's akin to "if you don't love America then get the hell out."

Should they lose their jobs? Yes, probably. Should they lose their licensing? Quite possibly. Did they do something morally wrong? That's no so clear. They likely betrayed promises they made to their employer and to the State of Texas. But, they may have been faithfully serving a higher calling in doing so.

 

Dude what is your problem.

 

Nobody is really trying to see it from the guys point of view though. You have a moral stance from way back before you take a job, and then the FDA comes along and approves something you disprove of highly. I don't see how you guys who defend draft dodgers attack this guy.

 

and I suppose you defend Paul Hill and think that his moral stance takes precident over the laws of Florida?

This pharmacist's personal views do no over-ride the laws of the United States and of Texas, sorry.

 

Did the pharmacist kill anybody? Not the same issue. So sorry thanks for playing.

You had a hard time grasping my point I take it then; Draft dodgers broke the law standing up for what they believed in. All the idiots who voted for Nader in the last election will probably agree with me on that. What makes this guy's actions so different?

 

I am not following you. What do "draft dodgers" or Nadir have to do with anything? Just pretend that I'm 12 years old. I don't get it.

 

He's probably confusing Nader with Bush and Clinton

 

you claimed that this guy had a right to not sell a legal drug to someone holding a legal prescription based on his moral beliefs

so the Moral defense is only valid when you decide it is?

 

The Nader reference was to I think RImrocker's poll where he asked about who you voted for in the last election or something and a lot of guys on here said Nader....so that was merely a way of referencing to them.

The draft dodgers civillaly disobeyed the law when they decided that it was against their principles to fight in 'nam. I fail to see how their actions, which the many I referred to as the Naders would probably defend, differ from this guys actions, or the actions of any protest group that broke the law to do what they think is right. This guy was a pharmacist, just doing his daily business, when out of no where the FDA approved something he couldn't do. So he didn't. Where's the difference?

 

You draw an implication where I did not make one. I never condemned those who didn't go to war by means of draft dodging. To make the analogy simpler for you, what's the difference between this and the civil rights protesters who broke laws they felt were immoral?

 

This woman was raped, and she did not want to have some rapist's baby, and this pharmasict decided that HIS PERSONAL beliefs were more important than another person's rights!

 

this pharmacist's illegal actions might cause a woman to have a rapist's baby and that will effect her for the rest of her life, I would say that makes it a huge difference from some protestor's sitting down on some steps outside a courthouse

 

You fail to see how this man did not know she was raped, and even so, she just went across the street to walgreens anyway and the man didn't have to do something he didn't want too.

 

the fact that she got the drug across the street is irrelevant

this man is licenced by the State of Texas and takes an OATH to follow the laws of TEXAS not to follow his personal moral law.

 

I think the difference is that his protest was undertaken while 'on the job' and related directly to the performance of his job and his duties as a pharmacist. He was also an employee, and therefore not really empowered to be making those calls.

I don't want pharmacists over-ruling doctors.

Away from his job, he can protest or do what he chooses. If he wants to lobby his professional association to permit refusals to dispense drugs based on moral grounds, again, that's an option available to him.

But when a doctor approves a prescription, he should dispense it.

The VP at the company mentioned disciplinary action. The head of the Texas Board of Pharmacy said there was no basis for refusal in their codes.

Seems pretty clear here.

 

Ok, so if someone asks you to hold a gun to a small child's head and pull the trigger, and this just happens to be a legal thing to do...something that came up in your job after you took the job...and which the law tells you to do...would you do it?

This is how it looks to someone who is pro-life. If you have a problem with pro-life people then just say that because that is what I think you want to say. I won't get mad at you, just don't dance around the issue and say that this guy belongs on death row because he broke the law and we must always follow the law no matter what it tells us.

I'd hate to be a black guy thinking that way and still not be able to go into a white school.

 

Once again, it wasn't part of the job when he signed up.

 

Once again, it wasn't part of the job when he signed up.

If you have a moral problem with doing your job, quit. It's not like the pharmacists didn't know this was going to come up eventually. Don't take someone else's money without being capable of performing the duties for which you're being paid.

 

Following the Texas Board of Pharmacy codes is the job.

 

Israeli pilots are sometimes asked to bomb apartment buildings in order to attack Hamas leaders. When some of them refused to DO THEIR JOBS, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW, BECAUSE OF MORAL OBJECTIONS, many of the lefties were praising them. When a pharmacist does the same thing for the same reason, you are calling for his head. Seems like kind of a double standard. That's okay, I am guilty too, as I came down against the pilots and for the pharmacist. I guess it is not so much based on people rufusing to do their jobs as whether our views on the underlying issues agree with the conscientious objectors.