Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[Christopher68]

More arguments based on the logic of the 19th century slave owner.

You can resort to using inflammatory and ad hominem language if you wish. However, I will not. I will kindly remove myself from this thread, and wish you a good day.

 

[SamH]

You can resort to using inflammatory and ad hominem language if you wish. However, I will not. I will kindly remove myself from this thread, and wish you a good day.

I’m sorry if you don’t understand or if you reject the Church’s teachings on life and contraception,but this is a Catholic forum.

Life Begins at Conception. When life is conceived in the mother’s womb, it is not just the physical form that has been created but a Soul has been created by our Heavenly Father. This Soul is eternal. It doesn’t cease to exist when life on earth ends.

If life begins at conception, have we prevented this life at any stage? Have we destroyed a life which was created by God alone and not by our own abilities? Abortion may be a raging topic but what about Contraception?

The Catholic Church has always opposed contraception. Never has the Church wavered on its stance on Contraception unlike the other Christian denominations. Artificial contraception is considered a mortal sin. This has been explained and expressed by Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae in 1968. Some methods of natural family planning are morally permissible, as they do not oppose the natural way of conception.

lordcalls.com/tag/catholic-views-on-contraception

If you accept the teachings of the Church why do you not see the error in your postings? I take great offense in your claim that the Catholic Church, a Church you claim to belong to, is playing semantics with life.

 

[Suudy]

While not binding on those of us here in the PNW, this ruling bodes well for pharmacists. There was similar case here in WA a few years ago:

cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/27/health/main3104500.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3104500

The pro-“choice” crowd is thrilled that the pharmacy board (recently) denied religious objection:

news.change.org/stories/victory-washington-board-of-pharmacy-stands-up-to-contraception-opponents

And further, our self-identifying Catholic governor opposes such religious objections:

secularnewsdaily.com/2010/07/27/washington-pharmacists-can-decide-what-medicines-to-dispense/

From that article:
This proposal was opposed by both Governor Christine Gregoire and Planned Parenthood in 2006. Wrote Gregoire in 2006, “no one should be denied appropriate prescription drugs based on the personal, religious or moral objection of individual pharmacists. Let me be clear: a lawful prescription should be filled unless there are clinical or patient safety issues.”
Apparently drugs that can lead to the death of a fetus are “appropriate”.

 

[irishpatrick]

The judge made the correct ruling. Let it go.

No point in arguing when we have one a sound victory (for once). Better off just letting the dissenters talk amonst themselves. IMO

 

[kimmielittle]

It appears we have moved into the death by noun diversion - That is that one’s right to life is predicated by the noun used to describe them. Thus if one is described as a baby they are worthy of being protected but if they are called a fetus they are not. Of course death by noun is not restricted to the abortion debate One need only look at the derogatory terms used to describe Jews in the 40s and Native Americans during the 19th century to see how effective death by noun can be.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[LemonAndLime]

@L&L: Follow your thought example through, the one about the pharmacist who is the only one in town. Can we assume that in this example, the pharmacist owns his own shop (that sounds like the situation in IL, although I don’t think you can tell from the linked article alone). Let’s further assume that there are no other pharmacies within easy driving distance. The state mandates that Pharmacist must dispense the emergency contraception. Pharmacist refuses. State pulls his license. Pharmacy closes down. Now no one in the town has access to the pharmacy.

Can you think of another industry in which the state mandates what must be sold?

If you don’t think one person’s rights should trump another’s, why should the patient’s right to receive the drug trump the pharmacist’s right to refuse to fill it?

I’m not saying that the patient’s right to receive the drug should trump the right of the pharmacist to refuse it. I’m saying that the patient does have a right to receive it, and saying that the pharmacist’s right to choose the right thing morally is greater than a patient’s right of choice (to take this pill) is going down a dangerous path. How do you decide who has the greatest right? Why is it ok for a pharmacist to knowingly enter a profession knowing that they cannot do the full extension of the job they have agreed to do? It’s like a Catholic doctor agreeing to work at an abortion clinic and then (obviously) refusing to carry out abortions. If you know your beliefs are going to stop you doing your job you shouldn’t sign up to it, because then you’re in a position where you can argue your rights trump the patient’s and you start refusing treatment/to do your job.

