Troubled Pharmacy Student

[Petergee]

Indeed - hopefully in circumstances where the consumer has fair recourse to what are legal/prescribed items. I’m not against the supplier refusing to provide, only that consumers have opportunities for purchase.

The fact that the state has made something legal does not mean that the community and everyone in it is compelled to ensure that everyone has reasonable access to it. My jurisdiction has made prostitution legal. That does not mean that anyone has a right to complain because he can’t find a brothel within a reasonable distance of his home.

I can understand that there would be a commercial ‘halo’ effect amongst the local ‘observant’ population (particularly) in certain areas, of course - I do think your final conjecture is a bit, how shall I say it . . . erm . . . ‘spin-like’

No, as I said, (admittedly it’s only from anecdotal reports) it seems that even most customers who are pro-abortion/contraception see a certain “halo” as you put it about pro-life pharmacists and tend to patronise them for all their other purchases.

 

[Petergee]

Sometimes the English language’s lack of more than a remnant of the subjunctive makes “what if . . .” thought-experiment questions slightly difficult to pose without creating the possibility of endless orthogonal conversational byways – I might easily have asked it as: “What if a bartender belonging to the religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, whose codes include a blanket statement about not selling Guinness to Irish males under pain of eternal torment, were to decide to refuse to serve Guinness to Irish males” – Please replace whatever “job/profession of the supplier, religious/moral code to be potentially outraged, kind of customer involved together with problematic item for sale” is necessary for a parallel argument to the subject under discussion.

I just chose kosher/halal because I’m Jewish and it seemed an obvious (purely for conversational purposes) commercial parallel (given that my part of the argument was about consumers and supplier behavior) and I’m not going to get into an argument about questions like the relative significance of ‘the intrinsic evil of birth control’ v’s ‘dietary laws and ritual purity’ because, as I indicated, it’s not what my part of the discussion has been about.

If the thread were only about the issue of ‘birth control’ itself, rather than the consequences of supplier actions in circumstances of moral objections, I would not have participated.

My apologies if the above appears unhelpful.

Well, yes it is helpful in that it illustrates a number of distressingly common fallacies.

Firstly, yes, this debate is about morality, NOT about religion.
“Morality” has for some reason recently developed into a dirty word among some people who profess to be shocked whenever it’s mentioned and feel that it has no place in polite society. But morality is simply another word for rational human decisions made about the rightness or wrongness of human actions.

Secondly even if it were about religion, religion has an essential relationship with truth. Different people see some truths differently and have different religions, but it is always in relation to rational answers to the question of where the truth lies. Religion is NOT the silly nonsense caricature so often heard from atheists, that religion is just some mad irrational belief that a person just decides to start believing because someone else does with no connexion to reality. The idiotic “If you believe in God, why can’t I just as validly believe in an invisible pink unicorn who tells me to [insert the most bizarre behaviour imaginable]” should have no place in rational discussion.

 

[Kaninchen]

The fact that the state has made something legal does not mean that the community and everyone in it is compelled to ensure that everyone has reasonable access to it. My jurisdiction has made prostitution legal. That does not mean that anyone has a right to complain because he can’t find a brothel within a reasonable distance of his home.

But, if one owned the only store in town, what would you be justified in not selling to the prostitutes or their clients? Birth control? Food? What kind of line would one be justified in drawing in terms of being prepared to inform them of where alternative supplies might be found?

Secondly even if it were about religion, religion has an essential relationship with truth. Different people see some truths differently and have different religions, but it is always in relation to rational answers to the question of where the truth lies. Religion is NOT the silly nonsense caricature so often heard from atheists, that religion is just some mad irrational belief that a person just decides to start believing because someone else does with no connexion to reality. The idiotic “If you believe in God, why can’t I just as validly believe in an invisible pink unicorn who tells me to [insert the most bizarre behaviour imaginable]” should have no place in rational discussion.

