I think we really have to expand on the recent development with Wal-Mart and pharmacists and personal conscience and all that stuff from back here. Specifically, I want to take a closer look at just the following paragraph, since there's a whole lot going on just below the surface that's not immediately obvious:
Chomiuk said the company will maintain its conscientious objection policy, which it said is consistent with the tenets of the American Pharmaceutical Association. The policy, except where prohibited by law, allows any Wal-Mart or Sam's Club pharmacy employee who does not feel comfortable dispensing a prescription to refer customers to another pharmacist or pharmacy.
Let's deconstruct this slowly and carefully, shall we? First, Wal-Mart spokesweasel Ron Chomiuk describes the company's new policy as being consistent with the "tenets" of the APA. What exactly does that mean?
Despite what Chomiuk is implying, the APA doesn't have an official set of "tenets." What they have is an official Code of Ethics adopted in 1994 that you can read here and, if you read that code carefully, it says nothing whatsoever about a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medication based on their Bible-thumping, right-wing whackjob beliefs. The closest you get is in clause IV, which reads in part:
A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience.
Now, you'd think that clause introducing the notion of "conscience" would be the launching point to explain in more detail how this whole personal conscience thing works, but you'd be wrong. Instead, you have the rest of that clause which undercuts it entirely:
A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.
Well, how about that? After a brief tip of the hat to the idea of conscience, that clause quite clearly comes down on the side of the customer, being pretty darned adamant that pharmacists are to avoid discrimination and to act in the best interests of their patients. That seems fairly straightforward so what is Chomiuk babbling about?
Well, if you read carefully, you'll notice that Chomiuk is claiming that Wal-Mart's policy is consistent, not with the APA's Code of Ethics, but with its "tenets." And since the APA has no official set of "tenets" in the first place, Chomiuk is clearly just trying to paint a picture of the APA's overall nebulous philosophy, without having to get into, you know, reading the actual words.
It's a clever trick -- ignore the APA's actual written position and make arm-waving, abstract hints about what they really mean in their "tenets." Yes, it's sleazy, but it's not the end of Chomiuk's intellectual dishonesty. Oh, yes, it gets worse.
Note also how Chomiuk claims that Wal-Mart's position is "consistent" with the APA's, a statement that has virtually no value whatsoever. What does it mean to be "consistent?" I'm glad you asked.
As an example by way of analogy, if a recent murder was committed with a .357 Magnum, and you happen to own just that type of gun, I can legitimately claim that accusing you of being the murderer is "consistent" with the evidence. Note that your ownership in no way actually suggests you're the guilty party. One can just as logically say that anyone who owns that kind of handgun could justifiably be said to be a suspect because such a claim would be "consistent" with the evidence.
(To get even more tasteless, I could quite logically suggest that, if you're a male, then it's "consistent" that you're the perpetrator in a recent rape. The rapist was a male, you're a male -- thus, you being the actual rapist is "consistent" with the evidence. I trust I've made my point.)
In short, consistency by itself is virtually worthless, and Chomiuk clearly knows that, which is why he doesn't claim that the APA actually supports Wal-Mart's position. He can't say that because he knows it's rubbish, so he falls back on the weasel word of "consistent" and hopes no one notices the difference.
(One can also point out that, since consistency is such an open-ended notion, it would be just as logically defensible to claim that pharmacists being obligated to fill their customers' prescriptions is also totally consistent with the APA's code as well. But I'm sure Chomiuk knows that, too; he just doesn't want you to know it.)
In short, rather than take the position that the APA's Code of Ethics supports Wal-Mart, Chomiuk is reduced to gibbering about how the APA's (non-existent) "tenets" are simply "consistent" with Wal-Mart's position which, as we've now seen, couldn't possibly be any more meaningless.
To be concluded in Part 2: Birth control bad, Viagra good.
No comments:
Post a Comment