Tell Them, Gov
Well done, governor of Illinois. Step up, other 49 governors.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich filed an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies that sell contraceptives to fill prescriptions for birth control quickly, following recent incidents in which a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill orders for contraceptives because of moral opposition. “Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy is not allowed to discriminate who they sell it to and who they don’t,” Blagojevich said in a news release. “The pharmacy will be expected to accept that prescription and fill it … No delays. No hassles. No lecture. Just fill the prescription.”
Well said. A little bluntness is welcome and necessary in this nonsensical situation. A situation in which people say things like this:
Supporters of pharmacists’ rights see the trend as a welcome expression of personal belief.
Pharmacists’ rights? Pharmacists’ ‘rights’ to refuse to do the job of a pharmacist? What ‘right’ is that? They have the right to quit, obviously, but they don’t have a ‘right’ to refuse to do their job – not and keep the job they don’t. You might as well say a restaurant chef has a right to refuse to cook pasta because it looks like worms, or a plumber has a right to refuse to insert the male pipe into the female pipe because it looks like fornication, or a bus driver has a right to refuse to let passengers get on the bus because they will only be wanting to get off again.
Pharmacists often risk dismissal to stand up for their beliefs, while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by pharmacists. “There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she’s married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone,” said Adam Sonfield, of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues…Supporters of pharmacists’ rights see the trend as a welcome expression of personal belief. Women’s groups see it as a major threat to reproductive rights and one of the latest manifestations of the religious right’s growing political reach – this time into the neighbourhood pharmacy.
“This is another indication of the current political atmosphere and climate,” said Rachel Laser of the National Women’s Law Centre. “It’s outrageous. It’s sex discrimination. It prevents access to a basic form of health care for women.”
That’s what it looks like to me. The religious right is a classic case of taking a mile after the donation of an inch. The more they are offered nervous apologetic anxious soothing ‘respect’ for their ‘beliefs,’ the more respect they demand, and the more they throw their horrible mindless coercive weight around. It’s imperative to say No. No, no, no. Your beliefs are not worthy of respect; people were pretending all this time, in order not to hurt your feelings, but the fact it it’s all nonsense, and no basis on which to tell other people what to do. Go away, shut up, have some humility. Keep your god to yourself.
You keep forgetting that suffering in the here and now is of no concern. It’s the afterlife that matters, so shut up and do as the hyperreligious tell you and you’ll be rewarded for ever and ever in heaven after dying of septicemia from a stubbed toe. Unless you lapse into persistant vegetative state and are put on a feeding tube. Then you’ll have to wait a few decades before you get to meet the big guy in to sky. But the important thing is to always do as you’re told by people who know what God wants.
So I gather. Bless their black and twisted little hearts.
As I see it, pharmacists have the right of freedom of association like the rest of us. What’s morally objectionable with refusing to deal with somebody whose morals you find objectionable? Perhaps they should put a notice outside their premises indicating the customers with whom they refuse to do business (e.g. fornicators), so as to avoid causing embarassment.
One point I didn’t quite understand. One of the articles you quote talks about contraceptive-seeking “shaken teenage girls and women [who] desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by pharmacists.”
Shaken? Desperate? Because they can’t jump into the sack right away or what? Because they can’t find a condom automat within a radius of 500 yards?
Wish I’d met a few chicks who were panting for it so much when I myself was in the fornication age bracket …
What’s morally objectionable? Well, picture yourself run over by a minicab. The ambulance people, before putting you on the stretcher, ask you what your morals (or politics) are. You tell them, they shake their heads, leave you bleeding on the ground, hop back in the ambulance and speed away. That’s what.
Or for that matter someone asking you what your morals are before serving you in a restaurant, or selling you a movie ticket, or taking your money in a supermarket, or handing you your ballot in a polling station, or (as I said) allowing you to board a bus, or a plane, or a train.
Such things do happen. I’ve seen versions in the UK, as a matter of fact – and been profoundly shocked and revolted by them. On the door of a Bloomsbury restaurant of no great pretensions, some eighteen years ago, a sign saying ‘Sorry, no one in working clothes allowed.’ And a Winchester pub eleven years ago – ‘Sorry, no one from construction site [there was one nearby] allowed.’
