Slog
News & ArtsMonday, February 2, 2009
Media A Question for Joel Connelly
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:43 PM
If a science teacher believes—you know, way deep down in her conscience—that the world was actually created in seven days by a big white-haired dude in the sky, and that dinosaurs walked the earth with people, and that the fossil record was planted by Satan to throw humans off—would the state be obligated to let them continue teaching science?
Because that's exactly what you're saying when you argue that people who think, falsely, that Plan B causes abortions have a right to keep their jobs as pharmacists even when they refuse to dispense prescribed medication.
(Additionally: Let's say I'm a pharmacist who thinks that instead of taking cholesterol-lowering drugs you should just eat better and exercise. Or that instead of taking birth control pills, you should use condoms because pills don't prevent STDs. Or that it's unfair for you to get Viagra for five bucks when your health insurance doesn't cover the Pill. Do I get a "conscience clause"?)
1
I guess I don't really see the connection. You can still teach science well and be a creationist, you don't believe in science or have faith in science, you study it. You can also teach whatever you want in your class as long as you also teach what the state/district tells you to teach.
I think your cholesterol-lowering drug example, or perhaps a pharmacist who believes that vitamins are a better treatment is a much more compelling argument than the crazies teaching science.
I think your cholesterol-lowering drug example, or perhaps a pharmacist who believes that vitamins are a better treatment is a much more compelling argument than the crazies teaching science.
2
That's a really shitty analogy. The analogy would be- even if the science teacher refused to teach evolution. I had an evangelical science teacher throughout middle school who still taught evolution. If the science teacher refused to teach something that was in the curriculum than of course that teacher should be fired, not if that teacher happens to believe in creationism. Last time I checked, it's illegal to fire someone for their beliefs, just as it is illegal to fire someone for their sexual orientation.
3
My High School biology teacher believed those things. He just didn't teach the evolution section of the biology text - at all. Almost none of my highschool or college classes have taught out a text book every chapter so I don't begrudge him for it, much.
He also trotted out formaldehyde jars with human fetuses at various stages of development.
The creationism bias was only slight, though obviously none of the students got a proper background in evolution to be functional voting adults if the issue were on a ballot. The anti-abortion rhetoric was off-the-chart.
The physics teacher at this high school (I didn't take physics) was also a YEC. I doubt he ever discussed astrophysics in class.
That's just the way it is out there in the world. Biology teachers are not going to lose their job for being YEC. Pharmacists aren't likely to lose theirs for being anti-choice.
He also trotted out formaldehyde jars with human fetuses at various stages of development.
The creationism bias was only slight, though obviously none of the students got a proper background in evolution to be functional voting adults if the issue were on a ballot. The anti-abortion rhetoric was off-the-chart.
The physics teacher at this high school (I didn't take physics) was also a YEC. I doubt he ever discussed astrophysics in class.
That's just the way it is out there in the world. Biology teachers are not going to lose their job for being YEC. Pharmacists aren't likely to lose theirs for being anti-choice.
5
Pharmacists have a professional duty to dispense drugs legally prescribed by a medical doctor. Period. If an individual cannot do that, he or she should not be a pharmacist. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with professional ethics.
6
Agreed that the science teacher analogy is only a good one if you take it to the next step. Which would be that despite evolution being a part of the mandated curriculum, the teacher should have a "conscience clause" where they can opt not to teach it if isn't in line with their faith.
A science teacher can believe in creationism all they want, as far as I'm concerned, if they teach the appropriate curriculum. Similarly, a pharmacist can be anti-birth control or anti-Plan B, as long as they do their freaking job and dispense it when a doctor prescribes it.
A science teacher can believe in creationism all they want, as far as I'm concerned, if they teach the appropriate curriculum. Similarly, a pharmacist can be anti-birth control or anti-Plan B, as long as they do their freaking job and dispense it when a doctor prescribes it.
7
@4
Or a fundie Jew or Muslim as a professional hot-dog eater.
If you have objections to the job, find a new job.
Or a fundie Jew or Muslim as a professional hot-dog eater.