Whether you like it or not, the Catholic position on birth control is “the most bizarre behaviour imaginable” in the eyes of a very large proportion of the population (and not a few less ‘observant’ Catholics it would seem *). While being seen as bizarre doesn’t make one right or wrong (even in the case of believers in what, as outsiders, we might see as ‘invisible pink unicorns’), being right is no guarantee of not being considered ‘bizarre’ and being considered ‘bizarre’ is no guarantee of being right.

I’m straying a bit from my interest – supplier/consumer behaviour in such situations, so I’ll stop!*

 

[quiet52]

Firstly, yes, this debate is about morality, NOT about religion.
“Morality” has for some reason recently developed into a dirty word among some people who profess to be shocked whenever it’s mentioned and feel that it has no place in polite society. But morality is simply another word for rational human decisions made about the rightness or wrongness of human actions.

AMEN about morality. Another concept so many people seem to avoid, even deride, is HOLINESS. Seems we’re not allowed to strive toward holiness nowadays. Oftentimes, people who are striving to live a holy lifestyle are mocked or their motives are questioned.

Secondly even if it were about religion, religion has an essential relationship with truth. Different people see some truths differently and have different religions, but it is always in relation to rational answers to the question of where the truth lies. Religion is NOT the silly nonsense caricature so often heard from atheists, that religion is just some mad irrational belief that a person just decides to start believing because someone else does with no connexion to reality. The idiotic “If you believe in God, why can’t I just as validly believe in an invisible pink unicorn who tells me to [insert the most bizarre behaviour imaginable]” should have no place in rational discussion.

Did you know that the the words “religion” and “relationship” come from the same root word (religare)? Religion is about striving for rightness before God and with him – not only alone, but with others. It’s true that over time, religion has developed into a code or set of beliefs, way of worship, and lifestyle. Scripture illustrates repeatedly, the more humankind shrugs God off, the more sin there is (and strife amongst us).

Back to the main topic – I pray that this young pharmacy student continues to strive for a close relationship with our Lord and His Church – and for holiness – righteousness – with and before God, no matter how apathetic or hostile people decide to be about this issue.

Reminder – this issue is about the OP questioning his participation in the killing of the unborn. Let us support him through prayer and encouragement to be truly Christian.

 

[Petergee]

But, if one owned the only store in town, what would you be justified in not selling to the prostitutes or their clients? Birth control? Food?

I think you missed the point. You said that if a product is “legal”, consumers must have “fair recourse…to opportunities to purchase” it. I pointed out that just as the legality of prostitution does not entitle anyone to demand that the only massage parlour in town provide him with prostitution or refer him to a prostitute, so the legality of contraceptives/abortifacients does not entitle anyone to demand that the only pharmacist in town provide him with contraceptives/abortifacients or refer him to someone who will provide them.
But to answer your question about supplying TO prostitutes, no retailer is (or should be) compelled to supply anything to anyone just because they come into his shop and ask for it. The goods are his property to do as he wishes. If someone didn’t want to sell anything to prostitutes he would be perfectly within his rights. as for “food” (whre DO you think up these bizarre scenarios ) I suppose in the completely hyhpothetical situation where a prostitute was living on an island in mid-ocean which only had a yearly supply ship which supplied only one food shop, no the fact that someone disagrees with prostitution would not justify starving a prostitute.

What kind of line would one be justified in drawing in terms of being prepared to inform them of where alternative supplies might be found?

A “referral” in the medical sense would be unjustifiable as that is tantamount to supplying it yourself. But I see few moral problems with saying “I believe the pharmacist in the next town usually supplies them”, being of course mindful of the fact that that pharmacy might have a pro-life locum pharmacist working there today and you don’t want to put unfair pressure on him/her. (“But the other pharmacist TOLD me you WOULD supply this!”)

