I disagree. If the pharmacist and his/her employer can agree on someone else filling "objectionable" scrips, so what? You might be a good prison guard but if asked to flip the switch on the electric chair to kill someone you might not want to do that. Should you be fired, or forced to choose another profession, if you refuse?

Yup. You should be fired.

This is like a Christian Scientist taking a job as a paramedic.

Or a person taking a job as a cop, that refuses to kill someone or insists on turning the other cheek when encountering a person resisting arrest.

I'm sure there's a bunch more analogies, but I think you get my point.

I worked with a guy once, as a cop. He was a darn good cop. Then one day he found Jesus. I think he was working a missing person case and just happened on him...

Seriously, I think he became a Mormon or something, some religion that bans violence and killing. He turned in his badge and gun and got a civilian job.

If ya' can't do the job, for whatever reason, then get the heck out, and find something else to do.

I beg to differ with you, B. Personally, I have no intention of "forcing" you to change your viewpoints to match mine (which support a woman's right to reproductive freedom). There is a law that allows a woman that right, be it by the use of contraceptives, or by abortion.

I see this more of a matter of "God-fearing Christians" forcing their viewpoints on me. And I don't like it any better than you like what you interpret is happening to you. I know you won't like this statement, but I know that when I consider my reproductive rights, and I believe that when most women consider their reproductive rights, the last thing they are thinking about is "what can I do to piss the God-fearing Christians" off. I believe you are all taking too much credit for something that nobody is even thinking about.

What's next then ? Background checks on your religion on a job application ? That is going to be the next question on job applications and interviews, "Which church do you attend so we can see if your religion is going to interfere with your job responsibilities?"

No, but most applications have something to the tune of:

"Is there anything that would prevent you from fullfilling the duties of the position?"

So the same concept would apply to someone with some sort of disability -- no attempt at any accomodation by the employer should be made, right? "Get the heck out and find something else to do" right?

A disability is one thing; already covered by the ADA. Refusal to do the job for which you were hired to do, is the point here.

Don't compare "apples and oranges".

These are mutually exclusive concepts.

I agree B and no employer shall be forced to keep an employee that does not do their job. Thats all I'll say

No, they're not mutually exclusive IMO to a devoutly religious person in a situation where the employee and employer can work out a reasonable accomodation.

This thread amazes me. It amazes me how scared some folks seem to get when a religious person tries to exercise their religious beliefs. What are you afraid of? Ask yourself that. The scenerio I present will not interfere with anyone getting any legal script they want. At worst it might cause them to wait a few minutes longer while another employee fills it. So what? Many of you same people have no problem forcing me to wait 7 or 14 days (or forever) to buy a handgun. You're all for "freedom" and "choice" -- at least on some issues. Amazing.

No one's scared of anything Snoopy. Freedom to pursue a belief in one's religion is a granted right in this country. No one here has expressed any fear in anyone pursuing their beliefs.

If your religion prevents you from fulfilling the duties of a job position, then maybe you should look for another position.

Again, you make your analogies extreme. Health care and buying a gun have nothing to do with each other.

Unless of course, you're going to use that gun to get the drugs.

IMO someone sure is acting scared. TB speaks of the pharmacist denying womens rights. Sheash accuses him of forcing his Christian viewpoints on her and fears for her "rights". You, Yoss, are apparently psychic and insist that you know the pharmacist is not acting as a result of his Christian morals. You continue your (irrational, IMO) resistance even in my scenerio where no one goes home w/o a script filled. Sounds like a fear of the pharmacist pursuing his beliefs to me.

My analogy including health care and guns does have something to do with each other in the contest I stated it: rights. Again, some folks scream for "choice" and "freedom" and "rights" but only for select issues, i.e. for the "right" of "choice" and "freedom" to have an abortion (even 8 months into a pregnancy) or to force all pharmacists to fill every script, but not, say, for my "right" to buy a gun even though only the latter is clearly addressed as a "right of the people" in the constitution. Ironic, huh?

