Some radical feminist thought..

[acd]

It seems that the pill is a different type of drug than something like heart pills, blood pressure pills and antibiotics. Most drugs a pharmacist dispenses are necessary for health or indeed for life. The pill, however, is a "lifestyle drug" which is not necessary for health in all but a few rare cases, where women could bleed to death if they didn't take it.

It is true that if one cannot on moral grounds take up an essential aspect of a profession, a soldier taking up arms, for instance, then one should not follow that profession. However, a pharmacist essentially dispenses medicines conducive to health, and the administration of "lifestyle drugs" would not seem to be essential to the profession.

So, it seems fair that pharmacists should not be obliged to sell certain drugs and products against their conscience.

Whether pharmacists say the pill is a lifestyle drug or a health necessity for some patients, doesn't matter. That's the industry. Those are the medications their field is entrusted to allocate. If they can't do it, then they should not be in the field. We can go 'round and 'round about this.

Maybe these pharmacists need to rethink their career path and become theologians, eh?

The idea that women are not to be trusted with the choices they make with their own bodies is what is at the core of the debate.

And why should women not be the ultimate authority on their own reproduction?

 

[Dutch Cake]

Merrytrees!

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Whether pharmacists say the pill is a lifestyle drug or a health necessity for some patients, doesn't matter. That's the industry. Those are the medications their field is entrusted to allocate. If they can't do it, then they should not be in the field. We can go 'round and 'round about this.

Maybe these pharmacists need to rethink their career path and become theologians, eh?

The idea that women are not to be trusted with the choices they make with their own bodies is what is at the core of the debate.

And why should women not be the ultimate authority on their own reproduction?

The drug industry is an industry indeed. There are market forces of supply and demand.

The fact that there is demand for a product, especially one which is in no way essential for the treatment of disease, does not place an obligation on a retailer/pharmicist to sell that product/drug.

My point is that a pharmacist is not acting against his profession in refusing to sell "lifestyle drugs", not essential to health.

My bigger point is that one should not be forced to act against one's conscience, if in so acting one does no harm to others. Refusing to sell the pill, a "lifestyle drug" does no harm to others.


(Note: I am not actually trying to argue for/against the pill - I am arguing that pharmacists should enjoy freedom of conscience).

 

[thataway]

Part of the issue, to me, is differing views between the nature of the pharmacy profession and the duties of the pharmacist.

When pharmacists enter their field they take a professional oath.

"At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the services of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.

I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public."

The question becomes where to place the emphasis. Individual interpretations could lend greater weight to the ideas of the pharmacist as a professional servant of the public and the doctors who write the prescriptions or on the inclusion of the idea of 'highest moral, ethical and legal principles,' which leaves room for the pharmacist's own morals to come into play as they perform their roles.

In the west, within the health care field the separation of one's own morals and the accepted ethics of their profession is strongly advocated; that is, the division of professional conscience and moral conscience. Accepted medical ethics are compilations of panels of reviews and are taught as the professional structures one should follow while practicing. Because individual morals are considered subjective and often emotionally driven, they are expected to be actively prohibited from influencing a professional's actions while they are practicing.

 

[Azure_Knight]

Does the argument control of one's body also mean control over one's embryos merrytrees?

 

[acd]

The drug industry is an industry indeed. There are market forces of supply and demand.

The fact that there is demand for a product, especially one which is in no way essential for the treatment of disease, does not place an obligation on a retailer/pharmicist to sell that product/drug.

My point is that a pharmacist is not acting against his profession in refusing to sell "lifestyle drugs", not essential to health.

My bigger point is that one should not be forced to act against one's conscience, if in so acting one does no harm to others. Refusing to sell the pill, a "lifestyle drug" does no harm to others.


(Note: I am not actually trying to argue for/against the pill - I am arguing that pharmacists should enjoy freedom of conscience).

Do you think that women should be the ultimate authority on matters concerning their bodies; their own reproduction and sexuality?

 

[acd]

Does the argument control of one's body also mean control over one's embryos merrytrees?

Good question!
Not entirely sure, to be honest. I hadn't thought of it as I'm mostly asking about the right to avoid that in the first place through the use of contraceptives. I'm going to have to really think about that.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

In the west, within the health care field the separation of one's own morals and the accepted ethics of their profession is strongly advocated; that is, the division of professional conscience and moral conscience. Accepted medical ethics are compilations of panels of reviews and are taught as the professional structures one should follow while practicing. Because individual morals are considered subjective and often emotionally driven, they are expected to be actively prohibited from influencing a professional's actions while they are practicing.

(This is getting off topic, but anyhow..)


Organ transplantation seems a pretty much accepted practice right?

There are actually doctors and nurses who refuse to perform them/assist at them, because of moral/emotional difficulties they have with the procedure.

Essentially the problem is this: the doctor is extracting living organs from a living body, usually, thereby killing it. There is a philosophical debate on whether the inactivity of the brain constitutes death (but that's a subject for another thread). However, it is necessary to anethsatise the donor, because in the early days many doctors and nurses were traumatised, and indeed injured by the donor's screems and thrashing. (I have been reading about it recently). One nurse was almost choked to death by a patient who sat up screaming and started to throttle her.

So, although organ donation is accepted practice, many doctors and nurses are permited to withold their services on personal moral/emotional reasons.

The same should apply to pharmacists: they should be allowed freedom of conscience within their own profession.