 

[jilly4ski]

I’m not saying that the patient’s right to receive the drug should trump the right of the pharmacist to refuse it. I’m saying that the patient does have a right to receive it, and saying that the pharmacist’s right to choose the right thing morally is greater than a patient’s right of choice (to take this pill) is going down a dangerous path. How do you decide who has the greatest right? Why is it ok for a pharmacist to knowingly enter a profession knowing that they cannot do the full extension of the job they have agreed to do? It’s like a Catholic doctor agreeing to work at an abortion clinic and then (obviously) refusing to carry out abortions. If you know your beliefs are going to stop you doing your job you shouldn’t sign up to it, because then you’re in a position where you can argue your rights trump the patient’s and you start refusing treatment/to do your job.

Actually its more like becoming an ob/gyn and then refusing to do do abortions. Abortions are in the realm of an ob/gyn, but not all ob/gyns do abortions.Not every pharmacy carriers every kind of drug, just like retailers have limited shelf space so do pharmacies, so they have to make choices about which drugs they carry. Most decisions are probably based on consumer demand, the other on their knowledge of drugs and which are too dangerous and create liability, why can’t some of the decisions also be based on moral decisions.

 

[Raskolnikov]

LemondAndLime:

I’m not saying that the patient’s right to receive the drug should trump the right of the pharmacist to refuse it. I’m saying that the patient does have a right to receive it, and saying that the pharmacist’s right to choose the right thing morally is greater than a patient’s right of choice (to take this pill) is going down a dangerous path. How do you decide who has the greatest right? Why is it ok for a pharmacist to knowingly enter a profession knowing that they cannot do the full extension of the job they have agreed to do? It’s like a Catholic doctor agreeing to work at an abortion clinic and then (obviously) refusing to carry out abortions. If you know your beliefs are going to stop you doing your job you shouldn’t sign up to it, because then you’re in a position where you can argue your rights trump the patient’s and you start refusing treatment/to do your job.

I’m not so sure the right of the customer is being violated though. If it were quite urgent and important that they get the pill, I don’t see why they couldn’t go to a different pharmacy, even one in a different town. It may inconvenience them, but in that case I would say that the right of the pharmacist to follow their conscience does supercede the convenience of the customer. After all, the customer can always go to another pharmacy, but the pharmacist can’t just go somewhere else to refuse contraception; the situation is binding for them.

So, while I think you have a valid concern, all else being equal, I think the pharmacist’s right does trump the customer’s in this particular scenario because it’s the pharmacist’s conscience vs. the customer’s convenience, and right of conscience supercedes right of convenience, IMO.

 

[catharina]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Why is it ok for a pharmacist to knowingly enter a profession knowing that they cannot do the full extension of the job they have agreed to do? It’s like a Catholic doctor agreeing to work at an abortion clinic and then (obviously) refusing to carry out abortions. If you know your beliefs are going to stop you doing your job you shouldn’t sign up to it, because then you’re in a position where you can argue your rights trump the patient’s and you start refusing treatment/to do your job.

This is a distinctly Leninist-Stalinist idea and frankly being a pharmacist myself I felt offended reading it. I know of phamacist dynasties who owned their private pharmacies for generations. Great grandpa was a pharmacist, grandpa was a pharmacist, dad was a pharmacist, Mr. Pharmacist is currently running the family business, and chances are that Junior will also enter the same profession. It’s their own pharmacy, it has been part of the city’s business landscape for well over a century, and the family plans to keep it running for generations more to come. And no, they are not going to be impressed by Mr/Ms Customer who wants something immoral, and thinks that they should just close their business and start doing something else from now on. What’s next, will Mr/Ms Customer want them to dispense crack cocaine, or else go out of business? Should I choose not to enter this profession if I am not willing to dispense crack cocaine?

Giving the so-called “emergency contraception” pill is worse than giving crack cocaine to the customer, as far as I am concerned. And why should I do it, when this is my own pharmacy and I’m running it in accord with the Hippocratic Oath, OK? Hippocrates the father of medicine in ancient Greece refused to give abortive and anti-conceptive potions to women, and so will I. So, will Mr/Ms Crackhead and Abortoholic try to use the state’s power against me? What’s their plan, confiscate my pharmacy and run me out of my business, passed down to me through generations in my family, just like Lenin and Stalin did with business owners?