As for "extreme" points you seem to ignore TB's fear that this issue will next result in some pharmacists who refuse to dispense narcotics, even though no one has any evidence this has ever happened even once.

I don't think I ever doubted that the pharmacist was not acting as a result of his Christian morals.

What I was trying to get across was that, if your beliefs PREVENT you from fulfilling the duties of your position, then maybe you should get out of that position.

I could not care less what you or anyone else believe in.

I just don't think those beliefs should prevent you from doing your job. If you're against any type of chemically induced birth control, then that's your belief and I respect that. I may or may not agree with that belief, but I certainly respect your right to that belief.

But if your job involves dispensing chemically induced birth control, then you should dispense it. And, as mentioned earlier by another poster, birth control pills are not just used for birth control. They also are used to regulate hormonal output.

I just don't understand why anyone would take a job that conflicts with their personal or religious beliefs. And then when they do, they cry and moan that they can't do the job because of those beliefs. Religious activism is not a duty of an on-duty pharmacist.

Perhaps I misunderstood your quote, "If they have moral conscience about what they will be doing, then they should have chosen another career. Plain and simple. This has nothing to do with Christian Morals, Christian conscience, or any other term you wish to label it."

And sometimes the conflict isn't apparent when you take a job, but pops up later. As we debate this, imagine how difficult it must have been for some cops during the civil rights days. The law, and your boss, say it is your duty to stop those blacks from using that water fountain, or going into that store, or sitting in front of the bus, etc. Do you ignore your "personal or religious beliefs" and attack them as ordered with water hoses, dogs, or nightsticks? Or do you "get the heck out, and find something else to do"? Civil rights activism is not a duty of an on-duty cop, right?

Easy answers applicable 100% of the time? Not for me.

Peace!

alright Snoop, as long as you continue to indulge in ridiculous (in my opinion) analogies.

Suppose you (or a loved one) are (is) stricken with an emergency medical condition (god forbid, of course) and end up at a hospital. The only doctor on duty at the time, tells you he can't operate because of his religious beliefs, that you'll have to wait until another doctor can be found to perform the life-saving procedure.

Unfortunately, ANY delay will cost you (or your loved one) your (their) life.

Quidnunc? {what now?}

So is war, but some people think it's justifiable. You may as well add capital punishment to the list too.

Using birth control isn't abortion.

No, we're talking about one's inability to complete their job due to their religion. If anything, the customers experience religious discrimination because their prescriptions don't fall in line with the pharmacist's religious beliefs, and therefore, they can't get their prescriptions filled (assuming there's not another pharmacist to fill the prescription).

Please enlighten me, what form of killing is not murder, in your eyes?

Once again, B resorts to name-calling.

I guess since you condone and participate in name-calling, we can go back to calling you a "Bible-Thumper"?

Just because someone doesn't share your beliefs, doesn't make them a "moron".

You asshat...

Uh-huh, then you must agree it's ok to "play god"? Because essentially, that's what you're doing.

I honestly don't see how you can justify capital punishment, but not abortion. We're all gods children, in your eyes, right?

Transplanted yuppie metrojerk!


Edited by adding:
For the record, BMIC called me a "DUMBA$$ Redneck". And then edited my post, as well as a number of other posts that weren't his.

Now how do ya' feel about moderator's privileges, Snoopy?

That's totally unneccesary.

Nevermind... I guess it's just a free-for-all now.

Forget it PHISH, you can't argue with a jackass. (meaning the animal, not the person)

Snoopy, it is a very valid concern in my situation, because the pharmacy I use (in McConnellsburg) only HAS one pharmacist. Are you saying that I should just drive to Chambersburg to make it convenient for a pharmacist because he doesn't want to dispense my doctor-prescribed medicine because of his objections? I believe that is completely unreasonable.

And B, I think you have hit on the perfect idea - please DO set up a pharmacy that dispenses pro-life prescriptions only. That way, the pharmacy has already let potential customers know that they will not dispense certain prescriptions, and you will help the local economy because there will have to be a competing pharmacy to serve those who wish to obtain the prescriptions your pharmacy won't sell.