Charming.
That’s what’s wrong with it. Kind of market morality, really. You don’t get to set up in business offering a service, or go to work for someone who is, and then decide to withold the service from some people on ridiculous whimsical grounds (i.e. not grounds of public health or safety, such as barring drunks).
(The desperation thing was explained – a condom breaking. It happens.)
Sorry OB can’t agree with you on this one.
I don’t have much sympathy for pharmacists trying to impose their morality on others, or for the particular stance they are taking at least re: birth control pills. But why exactly can’t they set up in business offering a service and then decide to withhold service on a basis that some might consider whimsical. What principled objection do you have? The pharamacists obviously don’t consider the grounds to be whimsical. They’ve chosen to lose income because of it. And even if you think the denial of birth control pills is whimsical, the morning after pills would appear to involve something very different.
Besides the product involved is something that can be obtained at another pharmacy,. Also if the pharmacist works for a store, you can always complain to the management.
Also how is this even within the purview of the governor’s power. Seems to me he’s usurping the role of the state legislature.
“Besides the product involved is something that can be obtained at another pharmacy,.”
Well obviously not, if the principle you’re defending applies. It’s a categorical imperative type situation – or a ‘if all the other kids jump off the roof all the time would that mean that you should?’ situation. If any pharmacist can do that then they all can. (And as a purely factual matter, there isn’t always another pharmacy – any more than there is always another abortion clinic when one gets bombed or torched or threatened out of existence. Abortion is still legal in the US but it’s de facto unavailable in whole states.)
“Also if the pharmacist works for a store, you can always complain to the management.”
But if the pharmacist’s action is no problem, on what basis can one complain?
People ‘set up in business offering a service’ and then decided to withold the service from some people all the time in the Jim Crow South. Woolworths, for example. You may have heard of some sit-ins around that issue?
P.S. That’s a past tense ‘set up’ – people used to set up in business in the Jim Crow South and withold the service from some.
OB: ‘Such things do happen. I’ve seen versions in the UK, as a matter of fact – and been profoundly shocked and revolted by them. On the door of a Bloomsbury restaurant of no great pretensions, some eighteen years ago, a sign saying ‘Sorry, no one in working clothes allowed.’ And a Winchester pub eleven years ago – ‘Sorry, no one from construction site [there was one nearby] allowed.’
Are those restrictions not common in the US? I take them for granted in the UK. A pub in Southampton, which had always had gay and transgendered clientele, decided that it wasn’t going to serve transgendered people any more, in order to become more acceptable to mainstream customers. I also had reason to boycott a local alternative nightclub when one of the managers decided that a transsexual woman could only attend wearing a skirt on the goth night. After an acquanitance had a word with the manager, she magnanimously agreed that my friend could attend waering a skirt after she had had her operation (!). The manager has also decided to ban groups of people, like bikers, again in an attempt to become more acceptable to the mainstream.
“Well obviously not, if the principle you’re defending applies. It’s a categorical imperative type situation – or a ‘if all the other kids jump off the roof all the time would that mean that you should?’ situation. If any pharmacist can do that then they all can.”
The pharmacists who are doing this are doing it because of their religious principles. Most do not share those prinicples, or at least that particular interpretation of those principles. Therefore as a pracitcal matter you can get the pills. Of course if all are doing it, then that would be at least some evidence tending to show they are not being whimsical.
“People ‘set up in business offering a service’ and then decided to withold the service from some people all the time in the Jim Crow South”
That’s different. I’ts one thing to exclude a class of people by race from a service you are offering to the general public. it’s quite another to refuse to sell a certain type of product. How is what the governor is doing any different from telling a Hallal or Kosher restaurant they have to sell pork? Aren’t the restrictions against that whimsical to some.
Want to add a couple more things to the prior post. According to the article you quote this is all because of the actions of one pharmacist. Also the article says that they are required to fill the presciption “quickly” and “no delays,. No hassles. No lecture.” Doesn’t it bother you that the governor thinks he can dictate how expeditiously a pharmacist has to work, or whether a pharmacist can talk to a customer? (Either that or he’s giving a misleading account of what the rule says.)