If you have objections to the job, find a new job.
8
Erica,
The stronger arguement against moral crusader-pharmacists is this:
When adult women can obtain a morning after pill from anyone who, with or without a pharmacist's license, chooses to make them available, then conservative pharmacists can follow their conscience to their hearts' consent.
But as long as law-abiding adult citizens are forced to deal with pharmacists or other licensed distributors, those licensed distributors need to STFU. Or, if they can't accept that, forfeit their license.
The stronger arguement against moral crusader-pharmacists is this:
When adult women can obtain a morning after pill from anyone who, with or without a pharmacist's license, chooses to make them available, then conservative pharmacists can follow their conscience to their hearts' consent.
But as long as law-abiding adult citizens are forced to deal with pharmacists or other licensed distributors, those licensed distributors need to STFU. Or, if they can't accept that, forfeit their license.
9
This is one of those things where it seems like you're forcing their hand with a law, but in reality the law takes it out of their hands and makes it easier for them to rationalize what they sometimes half to do with a religious belief. (Often it has to be explained to them that way for them to see it like that, but it's a compelling argument.)
Short of that, then I agree with some other comments above: If you can't handle 'x' at your job, either find another profession or find some other way to practice what you love. For instance, not all pharmacists work at a counter. I'm sure there are plenty of them that make a fine living doing research for pharmaceutical companies (which, strangely, would be more ethical for them) or working at the FDA.
Short of that, then I agree with some other comments above: If you can't handle 'x' at your job, either find another profession or find some other way to practice what you love. For instance, not all pharmacists work at a counter. I'm sure there are plenty of them that make a fine living doing research for pharmaceutical companies (which, strangely, would be more ethical for them) or working at the FDA.
11
Your analogy is fucked up.
You can have a big screamy argument about whether "plan B causes abortions," but even if you win that semantic game, the pharmacist still has her view that plan B is an unnatural interference that she can't support, for whatever moral reason.
I don't understand why you compared this to teaching in the first place.
You can have a big screamy argument about whether "plan B causes abortions," but even if you win that semantic game, the pharmacist still has her view that plan B is an unnatural interference that she can't support, for whatever moral reason.
I don't understand why you compared this to teaching in the first place.
14
You know, I've actually been in this position. When I was getting my masters in ed (a terrible thing, don't bother with it) a woman who was a biblical literalist gave a presentation to a class on "The History of Education" about her struggle between being a creationist and teaching biology. It was awful, but the general conclusion was fairly helpful - teachers are not considered experts or scholars, legally, and therefore cannot present their own beliefs, hypotheses, etc as fact before students. I'm pretty sure the teacher vs. academic difference should apply to the pharmacist vs. scientist divide as well.
15
This whole thing is such a slippery slope. I'm sure soon I'll end up in the ER with rabies or something, only to find Christian Scientist doctor praying over me.
But the analogy is a bit extreme. To believe that egg fertilization is the moment human life begins - as opposed to womb implantation or [insert milestone here] - isn't nearly as crazy as believing the world is 7000 years old or whatever.
I don't give a crap about the whole "what is a life" debate, but at least these pharmacists are not misinformed about how Plan B (sometimes) works, as this post implies.
Is refusing to fill these prescriptions like refusing to work on the Sabbath? Well, I guess if you took a job called "Sabbath Day Worker" and then refused, it is.
But the analogy is a bit extreme. To believe that egg fertilization is the moment human life begins - as opposed to womb implantation or [insert milestone here] - isn't nearly as crazy as believing the world is 7000 years old or whatever.
I don't give a crap about the whole "what is a life" debate, but at least these pharmacists are not misinformed about how Plan B (sometimes) works, as this post implies.
Is refusing to fill these prescriptions like refusing to work on the Sabbath? Well, I guess if you took a job called "Sabbath Day Worker" and then refused, it is.
17
Couldn't she just have a gumball machine in the back room with the morning after pills in it and let people self serve...then she wouldn't be handing them out.
