Matters of Law, Morality and Religion
The Pope has counseled Catholic pharmacists to refuse to sell drugs that are used for abortion, euthanasia and other “immoral purpose[s],” using “conscientious objection,” though I’m not sure what the latter phrase means in the context of the issue.
He went on to say that pharmacists have an obligation to educate customers as to the error of their ways.
I assume the people in the corporate offices of CVS, Eckerds and the other drug chains are less than happy.
But, does the Pope have a valid point? I’m sure I’d not be happy if I went to a drug store and asked for a legal drug and instead got a lecture on its immorality and was refused service. That said, should a professional be required to do something that violates his or her view of what is moral or what is a sin as pontificated (sorry, I’m sure there was a better word available) by his or her religion.
I have declined to represent people that I thought wanted something that I thought shouldn’t be had. Did I breach my professional obligation as a lawyer? We don’t talk too much about that in my union.
The AP article I read referred to a Georgia law I wasn’t aware of that allows a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription that would offend the pharmacist’s morality or religion. The article went on to say that California has a law that requires a pharmacist to sell the drug unless his or her employer agrees not to sell it and the customer can get it in a “timely manner.”
My initial thought is that one should not enter a profession that would require the person to act against the morality or religion that is brought to the profession.
That said, if I owned a convenience store, I wouldn’t sell the magazines you see on the rack near the cash register that have the black plastic over three quarters of the cover so you can’t see the XXX picture that appears below the name of the magazine. My view on this has nothing to do with morality or religion. I just don’t want to participate in that commerce. It’s fine for those that do, it just isn’t for me. Obviously, I’m not going to come up on charges for not carrying the media. In the same store, I’d be happy to carry condoms. I have no problem with “adult entertainment” in its various forms. Back to law, I haven’t and won’t represent people accused of crimes, but I fully support lawyers who do.
I guess my point is that on all of these issues, I get to choose what I’m willing to do; but, the Pope is taking some flack for telling his followers to do the same thing. Is the flack justified?
20 comments:
segue --
lawyers have unions? Do you get really cool bumper stickers if you join? What about paying membership dues, three-piece suit picket lines and the imminent threat of strikes?
just curious ;)
Don't you just love how these doggone "slippery slope" things keep creeping in and around and mucking up ones thought processes? I do!
Frankly, I don't think the Pope should have the "authority" to make these edicts in the first place. Now, if a pharmacist, of his/her own free will decides not to sell x-drug for moral or ethical reasons, that should be that individual's choice. But, I don't think it should be dictated to the person by another mortal who has the title of being "head of The Church." Of course, that is MY opinion and is subject to change at MY whim too ya know.
I have to agree with Jeni on this one. I think that the pharmacist that does not think it is ethical to give out an abortion pill, should not have to do it. There are other pharmacists that may not find it unethical so people can use that pharmacist.
Just like your situation Dave. You said you would not represent people convicted of a crime. That's your choice.
How about a Doctor that has a patient that wants to have an abortion. If that Doctor does not believe in abortion, he or she should not have to do it. There are other doctors that will.
Just my 2 cents.
OK, Jeni and Keith, I have to come up with a hypothetical that tests your view. Think about it morally or religiously or legally. Don't think about what someone else, be the someone else be the Pope or the Government.
Here it is. The Supreme Court of the United States, given its soon to be makeup, overturns or evicerates Roe v. Wade. It is now up to the states to pass the laws they see fit as to the legality of abortion. Various states pass various laws. A woman, a poor woman, in a state that has outlawed abortion becomes pregnant. All the states around hers have done the same. It's a long trip that she can't afford, to go to a place that allows her to do what she, morally and under her religious beliefs, feels she is allowed to do. She just can't afford to make the trip. Throw in that the child she will bear will have a condition that will cause it to die soon and painfully. Should a like minded physician in her state or one of the surrounding states that she can get to be prosecuted, with her, should she abort?
They would be breaking the law and following their moral and religious dictates.