If Hippokrates was alive today, what would Mr/Ms Abortoholic Customer do? Ask the state to forbid him from practicing medicine?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Why is it ok for a pharmacist to knowingly enter a profession knowing that they cannot do the full extension of the job they have agreed to do?

Here’s the rub: I put myself through the school of pharmacy and have become a pharmacist, but at the same time, I never agreed or made any promise whatsoever to become a baby killer, a dispenser of abortive and contraceptive drugs, a dispenser of poisons for assisted suicide and euthanasia, or a dispenser of crack cocaine.

You have a problem with that?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

In a number of other countries including the USA they have the right to simply decline to deal with this issue, no referrals to other possible suppliers needed. And I think that’s just about right.

Suppose Mr. Terrorist comes in and wants to buy dynamite from me. Should I really have an obligation to direct him to a supplier of dynamite? No.

Mr. Crackhead comes to buy some cocaine from my pharmacy. Again, while I decline to serve him with cocaine, do I have a duty to find the nearest street corner dealer for him and direct him to a source of cocaine? No.

And how about Ms. Abortoholic, who comes in to buy “emergency contraception” from me? Well, my answer would be simply “Sorry, Ma’am, we don’t sell emergency contraceptives.” Period. No referrals, no directing to another source where Ms. Abortoholic could get her poison to kill her baby.

Also, let’s suppose I operate a Cajun/Creole restaurant on Bourbon Street, in New Orleans. Mr. Horny Tourist comes in, and since he is also drunk, he asks for the waitress to give him a lap dance. Well, my restaurant is not a strip-tease bar. My daughter, who is waiting his table, is not a lap dancer. Yes, there are some strip-tease bars and other shady businesses on Bourbon Street. Still, do I have an obligation to know about them, and to direct Mr. Horny to another place where his hormonal urges can be adequately satisfied? Can’t I just tell him, “Sorry, Sir, we are not a strip-tease bar, and you are not going to get any lap dances from my daughter!”, and leave it at that?

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s the rub: I put myself through the school of pharmacy and have become a pharmacist, but at the same time, I never agreed or made any promise whatsoever to become a baby killer, a dispenser of abortive and contraceptive drugs, a dispenser of poisons for assisted suicide and euthanasia, or a dispenser of crack cocaine.

You have a problem with that?

:clapping::clapping:

 

[Raskolnikov]

Joseph L Varga:

This is a distinctly Leninist-Stalinist idea and frankly being a pharmacist myself I felt offended reading it. I know of phamacist dynasties who owned their private pharmacies for generations. Great grandpa was a pharmacist, grandpa was a pharmacist, dad was a pharmacist, Mr. Pharmacist is currently running the family business, and chances are that Junior will also enter the same profession. It’s their own pharmacy, it has been part of the city’s business landscape for well over a century, and the family plans to keep it running for generations more to come. And no, they are not going to be impressed by Mr/Ms Customer who wants something immoral, and thinks that they should just close their business and start doing something else from now on. What’s next, will Mr/Ms Customer want them to dispense crack cocaine, or else go out of business? Should I choose not to enter this profession if I am not willing to dispense crack cocaine?

I agree with you there is nothing about the occupation of a pharmacist that should require them to dispense the morning after pill, but I’m puzzled as to why you call the idea Leninist or Stalinist?

 

[LemonAndLime]

I know nurses and other professionals are not compelled to do so. But my point is, if you deliberately put yourself in a situation where you are unable to do the job you are expected to do then why should your right to choose a job be more important than the patient’s right to have legal medicine? A nurse working in an abortion clinic yet refusing to care for any of the patients, for example. Or a pharmacist working at a sexual health clinic. Or a Muslim man working at a non-halal pork butchers.

I would appreciate if it someone could respond to this point without going on a rant about socialism, terrorism, the evils of contraception or abortion. I had not realised I had entered a thread in which members ranted about their favourite hate-topics with very little excuse. I am here talking about a moral dilemma.