 

[Azure_Knight]

Something to consider seeing as contraceptives don't always work. Glad to have brought up more to your discussion than before

 

[Dutch Cake]

I thin just viewing something as a life style drug is making it seem a little too frivolous. When you consider women who for their own health should not get pregnant it becomes an issue of more then life style. It is survival. I have a wonderful friend who would have a terrible time if she decided to have a child. She would either a. have to go off her life saving medication or b. end up with a child with many problems. It is easier for her to take the pill because she cannot afford the expense of being sterilized and the health risks that poses for her.

 

[Shai Gar]

Once again you're all missing the major point.

A pharmacist cannot refuse to sell it, if he simply doesn't stock it.

That's why they simply should stop stocking it if they don't want to sell it.

 

[acd]

Once again you're all missing the major point.

A pharmacist cannot refuse to sell it, if he simply doesn't stock it.

That's why they simply should stop stocking it if they don't want to sell it.

It's not up to one vigilante pharmacist as to whether the pill is in stock. As far as I know, pharmacists don't decide what medications their pharmacy keeps in stock.

 

[Lucifer]

The drug industry is an industry indeed. There are market forces of supply and demand.

Nah basically big Pharma can set the price of the drug at whatever they want. They are not price takers they do not move with the market, they create it. That is why drugs here are so darn expensive.

The fact that there is demand for a product, especially one which is in no way essential for the treatment of disease, does not place an obligation on a retailer/pharmicist to sell that product/drug.

It is however essential to reproduction equality making it important

My point is that a pharmacist is not acting against his profession in refusing to sell "lifestyle drugs", not essential to health.

It is essential to a free and equal lifestyle, like were not obligated to have a democracy strictly for the sake of the health of a nation. But who would deny it's importance.

My bigger point is that one should not be forced to act against one's conscience, if in so acting one does no harm to others. Refusing to sell the pill, a "lifestyle drug" does no harm to others.

That's debatable while it does not harm ones physical health it can harm people in other ways.

(Note: I am not actually trying to argue for/against the pill - I am arguing that pharmacists should enjoy freedom of conscience).

I am just playing devils advocate LOL I think so long as the pill is still accessable then it should be fine for a few pharmacists to decide not to sell it.

 

[acd]

I think so long as the pill is still accessable then it should be fine for a few pharmacists to decide not to sell it.

How does that work? How is that fair?

 

[Lucifer]

How does that work? How is that fair?

It is fair to the pharmacists because they don't have to go against their conscience, it is fair to the women because they can still get the pill.

It is sort of a middle way between to extremes. But if you make the pill illegal I'd freak.

 

[acd]

It is fair to the pharmacists because they don't have to go against their conscience, it is fair to the women because they can still get the pill.

It is sort of a middle way between to extremes. But if you make the pill illegal I'd freak.

For lack of better wording: Which is the "lesser of the two evils" then? Either someone gets to dictate the intimate decisions you make with your own body based on their own set of ethics-- or they set aside their own moral biases to carry out their duty as a pharmacist and afford citizens their legal rights?

Seems the simplest solution would be for pharmacists who cannot carry out their duties due to their own conscience to find another profession. Why should advances in science and medicine be hindered by totally subjective appeals? Especially when these totally subjective appeals do not speak for the majority of citizens. In fact, that goes against democracy as well.

 

[Azure_Knight]

For lack of better wording: Which is the "lesser of the two evils" then? Either someone gets to dictate the intimate decisions you make with your own body based on their own set of ethics-- or they set aside their own moral biases to carry out their duty as a pharmacist and afford citizens their legal rights?

A pharmacist has the legal right to not have to dispense the pill. But that same pharmacist has the responsibility to ensure a woman gets access to it. One party's right to healthcare should not override another party's right to moral decisions.

Seems the simplest solution would be for pharmacists who cannot carry out their duties due to their own conscience to find another profession.

Pharmacists are necessary for patient counseling. They also help to combat adverse drug reactions. Even if a pharmacist does not dispense the pill does not mean that they cannot give this kind of care to a patient.

Why should advances in science and medicine be hindered by totally subjective appeals?

They shouldn't. But people should be allowed to choose for themselves.

Especially when these totally subjective appeals do not speak for the majority of citizens. In fact, that goes against democracy as well.

Whether they speak for the majority or not is of no consequence. Everyone is free to have their own opinions about morality and social justice. Just because a majority are of a certain view does not mean that a minority or a person should be of the same view. We are free to be what we choose to be. Forcing people to believe a certain way is not in the spirit of democracy. Better laws to protect both parties is though (IMHO).

 

[Shai Gar]

Should just pump the pill into the water supply.

People can drink bottled water if they want to get pregnant.

 

[Azure_Knight]

It's already in there. It's in small amounts, but it's there along with a laundry list of other drugs.

 

[Lucifer]

For lack of better wording: Which is the "lesser of the two evils" then? Either someone gets to dictate the intimate decisions you make with your own body based on their own set of ethics-- or they set aside their own moral biases to carry out their duty as a pharmacist and afford citizens their legal rights?

Yeah but so long as it is still easily accessible your not really controlling what a woman puts in her body. She can just take her business elsewhere.
If it isn't easily accessible then I agree we have a problem

Seems the simplest solution would be for pharmacists who cannot carry out their duties due to their own conscience to find another profession. Why should advances in science and medicine be hindered by totally subjective appeals? Especially when these totally subjective appeals do not speak for the majority of citizens. In fact, that goes against democracy as well.

That strikes me as persecuting someone for there beliefs.