BMIC - why are you deleting all of your posts (and editing my post that had you quoted)?

Probably because he's having another one of his temper tantrums. It seems like whenever he begins saying how everybody picks on Christians and pro-lifers and he doesn't get his way, he resorts to that tactic. From the last few posts I've read of his, it sounds like he's getting wound up for one.

daggone, I was wondering why this topic went from 14 pages down to 10. B's deleting all of his posts.

I think he's taking his ball and going home.

It's a shame he didn't really believe in what he was saying and having the courage of his convictions.

Yoss - If any delay (even seconds) will cost a life you cannot afford to have someone there who has reason to believe he/she will run into cases where they will not be able to perform. If, in your pharmacist situation, their delay of a few seconds minutes could cost a life then I agree, they can't work there. However, in my scenerio that is not the case.

Sheash -- Stop assuming you know what I'm saying and read the post. NO WHERE in my scenerio did I suggest you need to drive to another pharmacy to get the script filled. Again, I said at most it might be a matter of from zero to a few minutes difference. You couldn't do what I suggested with only one pharmacist.

However, if I owned a pharmacy and did not want to dispense a certain drug, or class of drugs, and made that known, no one should be able to force me to do so. The public should decide if they want to go to my store or not. While I do not forsee owning a pharmacy, nor do I know of any legal drugs I would not sell, I would fight any effort to take that freedom from someone who did.

Leaving you people to your own devices. I've had more than anyone can be expected to take of your basic disrespect for people of faith.

One thing I can thank you for: I am no longer the quiet, naive little Christian who once thought ours was a nice quiet, nominally "christian" community.

See you at the polls! ...and I'll win, too!

But with all due respect Snoopy, you can't pick and choose your scenerios. You have to be ready for anything.

Classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do". I guess it's not disrespectful to call people morons, or dumba$$ rednecks either. You're always playing the "poor me" card, acting like everyone treats you differently because of your religious beliefs. When really, you get pi$$ed off at anyone who doesn't hold the same beliefs and "moral standards" that you do.

See ya' 'round B.

You brought a lot of thought to this board, a lot of arguments, and caused a lot of people to explore other thoughts.

Just because we didn't agree with a lot of what you said, doesn't make you wrong.

Perhaps you need to look for a Christian faith forum. There are lots of them out there. Lots of people who think the way you do. Lots of people who will nod in agreement with your ideas. Lots of Christian sheep.

Yoss,

Please! Sure you can pick and choose scenerios! And people and companies of all types do it every single day. Cops, too! Does every HPD officer carry a sniper rifle in his/her car? No, but I imagine there is someone in the dept. who has one, and the training to use it, or else can get someone in another dept. if the need arises. Every cop is not prepared to personally handle every scenerio every day, nor should (or could) they.

Snoopy, I'm not assuming I know what you're saying, I'm indicating how your statement would affect me personally. Perhaps you also need to read MY posts. You're right when you say a delay in filling a prescription couldn't be done with only 1 pharmacist. And I always call my prescriptions in in the morning and either I or hubby pick them up in the afternoon, so a delay would be transparent to me if there were more than 1 pharmacist.

I also agree with your statement that if you did not want to dispense a certain drug and made it known to me (when I called in the prescription in the morning and not when I got there in the afternoon to pick it up), it's your right. I don't like being made to do something I don't want to do, and it would only be right of me to respect the same for you. My concern is based on the potential that I wouldn't be told that the 1 pharmacist at my pharmacy wouldn't fill the prescription until I got there to pick it up. Fortunately, I've never encountered the situation.

Wasn't this post longer earlier in the day?

Idiot, go back and read the previous page. BMIC deleted all his posts, edited other's posts and just in general had a snit fit.

BMIC is acting like a BABY, deleting any post that criticizes his position on something brought up here as a topic or that offends him. If he's gonna do that crap I wish he'd just do what he said he was gonna do and leave. Otherwise, if he's gonna keep it up, his Mod powers should be stripped because he is violating the TOS.