Wow! This is a tough one.
If the belief of this woman and the said doctor is a belief that is along religious lines, and they go through with the procedure, but the procedure is against the law, then they will be prosecuted under the law. So they will suffer the consequences of their belief. Does that make sense?
Speaking as a customer, it would royally piss me off if I took a prescription in to a pharmacy and the pharmacist refused to fill it and gave me a lecture instead. I would never go to that store again, and would tell the manager or owner exactly why I am taking my business elsewhere. I can't believe that pharmacies would want to hire people that would drive away customers.
A lawyer not wanting to work for me is a different matter. Given what lawyers are hired to do, I would not want one to take my case if they would not, or could not, effectively represent my interests because of their personal beliefs.
I see filling a Rx as a different, and far less personal, matter. If a store carries a product, their sales people should be required to sell it as part of their job. If they don't want to do that, they need to choose a job that doesn't require this of them.
Sorry. Pharmacists do not prescribe. They are merely intermediaries for the doctor. A pharmacist may give the patient advice on the medicines prescribed, inform of side effects and so forth. This is within the realm of the pharmacist's expertise, and the doctors don't always keep up with that information. But the pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription is interfering with the doctor's prerogative, and is tantamount to practicing medicine without a license. A pharmacist who has moral qualms about filling certain prescriptions needs to find another line of work.
The Pope didn't say, "Don't take jobs that conflict with your conscience," he said "Take the job, and then demand that your employer accommodate you."
Tom Cruise famously does not approve of antidepressents. When people come in with a prescription for Prozac and he kicks them out into the street, will you protect his job?
Vegans do not approve of medicines made from animal products, such as estrogen. Will you protect their jobs, too?
I think employers should accomodate religious expression if we're talking about wearing a turban or a tilak, but when the religion prevents employees from performing the functions of their job, they need to find a new career.
The dividing line in comments seems be where a job does not require professional judgment. If it doesn't, exercizing personal morality or religion should not be allowed?
Perhaps we are defining the "job" too broadly. You can become a lawyer without becoming a "criminal" lawyer. You can choose to be a dermatologist, and never be faced with the abortion issue. You can get a science degree, even a degree in pharmacology, without becoming a dispensing pharmacist.
If your moral standards are going to cause conflict, choose a different sub-specialty.
Then there's no conflict at all.
A long time ago, when I was a self-employed general contracter, I got health insurance through a group plan ultimately run by a sect of the Catholic Church. The insurance was reasonably priced, but before signing for the policy, the agent made sure I knew that certain things were NOT covered... Birth control presecriptions, abortions, etc.
I knew that going into the transaction, and had the option of saying "No thank you." At the time, none of that mattered, as I wasn't getting any anyway ;).
If a pharmacy wants to set a policy that they will not traffic in those sorts of meds, and makes it well known, so that I have the option of deciding whether or not to go in there, I think that might be okay. But if a rogue pharmacist at a pharmacy with no such policy refused to sell me my prescription, I would ask for another pharmacist until I found one who would. Just to rub it in the first pharmacist's face. Yes, I can be a bit spiteful.
In your speculative Roe v Wade overturning, I would expect that there would be groups cropping up in those states - perhaps spawning out of Planned Parenthood, perhaps not - that would provide assistance to those in need of a ride to a "safe haven." Were I a physician in those circumstances, and I felt that in some cases abortion should be permitted, I might break the law and bear the consequences, in order to become a martyr. Then again I might not. I may be a coward. I've never been tested that way.
Great line of thinking here!
I'm thinking, if I were asked to not do something because of my religious beliefs, I'd be wise enough and conscientious enough to seek a new profession, or silently step aside and allow my peers that have no problem commiting the act to do it in my stead.
A lot of examples come to mind, but they all have the same bottom line...if I feel I morally can't do it, I'm gonna step aside because I can be a coward. I've been tested before and a high amount of cowardice has been found in my bones:-)
Debo Blue
If I take the 30 minute ahead pill and my woman takes the morning after pill will that cancel us out with the pope?