Whether you like it or not, the Catholic position on birth control is “the most bizarre behaviour imaginable” in the eyes of a very large proportion of the population (and not a few less ‘observant’ Catholics it would seem *). While being seen as bizarre doesn’t make one right or wrong (*even in the case of believers in what, as outsiders, we might see as ‘invisible pink unicorns’**), being right is no guarantee of not being considered ‘bizarre’ and being considered ‘bizarre’ is no guarantee of being right.
Bizarreness is not the point. I just threw that in as an aside. The point is that religious beliefs must spring from, or at least be concordant with, human reason, which is available to every human being; they are not simply nonsensical ideas plucked out of the air because they seem like cute ideas or to try to be different or whatever, as atheists often assert.

Yes I know many people characterise it as bizarre to see contraception as immoral. But anyone who thought about the issue at all would see that there is at least a plausible case against the morality of contraception. For one obvious thing to anyone who takes the slightest interest in the subject, they would discover that acceptance of contraception is very recent. Contraception (and a fortiori abortion) was universally regarded as bizarre and criminal behaviour by ALL religious groups until 1930 when the Anglicans decided to allow contraception in certain limited circumstances. The Anglicans were lampooned for the bizarreness and stupidity of this even by the secular mainstream media.

And no I don’t regard “but this is the 21st century. We all, or at least I and my mates, are so much SMARTER than all those idiots who lived in all the previous centuries” as a rational argument.

 

[Kaninchen]

I think you missed the point. You said that if a product is “legal”, consumers must have “fair recourse…to opportunities to purchase” it. I pointed out that just as the legality of prostitution does not entitle anyone to demand that the only massage parlour in town provide him with prostitution or refer him to a prostitute, so the legality of contraceptives/abortifacients does not entitle anyone to demand that the only pharmacist in town provide him with contraceptives/abortifacients or refer him to someone who will provide them.

Err, no, I didn’t miss the point at all, not in the slightest.

But to answer your question about supplying TO prostitutes, no retailer is (or should be) compelled to supply anything to anyone just because they come into his shop and ask for it. The goods are his property to do as he wishes. If someone didn’t want to sell anything to prostitutes he would be perfectly within his rights. as for “food” (whre DO you think up these bizarre scenarios )

You’re not from a German-Jewish background, are you? If you were, then you wouldn’t find such scenarios at all bizarre.

I realize that what, from my side, appeared as indicators of range (‘birth control’ to ‘food’) could be interpreted as being only two things (‘birth control’ and ‘food’). I was trying to converse on where the moral boundaries of such moral decisions might lie, where lines could be drawn. Anyway, now at least I know you wouldn’t be in favor of starving people into submission even if you don’t think that you would force somebody to sell food to the starving!

The point is that religious beliefs must spring from, or at least be concordant with, human reason, which is available to every human being; they are not simply nonsensical ideas plucked out of the air because they seem like cute ideas or to try to be different or whatever, as atheists often assert.

You know, the only time I’ve ever come across an atheist talk like that is when somebody has tried to ‘sell’ religion to them – of course, I live in Europe where atheism is pretty common and people wanting to get into power avoid talking about their religious commitments rather than stressing them.

 

[Petergee]

Err, no, I didn’t miss the point at all, not in the slightest.

OK if you say so.

You’re not from a German-Jewish background, are you? If you were, then you wouldn’t find such scenarios at all bizarre.

You’re getting more and more bizarre. I’m afraid I 've got absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.

you don’t think that you would force somebody to sell food to the starving!

No, I would force them to give it to the starving. Basic human needs override rights to private property. I’m amazed you could conclude I think otherwise.

You know, the only time I’ve ever come across an atheist talk like that is when somebody has tried to ‘sell’ religion to them – of course, I live in Europe where atheism is pretty common and people wanting to get into power avoid talking about their religious commitments rather than stressing them.

I live in Australia and it’s pretty rare that anyone tries to “sell” religion - only the occasional Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses going door-to-door. And NEVER during social and business interactions. But atheists commonly do exactly this sort of sales talk all the time. I know at least a dozen atheists who break into it without fail every time the topic of religion comes up, especially if someone is rash enough to admit that he actually practises and believes a religion. And there are several commentators in the mass media who manage to include this sort of nonsense every week.

