Wednesday, March 26, 2008
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Dear Bible-whomping, "pro-life" pharmacists: Fuck you. No, seriously, fuck you.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, while I like the general decision here, I'm still miffed that these pious yobs still have the legal right to direct customers elsewhere, including (if memory serves) to other pharmacies. That doesn't really help someone who's in a rush, is on their lunch hour, has a bunch of errands to do, and is then told, "I'm sorry, but you'll need to fill this at the other pharmacy across town because my God doesn't care for slutty whores like you."
Keep it simple: Do your job, or get out. I like that plan.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
W00T!
I've always been of the mind that my right to freedom of expression and religion ends where it interferes with the rights of another person. For example, my right to express myself by bashing someone's face in with a pipe ends where the pipe meets the face.
So, fuck 'em. Fire those SOB's. If they can't do the job then they should go do something else. You think the Hindu behind the counter is going to get a pass for refusing to serve hamburgers at McDonalds because it conflicts with his religion? No.
If the pharmacy in the Menomonie Kmart has decided not to carry birth control pills that's fine.
If the pharmacy in the Menomonie Kmart has decided to allow freedom of conscience in this area that's also fine. It's something that the customer needs to take up with store management, not the courts, and then decide if they want to continue shopping there.
There is no right to be served the prescription of your choice, at the pharmacy of your choice, by the pharmacist of your choice - whether you're in a rush, or have errands to do, or even if you're on a short lunch hour.
Where Noesen crossed the line was not in refusing to fill the prescription, but, IMO, only in refusing to allow it to be transferred to another outlet.... that simple decision moved him from devote Catholic to religious zealot - and them we shouldn't have to deal with.
stageleft:
I don't think it's that simple. In the first place, some of these pharmacies could be in rural areas where it's a long way to another pharmacy and therefore thoroughly inconvenient for people wanting to get their prescriptions filled.
More importantly, though, I don't see why pharmacies should even be allowed to exercise freedom of conscience.
Considering that you need a medical professional to prescribe something, and that pharmacies are set up to fill those prescriptions, it's hard not to think of pharmacies as an official (read "state") arm of the medical bureaucracy. If those pharmacies need a state or provincial license to operate and dispense controlled substances, they are effectively operating as an extension of the state, and must therefore obey state laws. Personal preference doesn't factor into it.
It's as unacceptable as being an examiner at the DMV, and deciding you'd rather not serve blacks. If you work for the "state," then you either do your job or you get out. It really is that simple.
There is no right to be served the prescription of your choice, at the pharmacy of your choice, by the pharmacist of your choice - whether you're in a rush, or have errands to do, or even if you're on a short lunch hour.
Disagree. In a theoretical perfect market, the pill dispensing pharmacy would be right next door, and the customer would be served with only minor inconvenience. If the entire community's pharmacies do not dispense pills, then it is effectively preventing access for those who cannot travel some possibly large distance to a pharmacy outside the interdiction zone.
Suppose Walmart decides not to dispense the pill? It is the only game in town in many places.
The monopoly type restrictions on pharmaceutical dispensing are intended to provide professional quality assistance and instruction at the point of sale. If these restrictions did not exist, then any pharmacy could refuse to do whatever it wants, and another drug dispenser business would quickly open to meet the market need.
If the market it not free, then those benefiting from it cannot expect to freely pick and choose what they will supply to the market.
Yeah, what LS said.
If Noesen is a "devout Catholic" who is opposed to the Pill, why the fuck (it's not Monday!!)did he become a pharmacist? Did he think he'd never have to dispense prescriptions for birth control?
Because if he did, then he's ten different kinds of stupid. But I think we've already established that fact.
So that big rack that most pharmacies have for condoms is empty? Or does he have the thermometer and calendar kits with the "basic rhythm" manual?
Does he sell pregnancy tests?
Does he use his point of sale system to track female customers' purchases of tampons and pads, so he can detect missed periods and check for subsequent purchases of baby products (or geritol)? Any non-purchases would trigger filing a report with the Anti-Choice Emergency Fetus Rescue Unit.
In Romania under Ceaucescu, they had surprise gynecological exams for all females of child bearing age in all workplaces. Anyone found pregnant was recorded and tracked, and restricted from travel out of the country. All miscarriages were investigated using the police state apparatus.
You can go around in never-ending circles entertaining the libertarian arguments people like Stageleft make. I'm sure he means well, but it always ends up going absolutely nowhere and creates more confusion than clarity.
In this country, health care is not a strictly free-enterprise activity and the costs of training health care providers is socialised to a very high degree. That in itself gives more weight to the argument that individual choice is not the determining factor in decisions to provide goods and services related to patient care. If some individuals don't like that, then that's just too bad.
Even in a system where the cost of training the people weren't subsidized, they are licensed by the state.
Lulu - "If Noesen is a "devout Catholic" who is opposed to the Pill, why the fuck (it's not Monday!!)did he become a pharmacist?"