As I said in the post he deleted, he brought much of it on himself resorting to name-calling when he was losing a debate. And he can't say I have a "basic disrespect for people of faith" because I am a person of faith. But I have a basic disrespect for childish behavior and people who resort to name-calling and personal attacks when they cannot legitimately debate an issue with facts.

B had some valid points and brought some interesting topisc to the table. But lately they way he has acted makes me glad he is going. If the "old" B wanted to return I'd have no problem with that.

And I'm keeping a copy of this post, so if he wants to play his deleting game, I will just re-post it.

Something I've learned around here; "if you can't take the heat, get outa the kitchen." In other words, post your opinion, but if you can't take others differing opinions, go play somewhere else. But have the guts to leave the posts as they are and move on...don't delete and edit as you see fit to make yourself look better!!!

The great thing about this forum is that one can state their own opinion or view about a subject, and see others views. We don't have to all agree, that would be too boring!

Thanks Yoss, that explains why all the threads in the political forum are hosed-up.

Maybe he just realized that his opinions were all wrong so he's taking them all back. I'll bet that's what it is.

Go in peace BMIC, to love and serve the world with the knowledge you have gained at HM Forums.

Maybe on reflection he's ashamed of his posts and fears his pastor, a member of his church, or his wife will see them.

He was deleting and editing everywhere?

Didn't want to leave a "posting trail" I guess.

This is interesting, The Code of Ethics for Pharmacists, from American Pharmacists Association ( Link Here )

CODE OF ETHICS FOR PHARMACISTS

PREAMBLE

Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals in making the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly the principles that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moral obligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society.

I.A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to the gift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.

II.A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit, a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.

III.A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

IV.A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.

V.A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities as new medications, devices, and technologies become available and as health information advances.

VI.A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.

When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation of colleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient.

VII.A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individual patients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at times extend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly.

VIII.A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

Adopted by the American Pharmacists Association membership, October 27, 1994.

I don't know about editing but he had several posts in my "The hammer drops" thread, and other threads, that are now gone. I assume he did it.

It makes it look like I'm arguing with myself. Oh well, at least I can't lose that way.

No comment is required from you Snoopy.

Personally, I think he'll be back. Probably lurking in the background simmering this very minute. I just hope he doesn't go postal and shoot up some abortion clinic or something. With the tone some of his postings have taken over the past month or so, I wouldn't put it past him.

Aw sheash, I don't think he's that bad. It's been said that personalities are amplified when shrouded in anonymity. That's probably the case with B. He's probably a likeable guy in person.

I agree. Plus I think he would go for a judge before an abortion clinic.

Just kidding.

Although he did delete his posts in the Terri Schiavo thread as well. Maybe he's trying to cover his tracks.

OMG! In my last comment to him I implied he was a "domestic terrorist". It's all my fault!

If you can hear me B, ....... I didn't mean it...... It was a joke........ Don't do it!

I think he would blow up a pharmacy over an abortion clinic at this point. After all, that is what started this whole deal. If you can't stand up behind your views that you post, then why would you have posted them at all ? To me he is a wussy who doesn't wnat to admit that everyone disagreed with his opionions on this thread. But, isn't that what this is all about ? To voice your views and opinions and to see what everyone else has to say about the topic ?

It's funny, I never thought of him as being thin-skinned. Not being involved with that particular discussion it's hard for me to imagine what would cause this reaction. He and I have had some fairly strong disagreements but in the end I always thought that we both respected each other's right to our opinion.

This situation makes me wonder a litlle bit about how wise the coffee shop get together idea is. I mean, I know many people like B. They're neighbors, co-workers, friends from church (when I used to go), and sometimes family members. But I've never challenged their comments or voiced my disagreement like I have with members here. I know how they feel and I'm sure they know how I feel about a whole range of issues either from our comments or from our lack of comments. But there's a line we don't cross that we cross here all the time. I don't know what it is or how to explain it but people are more than just their opinions. Unfortunately here for the most part that's all we get to see.