Rowan,
“Are those restrictions not common in the US?”
Good question – I’ve often wondered, since being so struck by those signs. I don’t think they are. They used to be, in the South, of course. But other than that…? I don’t think so. I’ve never seen a sign like that on a restaurant door, that I’m aware of. Some restaurants have dress codes, of course, so that is similar – but not all that similar. The signs on the doors just looked like “No proles allowed” to me.
“Therefore as a pracitcal matter you can get the pills.”
But you were disagreeing with me on the principle. If you’re right about the principle, then it would never be possible to be sure one could get the pills. And as I said, it’s not true that one can get the pills – there aren’t pharmacists on every block, you know.
“How is what the governor is doing any different from telling a Hallal or Kosher restaurant they have to sell pork?”
Restaurants are of their nature selective in what kind of food they serve. No one expects them to serve all food – so no one depends on them to do that. Pharmacists, on the other hand, are expected to dispense pretty much whatever medicines are required. Furthermore, what they do (and refuse to do) is more important than what restaurants do or don’t do (leaving aside the not adding rat droppings to the pizza toppings, of course).
last question – No, what bothers me is that pharmacists think it’s their business to meddle in the lives of their customers. What bothers me is the fog of self-righteous preening sanctimonious sex-obsessed bullshit that’s permeating this country. That’s what bothers me.
“What bothers me is the fog of self-righteous preening sanctimonious sex-obsessed bullshit that’s permeating this country.”
Well, the person who comes to mind has been out of office for about 5 years now, so are you referring to the pharmacist or the governor?
Allan, OB, at least three distinct problems here:
(a) the pharmacy owner’s rights of freedom of association;
(b) the distinction between contraceptives and abortifacients;
(c) the distinction between abortion and infanticide.
I’m not just talking about drugs that kill off zygotes. What about second and third-trimester abortifacients such as misoprostol? Many people (including secular conservatives like myself) consider induced third-trimester abortion of a viable fetus to be pretty close to infanticide.
Should pharmacy owners be punished for failing to collaborate in what they believe to be legalised murder?
In this thread, the apologists for recalcitrant pharmacists have been appealing primarily to the freedom to conduct one’s private business as one sees fit. Customers, they imply, may simply patronize a competitor, if their first stop does not provide the products or services they seek. In other threads, apologists have expressed confidence that the free market will ensure that all legal drugs will have vendors in every market.
The analogy with other private businesses breaks down, however, because pharmacists are licensed by the state. In exchange for permission to traffic in otherwise-controlled (prescription) substances, the state may insist on whatever standards of practice the legislature sees fit. Drugs are not a free market. They are regulated by the state. Perhaps the apologists wish this were not so; if that is the case, they should focus their efforts on the repeal of controlled-substance legislation. But for now, licensed practitioners in a licensed industry may with propriety be obliged by the state to adhere to the terms of their licenses, or lose them.
Ah – thank you for that, ACW. I didn’t even know that – which shows how ignorant I am. I should have been able to figure it out, if I’d thought hard enough, since I know pharmacists can dispense prescription drugs, and obviously not just anyone can do that, or ‘prescription’ wouldn’t mean anything, would it.
Of course, the role of the state in regulating drugs has been severely eroded in the US in recent years, thanks to heavy lobbying by the dietary supplement industy – with the result that people buy whole warehouse-fulls of vitamins and other supplements that are completely unregulated, unchecked, untested, unmonitored – they can have any old crap in them, and often do. What kind of deluded market-fundamentalism thinks that’s a good idea is way beyond me. Because – what – people take portable labs with them to the health food store and test all the products right there? Err – no.
Me, I want the state mixed up in this stuff – life and death stuff. No Mexican food, fine, I’ll go to another restaurant; no CDs I like, fine, I’ll go to another store; but no pharmaceutical products I need? That’s another story.
ACW,
“Apologists?” What apologists? I specifically disclaimed any sympathy for pharmacists who try to impose their morality on others. I don’t approve of what the pharmacist allegedly did. Cathal, who I think raises a legiitimate point about the difference between contraception and abortion, hasn’t said anything that suggests approval.