Since they seem to keep becoming pharmacists in spite of the well-publicized problems this career choice causes for them, I can only assume that the reason they do it is in the hope of getting just such an opportunity (to deny someone birth control and be "persecuted" for it).
Stranger things have happened. These people love them some persecution.
I'm with CC. This is analogous to the female Muslim medical students who didn't want to scrub because it would expose their arms. Choose another profession if your beliefs make it impossible for you to pursue either pharmacy or medicine.
How about the Muslim taxi driver that turned down a blind customer because of the seeing eye dog?
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=56d2befb-c635-4e70-af65-167a1f031335&k=68681
He still doesn't have to transport dogs.
What about it, s? That situation is just as unacceptable and that Muslim should have his taxi license revoked, period.
If you want to check the records, you'll find that everyone at this blog has always been entirely consistent on this issue -- you're not willing to do the job, find another line of work.
On the other hand, if you check in with Canada's whingers, you will typically find that they will fume and sputter over that kind of "discrimination" while (hypocritically) defending the rights of pro-life pharmacists to discriminate however they please.
Over here, we're at least consistent. Over there ... ehhh, not so much.
I agree with you - if you're not willing to do the job, find another line of work. However, did you blog about THAT story? If so, I didn't see it.
I just wanted to point out that your excessive focus on Christian kooks very much resembles the excessive focus that the whingers have on Muslim kooks.
Dear s:
I believe it's called satire.
Apology accepted.
Satire? Perhaps. But consistent? Well, it's obvious you don't like the nutbar Christians; you don't like nutbar Christians/whingers who complain about other religions; and, you seem to specifically dislike Catholics. But that's a one sided consistency. To be truly consistent you have to hate everyone equally.
"How about the Muslim taxi driver that turned down a blind customer because of the seeing eye dog?
He still doesn't have to transport dogs."
Nor should he, there is no inherent Canadian right to the taxi ride of your choice. Or the bus route of your choice, or (more's the pity) the meat selection of your choice at the local grocery store, or even the {gasp} pharmacist of your choice.
Are we sure everyone knows the different between a "service" and a "right"? I have to ask because I know it can get confusing in this day and age where everyone is threatening to sue every one else for some heinous violation of a "perceived right", that turns out to be .... well ... just that, perception and not reality.
Other stuff I neglected to address:
CC: Considering that you need a medical professional to prescribe something, and that pharmacies are set up to fill those prescriptions, it's hard not to think of pharmacies as an official (read "state") arm of the medical bureaucracy.
But that would be an incorrect view wouldn't it? See above comment - "perception verses reality". It may be bad business on the part of the pharmacy, but as a private sector business that's their choice to make.
ti-guy: "You can go around in never-ending circles entertaining the libertarian arguments people like Stageleft make. I'm sure he means well, but it always ends up going absolutely nowhere and creates more confusion than clarity."
That's because you apparently don't know the difference between a "service" and a "right" and so, like many people, think a right has been violated when it hasn't.
stageleft:
Let's extend this a bit -- would a taxi driver have the right to refuse to pick a fare who was black? It's exactly the same situation.
Short answer: yes (and a black cab driver could refuse a white fare - racism and stupidity know no single group do they?)
Longer answer: although that sort of stupidity probably happens a lot more often than we would like it to would be really bad business on the part of the taxi driver wouldn't it?
There is no inherent right to a taxi ride (sorry, I checked the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it just ain't there) and as far as I'm concerned an independent taxi driver has the right to refuse anyone for any reason. If s/he refuses a fare there is a financial consequence/penalty for that decision, if s/he does it enough times they are not only opening an opportunity for others to fill the "stupid gap" they have created, but will soon start losing business to people who are unwilling to support that sort of decision.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that I would agree with our fictitious taxi driver and his/her racist practice, I'm of the opinion that racism in all its' forms is the height of human stupidity and I would be one of those refusing to use said taxi because of it.
Now if you want to discuss an actual "right" (pick a right, any right) being infringed upon because of race, ethnicity, or religion, you'll get a very different answer.
That's because you apparently don't know the difference between a "service" and a "right" and so, like many people, think a right has been violated when it hasn't.
Spare me, Stageleft. Rights are symbolic...an intellectual construct...and are only as meaningful as the social consensus required to articulate them and protect them.
Sorry, but I get irritated by the juxtaposition of your grandiose libertarianism with your constant recommendations that people drop out of the democratic process altogether. Sure, you may have a point...but it doesn't get anyone anywhere and just reinforces solipsism.
The only way a lot of what libertarians assert can make sense is in a reality vastly different from the one we currently inhabit.
Of course they are ti-guy, so lets socially agree to give everybody the right to everything so we'll have no complaints about anything - now if you'll excuse me I have to go to City Hall and lay a complaint. My right to a parking spot within 1/2 a block of where I'm going was infringed upon today by a bunch of ingrates who got to the parking meter before me while I was arguing about Tim Horton denying my right as a Canadian to roll up the rim whether I actually bought a cup of the swill they call coffee or not..... oh, their lawyers will hear from me I can assure you!!
stageleft, the pharmacist is licensed by the state to provide drugs and prescribed by the Doctor.