18
This is going to happen. I'm a little uncomfortable with laws forcing people to do things against their will like this (even if it is in their job description), so I think what we need to think about is not how to pass more laws, but what we as feminist activists can do to counter this trend.
If we can find out what areas are hardest hit by a lack of access and set up some kind of hotline, maybe we can have pharmacists deliver the pills to the people who need them.
If we can find out what areas are hardest hit by a lack of access and set up some kind of hotline, maybe we can have pharmacists deliver the pills to the people who need them.
19
great idea and if there is an emt that doesn't want to honor a living will we can set up a hotline of hit men to fulfill that old living will thing.
20
what if doctors could prescribe euthanasia kits for those seeking that type of death? or what if pharmacists could give kids vaccines? There are a lot of different things that pharmacists could potentially run into that people object to, so do we want to take away their right to refuse in those cases too?
21
My high school science teacher handled evolution so nicedly: He said, at the beginning of the class, "There are many different theories of why and how the world began. In my class, you're going to learn the theory of evolution". And that was the end of it. No whining, no Christian victimhood syndrome. We learned evolution - and that was in Western Iowa, land of Representative Steve King.
As far as the pharmacists go, I think this issue is such a great example of wanting to sort of have a principle, but not be willing to sacrifice for it. They made such a big deal about the girl at Columbine who supposedly died for her faith (that turned out to be a big lie) but they won't quit their jobs on principle. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Or whatever the applicable cliche is.
As far as the pharmacists go, I think this issue is such a great example of wanting to sort of have a principle, but not be willing to sacrifice for it. They made such a big deal about the girl at Columbine who supposedly died for her faith (that turned out to be a big lie) but they won't quit their jobs on principle. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Or whatever the applicable cliche is.
22
What a horrible analogy. I don't care what the hell my science teacher believes; if they do their job they do their job.
23
I don't think there's any disagreement about the science here. Plan B can prevent implantation of fetilized eggs which would count as abortion if you believe that fertilization is all that is required to make an egg human.
A more timely analogy would be a pharmacist who refuses to dispense fertility drugs to a woman who already seems to have too many kids. If I were a pharmacist I'd probably do that. They'd be welcome to drink old nun urine all the wanted, but they'd never get a pill out of me.
A more timely analogy would be a pharmacist who refuses to dispense fertility drugs to a woman who already seems to have too many kids. If I were a pharmacist I'd probably do that. They'd be welcome to drink old nun urine all the wanted, but they'd never get a pill out of me.
24
If science teachers were as plentiful and interchangeable as pharmacists, your analogy would be better. As it is, most folks can't choose to avoid a bad science teacher.
25
Better analogy is a doctor who's personal beliefs allow him only to prescribe homeopathic medicine.
Should he keep his job and yet be allowed to mislead about their health and treatment options? No.
Should he keep his job and yet be allowed to mislead about their health and treatment options? No.
26
If I'm Erica I've got to be worried about my job. There's going to be 100 unemployed journalists hitting the streets of Seattle soon, and the Stranger could, in a heartbeat, replace her with someone who can actually research a story and write it in a cogent, coherent fashion.
Or we'll continue to get this kind of nonsensical drivel.
Or we'll continue to get this kind of nonsensical drivel.
28
Connelly at one time was quite liberal. I am old enough to remember that back in 1970 I attended a peace rally around the time of Kent State. I am quite certain that Joel actually took spoke at the rally and in an angry tirade he refered to Nixon's daughter as "Tricia bitch." I know he has quite a distinctive voice so I do not think my memory is incorrect. I also recall that he worked with the Washington Democratic Council which was sort of the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party back then.
They published a newsletter called "The Pot Boiler" so if anyone can dig up a copy of that you may see a more enlightened Connelly than we see today. I think he just got rich and spoiled and lost perspective.
They published a newsletter called "The Pot Boiler" so if anyone can dig up a copy of that you may see a more enlightened Connelly than we see today. I think he just got rich and spoiled and lost perspective.