I hope he reconsiders and comes back.

I was away the end of last week and missed the B meltdown
I'm sure he'll be back. He doesn't seem like the type that could
just let something go. There were several areas we disagreed on
and several that I though we had comparable views on. Anyone that would delete all their posts and screw with (edit) others postings earns no respect from me.
To be that pompous for months and then simply pick up his toys and go
home because others don't agree with him is pathetic! I'm sure hes one of the anonomous lurkers seething as he reads this. How long can you last B?

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water:

Leonard Pitts, syndicated columnist with the Miami Herald, has this to say on the subject:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/livin...ts/11458027.htm

His column is carried by the Herald-Mail, and this commentary appeared in the 4/4 edition of the Morning Herald.

Edited:

Rats! Looks like the link requires a registration. Okay, here's the text of his article:

Posted on Fri, Apr. 22, 2005

LEONARD PITTS JR./COMMENTARY

Moral objection no license to shun job duties

Let's say you join the Army.

You go through basic training and are sent to Iraq. One day, your unit comes under fire. Everybody shoots back except you. When your commanding officer demands to know why, you explain that as a Christian, you have moral objections to killing people.

I'd wager most of us would think you a couple companies short of a full battalion. If you agree, then you're going to love -- by which I mean, hate -- what's happening with your local pharmacist.

Well, maybe not your personal pharmacist. Maybe yours isn't one of those who are refusing to fill prescriptions on religious grounds, imposing their moral decisions on your medical decisions. Maybe yours isn't, in other words, one of the crazy ones. If so, count your blessings. Some of your fellow Americans are less fortunate.

I give you the state of Illinois by way of illustration. On the first of this month, Gov. Rod Blagojevich felt compelled to issue an emergency rule requiring pharmacies to fill prescriptions for the so-called ''morning after'' anti-contraceptive pill that works by preventing ovulation but can also block fertilization and keep already-fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. He acted after a pharmacist in his state refused to provide the pills to two women.

This week, Blagojevich moved to make the rule permanent.

TROUBLING PATTERN

But this isn't just Illinois' headache. Though no one seems to have hard numbers, published reports suggest a widespread pattern of ''Christian'' pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions with which they disagree. And a chilling report last month in the Washington Post suggests that some have gone even further. It told of pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills to unmarried women, of those who will not sell contraceptive devices to anybody, period, and of those who not only won't fill morning after prescriptions, but who hold the prescriptions hostage, refusing to return them to customers, knowing time is of the essence because the pill is less effective if taken too long after intercourse.

As maddening as all that is, what's more galling is that laws have been passed in four states -- and are under consideration in 12 others -- that legitimize this lunacy, allowing pharmacists with moral objections to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions.

In words of one syllable: What a crock.

People have an absolute right -- indeed, an absolute duty -- to oppose abortion if conscience so dictates. They have the right to pen letters to the editor, to support politicians who share their views, to demonstrate and agitate.

But no one has the right to refuse to perform some foreseeable aspect of their job. I mean, if pharmacies of the future began dispensing crack, OK I might sympathize with the pharmacist who refused on moral grounds. How was she to know that would become part of the job description when she signed on?

A DAY'S WORK

However, just as the soldier in the scenario should have known that shooting people might be part of his day's work, so should a candidate for a pharmacy job understand that she might have to hand out contraceptive pills and devices.

She should either resolve to mind her own business or keep searching the want ads.

I mean, what's next? Can the clerk at Blockbuster refuse to rent R-rated movies because he objects to explicit language? Can the vegan who works at McDonald's refuse to take orders for Big Macs? Tobacco kills 440,000 Americans a year. If I work at 7-Eleven, can I refuse to sell Marlboros?

Of course not. So by what right do these ''activist'' pharmacists get to impose their morals on the rest of us? And by what logic do lawmakers legitimize their ability do so?

There's no moral puzzler here, folks. In fact, the solution is real simple. You don't like what the job requires? Fine.

Get another job.