My point was that the governor shouldn’t be getting involved when one pharmacy was allegedly not filling prescriptions. The problem seems to be something that could have been handled internally through store management.
Anyway I don’t think the license issue is dispositive. Doctors hold licenses, but does that mean they have to perform abortions if they are morally opposed to them?
Cathal, you might have a point about something not being quite right here. I mean we don’t have the pharmacy’s version, but we have the advocacy groups’ statements. (Also how does the pharmacist know whether the customer is married? And I was under the impression that birth control pills are sometimes prescribed for certain gynecological problems rather than contraception. If that’s right, then wouldn’t a pharmacist know that?) Makes you wonder if this is the whole story.
Allan, it’s not one pharmacy, it’s a lot of them. This is a pattern and a movement, and it’s been reported on fairly often for a fairly long time. It’s been going on for awhile, and it’s spreading. This is not a one-off.
ACW has, I think, nailed the point here; Cathal’s and Allan’s partial denfense of the pharmacists (on moral grounds and libertarian grounds respectively), and OB’s objections on the grounds that it’s none of the pharmacit’s business, are all straw men arguments. By becoming pharmacists they enter intto an implicit (or explicit) contract with the State, as ACW points out; if they wish to exercise their ‘right’ to freedom fom association they can do so, but only by resigning their posts.
Of course there’s a separate debate to be had about the morality of contraception, abortion, etc. etc., but pharmacists have first and foremost a responsibility to do their jobs as the State – not they – see fit.
In the same way, a pharmacist could not, say, exercising his right to freedom from association with inappropriate drug control legislation by dispensing heroin to drug addicts. Or would Allan et al defend that principle, too?
I think OutEast has it right insofar as part of the problem is professionalism per se, where it requires a practitioner to suspend his or her own principles and where those principles are well-founded and universalizable. It can lead, for instance, to army doctors being required to keep prisoners alive for torturers until the latter decide they’ve extracted the information they require, and to lawyers defending the rights of fascists to free speech. Whether or not one agrees with the rightness of those respective positions, it is the ethos of professionalism itself that creates the dilemma when it conflicts with our moral obligations as human beings.
“it is the ethos of professionalism itself that creates the dilemma when it conflicts with our moral obligations as human beings.”
No it isn’t – not exclusively at least. The dilemma here is also one of needs on one side and putative moral obligations on the other.
In fact one good analogy would be with the Taliban’s forbidding women to get medical help from male doctors and also forbidding women to work (for instance, as doctors), which obviously meant that women couldn’t get medical help at all. Get sick and die, was what women were allowed to do. The Taliban thought that was moral. Other people didn’t and don’t. Two competing moralities, basically.
As a secularist I don’t have much problem saying that people with irrational ungroundable religious moral objections to, say, dispensing pharmaceuticals, should not get jobs that require them to do that. They should go into other lines of work.
“The dilemma here is also one of needs on one side and putative moral obligations on the other.”
But whose morals? In areas like medicine we have codes – legal codes, that is – in order to ensure standardisation, to confer responsibility. I think the whole ‘putative moral obligations’ thing is a straw man precisely because the existence of a codified system, in this instance, *supercedes* voluntary morality.
Those pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives are acting out of a *desire* to fulfill theier moral obligations… as they see them. To locate the debate in that arena is not going to lead to anything: you (and I, for that matter) believe that their moral sense is misplaced, but that’s far from being a consensus opinion. Yes, the moral debate is worth having; but here, in this instance? It’s an irrelevance.
OE, sure, you’re probably right that the moral obligations question is irrelevant. I was no doubt just ranting. (I don’t think it’s a straw man though. Straw man isn’t the same thing as irrelevant.)
Taliban? if the analogy is to monopolizing medical care and then restricting it, my first thought would have been Canada
Good point, Allan! Medical care is of course much more restricted in Canada than it was under the Taliban, especially for women. How could I have neglected to mention that?
Really – everyone in Canada who gets sick sneaks across the border? Is that what you’re claiming? Or only someone? What does ‘someone’ mean, exactly?
Your comments are beginning to veer into the trollish. Dial down the rhetoric.