 

[catharina]

Here’s the rub: I put myself through the school of pharmacy and have become a pharmacist, but at the same time, I never agreed or made any promise whatsoever to become a baby killer, a dispenser of abortive and contraceptive drugs, a dispenser of poisons for assisted suicide and euthanasia, or a dispenser of crack cocaine.

You have a problem with that?

thank you, joseph.

 

[catharina]

I know nurses and other professionals are not compelled to do so. But my point is, if you deliberately put yourself in a situation where you are unable to do the job you are expected to do then why should your right to choose a job be more important than the patient’s right to have legal medicine? A nurse working in an abortion clinic yet refusing to care for any of the patients, for example. Or a pharmacist working at a sexual health clinic. Or a Muslim man working at a non-halal pork butchers.

I would appreciate if it someone could respond to this point without going on a rant about socialism, terrorism, the evils of contraception or abortion. I had not realised I had entered a thread in which members ranted about their favourite hate-topics with very little excuse. I am here talking about a moral dilemma.

There is no moral dilemma for Catholics.
The law of conscience rises above all else.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I agree with you there is nothing about the occupation of a pharmacist that should require them to dispense the morning after pill, but I’m puzzled as to why you call the idea Leninist or Stalinist?

Because it’s a collectivist idea that imposes the tyranny of a dictatorship on the individual, claiming the right to trample individual freedoms in the name of the “common good”. In the USSR and the Soviet bloc, it was the Communist Party who knew best what were the requirements of the “common good”, which justified forcing the individual whatever they wanted him to do, and they did actually collectivize private property. They could not force the individual to do what they wanted him to do on his own land, or in his own pharmacy. Thus, they confiscated lands, confiscated pharmacies, confiscated businesses, so that ultimately the state owned everything, and individuals became serfs to the state. It was the state’s pharmacy, you as an individual could not own your pharmacy, and you were expected to do what the state told you to do, or else you lost your job. There was no way for you as an individual to have your own pharmacy, and run it independently from the state.

Lemon and Lime’s idea is in the same mold. The only thing she didn’t advocate for is confiscating people’s pharmacies. But she advocates for the state trampling on my freedoms and forcing me out of my business, as long as I refuse to submit to a certain ruling clique’s idea of “common good”. And this ruling clique is made up of representatives of the Culture of Death, and feminists, “I know better than thou” types who are every bit as arrogant as Lenin and Stalin were. Just look at Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, on the apropos of whose regulations this thread was started. Who the hell is Rod Blagojevich and what does he know about bioethics, to have the gall to impose his own tyranny on pharmacists in Illinois, and to expect them to give drugs to women that will kill their babies? Rod Blagojevich is a little Stalin, and Lemon and Lime presented an apology of this tyranny.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I’m not so sure the right of the customer is being violated though. If it were quite urgent and important that they get the pill, I don’t see why they couldn’t go to a different pharmacy, even one in a different town. It may inconvenience them, but in that case I would say that the right of the pharmacist to follow their conscience does supercede the convenience of the customer. After all, the customer can always go to another pharmacy, but the pharmacist can’t just go somewhere else to refuse contraception; the situation is binding for them.

So, while I think you have a valid concern, all else being equal, I think the pharmacist’s right does trump the customer’s in this particular scenario because it’s the pharmacist’s conscience vs. the customer’s convenience, and right of conscience supercedes right of convenience, IMO.

Good point, true the customer could go to a different pharmacy. But what about my scenario of the pharmacist who works at a sexual health clinic but doesn’t want to give out any contraception? What if you deliberately put yourself in a job in which you are going to frequently be in this situation or its in your job description?

 

[catharina]

Good point, true the customer could go to a different pharmacy. But what about my scenario of the pharmacist who works at a sexual health clinic but doesn’t want to give out any contraception? What if you deliberately put yourself in a job in which you are going to frequently be in this situation or its in your job description?

Yet I’ve never heard of such a situation.
Nor can I imagine it.

A pharmacist, opposed to anti-life care
working for a clinic that is anti-life?

Nope. Never heard of it.

Like Joseph said, pharmacies most familiar to me
are family-founded, family-owned and family-run.