 

[Kaninchen]

You’re getting more and more bizarre. I’m afraid I 've got absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Really? I expect that it was a long time ago - take it as a historical reference to suppliers boycotting consumers they didn’t approve of. I guess, though, that Germany in the 1930’s was a long, long time ago in a country far, far away, so such a reference really must seem terribly bizarre.

No, I would force them to give it to the starving. Basic human needs override rights to private property. I’m amazed you could conclude I think otherwise.

But you’d said:

But to answer your question about supplying TO prostitutes, no retailer is (or should be) compelled to supply anything to anyone just because they come into his shop and ask for it. The goods are his property to do as he wishes. If someone didn’t want to sell anything to prostitutes he would be perfectly within his rights.

So the supplier would be within his rights not to sell but you’d force him to give, I can see how that would work.

Anyway, I’m terribly sorry to have bothered you with my bizarre views and references on this subject and promise never to do so again.

 

[Petergee]

Really? I expect that it was a long time ago - take it as a historical reference to suppliers boycotting consumers they didn’t approve of. I guess, though, that Germany in the 1930’s was a long, long time ago in a country far, far away, so such a reference really must seem terribly bizarre.

Right, I get it. A retailer not supplying contraceptives/abortifacients because it’s against his moral principles is just like an anti-semitic retailer refusing to supply Jews. Ri…ght. (That is assuming any Jew would want to patronise an anti-semitic retailer and increase his profits.)

So the supplier would be within his rights not to sell but you’d force him to give, I can see how that would work.

Good. That is the legal and moral situation, look it up if you don’t believe me. The fact that a retailer has stock displayed for sale does not legally compel him to sell it to anyone.

 

[Petergee]

Kaninchen, you seem to be asserting that pharmacists who don’t want to involve themselves in supplying contraceptives/abortifacients to anyone are engaging in some form of discrimination. They are not at all.

If some genocidal anti-semitic pharmacist supplied contraceptives/abortifacients only to Jews and refused to supply them to Gentiles, or if some pharmacist who mistakenly thought this moral issue was a “religious” issue and supplied them to non-Catholics but refused to supply them to Catholics, then yes that would be unjust, immoral (and in my jurisdiction illegal) discrimination based on religious/ethnic prejudice.

But the pro-life pharmacists we are talking about would not dream of discriminating at all between any persons or groups, so yes your “German Jew” comment is not only bizarre, but very inappropriate and offensive. It’s always a sign that someone knows they have lost the rational argument when they just call their opponent a Nazi and then walk away.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Kaninchen, you seem to be asserting that pharmacists who don’t want to involve themselves in supplying contraceptives/abortifacients to anyone are engaging in some form of discrimination. They are not at all.

If some genocidal anti-semitic pharmacist supplied contraceptives/abortifacients only to Jews and refused to supply them to Gentiles, or if some pharmacist who mistakenly thought this moral issue was a “religious” issue and supplied them to non-Catholics but refused to supply them to Catholics, then yes that would be unjust, immoral (and in my jurisdiction illegal) discrimination based on religious/ethnic prejudice.

But the pro-life pharmacists we are talking about would not dream of discriminating at all between any persons or groups, so yes your “German Jew” comment is not only bizarre, but very inappropriate and offensive. It’s always a sign that someone knows they have lost the rational argument when they just call their opponent a Nazi and then walk away.

Well said. Pro-life is not just Catholic. There are many individuals that believe that life is special in not sacred. There are atheists that feel life should be protected as well as religious.

 

[Kaninchen]

Ah, the problem with saying you’re not going to respond to somebody and putting them on your ignore list is . . . you miss farcical interpretations of what you’d been saying, unless somebody quotes them, of course.

Ok, if anybody is vaguely interested in my supposed recourse to calling my opponent a Nazi because I’d lost the argument, I’m afraid you have to follow the flow of what was being said.

I mentioned the German Jews in post #86.

You’re not from a German-Jewish background, are you? If you were, then you wouldn’t find such scenarios at all bizarre.