They are not licensed to decide what drugs to give, or to pick and choose, this is the contract that they enter into in order to be a pharmacist.
When they violate that contract they get sanctioned. And I would argue that a human right is access to the kind of medical devices/treatments/therapies that your doctor prescribes.
Of course they are ti-guy, so lets socially agree to give everybody the right to everything so we'll have no complaints about anything
It's not an either/or proposition. When you live in the present (and not some libertarian la-la land) you make it up as you go along. Every right and freedom comes with a historical context and is informed by present reality and necessity.
On this specific issue, I believe the pharmacist has no right (at least, in Canada) to deny service for the reasons that have been argued here. That doesn't mean I'm making a general statement with regard to every other situation that can be compared by analogy, however tenuous.
stageleft:
I'm not sure why you're making this argument because, quite simply, it's inane. Under your definition, there would be no such thing as discrimination. That may be your idea of the perfect, libertarian world, but it's not the way things work back here on Earth.
The fact that being sanctioned by the state means you have obligations is obvious, as in cases like this:
"The Saskatchewan Justice ministry has said it will remove all marriage commissioners from office who will not perform the civil ceremony for homosexual partners and is awaiting the outcome of this Human Rights Tribunal case to decide whether to remove Mr. Nichols from the list."
It's quite simple -- you do the job according to the job description, or you get out. You may not like that, SL, but it's the way the world works. And you might want to come to terms with that.
I find it sort of humourous (when I'm not finding it frustrating as hell and looking for a large truck moving at high speed that I can throw myself under) that so many people seem think that the world works in a certain way because they want it to work that way, or because it is convenient for them, or the people they like and agree with. That particular mindset rarely changes until someone else is able to force their view of how the world should work on to them, then it's always a different story, at which point they can usually be found feeling persecuted.
-- and when that happens, as it ultimately will, I'll be around to defend yer various cases.
Hey, let the pharmaguy refuse to fill prescriptions for whatever drugs he despises (this could easily stretch to include painkillers, stimulants, HIV drugs, etc)
BUT require his preferences to be boldly posted, as part of his photo and license placard by the order desk. In great big Arial Bold letters, and require him to loudly tell this to each and every customer as they approach the desk, just in case one of them is vision or hearing impaired.
I am sure THAT would be a popular requirement.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST NOT IN ARIAL!
I just wanted to point out that your excessive focus on Christian kooks very much resembles the excessive focus that the whingers have on Muslim kooks.
By Blogger s, at 11:04 PM
I can't speak of how things work in Canada but unfortunately in my country, that is because it's the Christian kooks who whine the loudest about being discriminated against while somehow claiming an inherent right to discriminate against others.
Being an Atheist all this religious claptrap is pure nonsense to me. But it all comes down to how the public is best served. If the pharmacy itself makes a decision not to carry a certain drug or the cab company decides not to allow animals in their cabs it's one thing. Assuming there are other options I can just take my business elsewhere. Not always possible given the locale and monopolistic business practices. But it's quite another thing when an individual employee decides to set policy because his own moral outlook trumps everyone else's. That's bullshit. Am I to get a lecture every time I go to McDonald's because the Hindu behind the counter refuses to sell me beef? No. Because it's ridiculous. I didn't go to McDonald's because I wanted a religious lecture by some 'morally superior' jackass who doesn't know me or give a rats ass about me. Similarly I don't get into a cab or go to a pharmacist and expect to be lectured on my life choices. That is not what cabbies or pharmacists are hired for. A pharmacist is hired to dispense drugs upon receipt of a lawfully written prescription and to check for potential interactions between drugs not to make moral judgments on what drugs he should dispense and which drugs he should not based on his own conscience. I am not paying for his conscience and his conscience is of no concern to anyone but himself. As far as I'm concerned if he can't do the job then he should look elsewhere to work. Would it be a valid expression of conscience if I myself as an Atheist refused to fill prescriptions by anyone who walked in with a cross dangling around their necks?
Personally I think they should both be fired for refusing to do the job they were hired for. Perhaps after a warning or two from their employers that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. That being said, there is also a hell of a lot of difference between a cabby who refuses to carry dogs in his cab and a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription duly assigned by a licensed and trained physician. It is unlikely that the blind person is going to die as a direct result of the cabby refusing to carry him somewhere. Whereas if Mr. Pharmacist decides based on his own ideas on morality that bovine originated insulin is somehow 'unclean' and he won't give it to the diabetic at his counter someone's life is at stake. If you allow the Christian to refuse to fill birth control and you allow the Muslim to refuse to carry dogs then it is only logical to allow everyone's religious convictions to determine what they will or will not do on their jobs. It's one thing for an employer to be accommodating to religion, but what these people are asking for is well over the line. Asking for a certain day off as a holiday is one thing, telling the Boss you refuse to serve certain kinds of customers because they're morally inferior to you is bollocks.
I say now as I've said before, your right to expression yourself ends where it interferes with my own rights.
Post a Comment