Subject:
|
Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:07:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1174 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> > Here's an interesting one:
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/10/12/contraceptive.complaint.ap/index.html
> >
> > The pharmacist refused to fill a contraceptive prescription for religious
> > reasons. That might be ok, except, he also refused to transfer the
> > prescription to another pharmacy. Now he's claiming he shouldn't be
> > punished.
> Seems like a no-brainer to me. That guy should lose his license. What's next:
> doctors refusing to provide medication because it violates some principle of
> faith healing?
>
> Newsflash: In this country we live under the Laws of the United States of
> America, not the Laws of God. Abortion and contraceptives are legal. If his
> profession conflicts with his religious beliefs, perhaps he should have chosen a
> a different career to begin with...
Well, right now we *nominally* live under the laws of America--if the Spawn of
Satan is re-appointed in November, then we'll see what happens to those laws.
Anyway, I completely agree with the meat of your post. The guy's welcome to
believe whatever he wants to believe, but if he knowingly takes a job wherein
his duties might conflict with his faith, then he should either fulfill those
duties despite his faith, or he should change jobs. Would he refuse to fill a
prescription for an anti-HIV medication for a homosexual patient because the
patient's lifestyle conflicted with the pharmacist's faith? What if a
pharmacist refused to fill prescriptions for Muslims? How long do we think he'd
be permitted to keep his job if he refused prescriptions for Christians?
As to Frank's point, I must disagree that it might be okay for the pharmacist to
refuse the prescription. Even if the pharmacy has a faith-friendly policy, the
pharmacist is state-licensed, and I don't believe, though I may be wrong, that
the state license includes an exemption for religion. And if it *does* include
such an exemption, then that exemption should be stricken, IMO.
This meshes nicely with the red-herring argument against D&E abortions, in which
opponents refuse to allow any exception, even if the mother's life is in danger.
The pharmacist in this case has no business making lifestyle decisions on behalf
of the patient. I once knew a woman who suffered terrible discomfort due to
cysts, but her discomfort was mitigated by strict regulation of her menstrual
cycle. By making a no-exceptions medical choice, the pharmacist has presumed to
perform as doctor, druggist, and minister, when in this capacity he is only
empowered to act in one role.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
| (...) From a libertarian perspective, I'll grant the pharmacist the right to discriminate. What I don't grant him the right to do though is interfere. Refusing to fill a prescription is discrimination. Refusal to forward the prescription to someone (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
| (...) Seems like a no-brainer to me. That guy should lose his license. What's next: doctors refusing to provide medication because it violates some principle of faith healing? Newsflash: In this country we live under the Laws of the United States of (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