Now, what ‘scenarios’ was I referring to?

The context is in the first two paragraphs of post #83, this is the second, ‘my’ paragraph:

But, if one owned the only store in town, what would you be justified in not selling to the prostitutes or their clients? Birth control? Food? What kind of line would one be justified in drawing in terms of being prepared to inform them of where alternative supplies might be found?

In other words, I was asking where one drew lines in deciding about selling things you didn’t approve of or to people you didn’t approve of (something I’d been talking about since post #56).

Then I was asked, in the context of mentioning food, “where I thought up these bizarre scenarios”?

And made the comment about German Jews (who had been denied necessities by storekeepers) which is an obvious example to somebody from my background.

Again: was that describing my opponent as a Nazi? No, I’d been asking where one drew lines, gave one of the end parameters as ‘food’ and, when asked by my opponent about where I’d got the ‘bizzarre scenario’ of not selling food, I’d mentioned a famous example.

Was it offensive? I think you’d have to be pretty determined to believe so to find it so.

 

[Petergee]

I was asking where one drew lines in deciding about selling things you didn’t approve of **or to people you didn’t approve of **(something I’d been talking about since post #56).

This topic has got zero to do with boycotting or shunning people you don’t approve of. No-one else but you has asserted that, and yes it is bizarre and offensive to bring it up in this context.

Then I was asked, in the context of mentioning food, “where I thought up these bizarre scenarios”?

And made the comment about German Jews (who had been denied necessities by storekeepers) which is an obvious example to somebody from my background.

Again: was that describing my opponent as a Nazi? No, I’d been asking where one drew lines, gave one of the end parameters as ‘food’ and, when asked by my opponent about where I’d got the ‘bizzarre scenario’ of not selling food, I’d mentioned a famous example.

Was it offensive? I think you’d have to be pretty determined to believe so to find it so.

On the contrary, I was determined NOT to conclude that. My first reaction was “Surely she can’t possibly be seriously comparing pro-life pharmacists to Nazis?” so I tried to think of some other explanation for you bringing up this apparently otherwise totally unrelated situation, and I asked you what you meant, then you confirmed that you really are saying that you can’t see where one can “draw a line” between pro-life pharmacists and Nazis.
Now you try to weasel out of your offensive insinuation with the excuse that this is not exactly the same thing as saying that pro-life pharmacists are Nazis. That’s technically correct, but you haven’t washed off the mud you’ve thrown.

 

[Philothea53]

You need to do your job. Fill the prescriptions, wait on the people. It is not your responsibility to “police” their morality. It is between them and God.

If you have that much trouble with something you will have that much contact with, you should probably rethink your career.

Gosh, that sounds a lot like “I’m personally opposed, but, …”

 

[Philothea53]

The customer does have a legal right to get their prescription filled even if the pharmacist has a moral oppostion to the product being dispensed.
No easy answers.

That sounds a lot like Planned Parenthood’s actual assertion that medical students should be forced to learn to do abortions and all doctors should have to do them. After all, it’s a woman’s right? Or so it was, until conscientious doctors refused and the law stepped in.

 

[Petergee]

That sounds a lot like Planned Parenthood’s actual assertion that medical students should be forced to learn to do abortions and all doctors should have to do them. After all, it’s a woman’s right? Or so it was, until conscientious doctors refused and the law stepped in.

Yes, a lot of people often think it won’t affect themselves if they concede to someone else’s assertion that they have a “right” to get something. They forget that the necessary corollary is that if someone has a “right” to obtain something, then someone else must have a “duty” to give it to them.

 

[rpp]

Ah, the problem with saying you’re not going to respond to somebody and putting them on your ignore list is . . . you miss farcical interpretations of what you’d been saying, unless somebody quotes them, of course.

Ok, if anybody is vaguely interested in my supposed recourse to calling my opponent a Nazi because I’d lost the argument, I’m afraid you have to follow the flow of what was being said.

I mentioned the German Jews in post #86.

Now, what ‘scenarios’ was I referring to?