There are places in this country where the only pharmacy within an hour or more is inside Walmart, because Walmart has driven mom-and-pop drugstores out of business. Not everywhere is suburbia, where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a drugstore.
Given that you can't go down the road to get your 'script filled--and sometimes these drugs are needed quickly--yes, I think the flak is warranted.
Furthermore:
--There have been cases in which the pharmacist in question not only wouldn't fill the drug order, but he refused to give the 'script back to the customer.
--And many hard-core religionists also disapprove of plain old birth control. Just wait till they start to refuse to fill those orders!
Think I'm making that up?
Witness Bush's new proposed "family planning" appointee:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/health/main3380290.shtml
In case you don't feel like reading the whole story, just read this quote:
In 2000, while working as a policy director at the Family Research Council, she objected to a Washington, D.C., city council bill requiring health insurers to pay for contraceptives. By not including a “conscience clause” allowing employers to withhold contraceptive coverage, Orr said the council would force employers "to make a choice between serving God and serving the D.C. government.
"It's not about choice. It's not about health care. It's about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death," she said.
That's right: contraception = "culture of death"
It's really crazy to me to imagine businesses like CVS and Eckerds (I mean, RiteAid) operating according to anyone's morality. If drug distributors' decisions begin to be based on ideas about preservation of life, then maybe cashiers at pharmacies should have the right to refuse to sell cigarettes. Or is that too rigid? … or is a cashier ethically inferior to a pharmacist? I don't get it. The idea of capitalism operating with a conscience really shocks me: that's not the point, and if ethics become a part of capitalism's considerations, I can't imagine a more ridiculous place to start than with dealings involving non-independent life. This issue and the people involved seem to be caught up on how much life there is instead of the quality of it.
Jim, I'd not thought about the captive market, be it big or small box.
Amy, thanks for stopping by again. I'm not sure I'm getting your right. You seem to be saying that ethics has no place in capitalism. Maybe it shouldn't; but, I can't imagine me leaving my ethics at the door when I enter the office. I'm not always right; but, I try to act ethically, by my lights. And maybe that is the problem we face. Our collective ethics don't always match up.
So let me get this straight.
If a member of the Green Party refuses to bag my purchases in order to save trees, that’s OK.
If some Amish guy working at Wal-Mart refuses to sell me tires, that’s OK.
If an Atheist cashier insists that I use a credit card instead of cash because it says god on the money, that’s OK.
How long will it be before Wal-Mart offers a 10% discount to anyone that holds a prayer service in the check out line!
Pharmaceutical companies push a product, and the ethical implications of that product's use are not relevant. The system of capitalism is motivated by profit possibilities. That some (many?) individuals within the system behave according to an idea of ethics which they are able to keep separate from profit is fortunate, but to pretend a corporation's actions should be motivated by ethics seems, to me, very silly. I get prescriptions filled at Walgreens, where the pharmacists wear white coats embroidered with the store's name. It seems that if a person works at a corporation as large as a chain drug store then he or she is in effect inseparable from the corporation's ambition, which, I think, is exclusively profit. Walgreens is not a charity. I don't think capitalist corporations’ behavior has anything to do with ethics, and I don't mean to suggest that that’s a good thing. It's just the way it is. To expect or allow people who work within a corporation like Walgreens to act according to their individual ethics is contrary to the purpose of capitalism, which isn't about morality but money. That "our collective ethics don't always match up" may mean corporations under capitalism act without conscience necessarily.
Hey Kayak and Amy, I suppose in a pure capitalistic system all of Kayak's examples would be met by the consumer going elsewhere to get what he or she wanted, or the worker would get fired by the amoral corporation. But, as pointed out by Jim, we don't have a perfect market that allows complete choice by the consumer. Hence, regulation that normalizes, if that's the right word, what the corporation and its employees can and can't do.
Post a Comment