The context is in the first two paragraphs of post #83, this is the second, ‘my’ paragraph:

In other words, I was asking where one drew lines in deciding about selling things you didn’t approve of or to people you didn’t approve of (something I’d been talking about since post #56).

Then I was asked, in the context of mentioning food, “where I thought up these bizarre scenarios”?

And made the comment about German Jews (who had been denied necessities by storekeepers) which is an obvious example to somebody from my background.

Again: was that describing my opponent as a Nazi? No, I’d been asking where one drew lines, gave one of the end parameters as ‘food’ and, when asked by my opponent about where I’d got the ‘bizzarre scenario’ of not selling food, I’d mentioned a famous example.

Was it offensive? I think you’d have to be pretty determined to believe so to find it so.

Much of what is written in this highly offensive post and absurd line of reasoning is not consistent with Catholic Moral teachings.

 

[jman507]

Ah, the problem with saying you’re not going to respond to somebody and putting them on your ignore list is . . . you miss farcical interpretations of what you’d been saying, unless somebody quotes them, of course.

Ok, if anybody is vaguely interested in my supposed recourse to calling my opponent a Nazi because I’d lost the argument, I’m afraid you have to follow the flow of what was being said.

I mentioned the German Jews in post #86.

Now, what ‘scenarios’ was I referring to?

The context is in the first two paragraphs of post #83, this is the second, ‘my’ paragraph:

In other words, I was asking where one drew lines in deciding about selling things you didn’t approve of or to people you didn’t approve of (something I’d been talking about since post #56).

Then I was asked, in the context of mentioning food, “where I thought up these bizarre scenarios”?

And made the comment about German Jews (who had been denied necessities by storekeepers) which is an obvious example to somebody from my background.

Again: was that describing my opponent as a Nazi? No, I’d been asking where one drew lines, gave one of the end parameters as ‘food’ and, when asked by my opponent about where I’d got the ‘bizzarre scenario’ of not selling food, I’d mentioned a famous example.

Was it offensive? I think you’d have to be pretty determined to believe so to find it so.

I guess one might draw the line of selling something in a situation where he feels he is going to sell something that is only used for murder. You might not think it’s murder, but that is irrelavant to someone making the judgment it is and is supposed to sell it.

 

[Footprints04]

I’d like to thank you all for the time you took to respond to my questions.

In general, I do see there there is two sides to the issue. That yes, I will be a pharmacist, and yes I do have a responsibility to others to supply them with medications to improve their health. So I am a professional and must be that for the public.

However, isn’t it inconsistant to seperate that part of my life from my moral/religious life? Do I just expect Christ to turn his back when I’m working? I chose a health career since I want to make a difference in peoples lives. No I do not believe in imposing beliefs on others, but I also know I have to be true to myself and who I am. So my choice to not dispense it should be my right as a person (just as patients have their rights), though I agree an employer should be aware of that fact.

And the fact of the matter remains, they can go to another pharmacy or have another pharmacist fill that particular perscription.

So my response to both of these sides is there are many many fine lines I’m going to have to work through. Yes, it is NOT easy. Nothing worth doing is “easy”.

This is why I don’t see avoiding pharmacy as a profession just because I won’t fufill a part of my “job” since I have moral objections. I think this is just taking an avoidant position, and that on the whole the profession of pharmacy consists of SO SO much more than simply filling contraceptives.

Patients with hypertension, diabetes, heart problems, hyperlipidemia, etc NEED their medications. It is a matter of life and death in this case, and with contraceptives, I can guarentee that no one is going to die without their oral contraceptive…except an innocent child.

So my decision to become a pharmacist was not taken lightly—I know the road is not straight and smooth, but in some ways that is why I chose it…and the fact that I made it this far, shows me that God will be my strength.

 

[Petergee]

Excellent post, Footprints.
Except that I think what you meant to say in your penultimate paragraph was “I can guarantee that it won’t kill anyone to go without their oral contraceptive…but it will probably kill an innocent child if I do supply it.”