29
You get a "conscience clause" for all of those things, if your employer is willing to give you one. Pharmacists work for pharmacies, not for the Peoples' Republic of Erica C. Barnett.
An appropriate analogy might be a waiter who refuses, for whatever reason, to serve apple pie. That's an issue between him and his employer. The government shouldn't intervene with a state law "protecting" either pie-loving customers or pie-hating waiters.
And as other commenters have pointed out, there is nothing provably false or inconsistent about the belief that Plan B causes abortions, if you believe that human life begins at conception. And that issue is simply axiomatic; there is no naturally compelling definition of what consitutes "human life" for ethical purposes. Tell us, Erica, are you really unable to argue conditionally from premises other than your own, or do you just do this for show because you think it makes your arguments sound unassailable. (Hint: it doesn't.)
An appropriate analogy might be a waiter who refuses, for whatever reason, to serve apple pie. That's an issue between him and his employer. The government shouldn't intervene with a state law "protecting" either pie-loving customers or pie-hating waiters.
And as other commenters have pointed out, there is nothing provably false or inconsistent about the belief that Plan B causes abortions, if you believe that human life begins at conception. And that issue is simply axiomatic; there is no naturally compelling definition of what consitutes "human life" for ethical purposes. Tell us, Erica, are you really unable to argue conditionally from premises other than your own, or do you just do this for show because you think it makes your arguments sound unassailable. (Hint: it doesn't.)
30
Is there a list of pharms that refuse to give out Plan B? In the absence of laws preventing non-rational de facto government agents from exerting their petty authority over your right to purchase legally prescribed drugs, the usual remedies are boycotts and picketing. There's nothing wrong with a little light of day shed upon the crazies.
31
My high school biology teacher explained to us in great detail why getting an abortion is equivalent to killing a chicken. I love it.
32
It's hard to get all the way through a regular college (4-year, non-Bob Jones) and still be a creationist/biblical literalist. That's why these teacher stories here in the comments bum me out even more than the pharmacist stuff, since it's no surprise that you can get the Bachelor's and still be a sexist.
33
Yeah they can teach science if they believe in creationism. They just have to teach science, not creationism. And their job performance should be judged by how well their students understand the material, so if they teach it poorly, deliberately or otherwise, they get removed from that classroom and the students have teachers who teach. It doesn't matter what the teachers believe as a matter of conscience. What matters is how well they teach.
But...what @8 said. If the government wants to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill certain prescriptions, then those prescriptions need to be made available over the counter, or by the same doctor who prescribed them.
But...what @8 said. If the government wants to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill certain prescriptions, then those prescriptions need to be made available over the counter, or by the same doctor who prescribed them.
34
David Wright @ 29:
Pharmacists are licensed by the state. So ultimately they will do what the state tells them to do. If they don't like that, they can leave the state. And they can take your sorry right-wing ass with them.
Pharmacists are licensed by the state. So ultimately they will do what the state tells them to do. If they don't like that, they can leave the state. And they can take your sorry right-wing ass with them.
35
If a pharmacist wants to restrict whom they serve and what they provide to the public, they should consent to a restricted license that classifies them distinctly and differently from other pharmacists who provide full, non-discriminating service to every patient and legal prescription.
If you elect to function in a diminished capacity based on your chosen bias or bigotry, you should accept a restricted designation in your title, license and function.
If you want to discriminate against a doctor's prescription, a medical treatment or a sick patient, you should accept the same, extreme levels of discrimination against you by the doctors, the state, the patients, the public and, of course, your employer.
Stating that you have the right to discriminate against others, but that they don't have the right to discriminate against you is blatant hypocrisy and imperial arrogance.
Your choice to live a life narrowly defined by extreme, religious dogma does not somehow magically entitle you to Royal Prerogative over the lives of others.
You will please forgive those of us who don't want to live in a society that is sorted by religious dogma into class and caste. Some of us actually do learn from history...including modern history. No Dark Ages for us...thank you very much.
BTW, to those who have argued that private, christian schools offer a fair and balanced approach to teaching creationism along with evolution, you're liars, and you know it. The great "white flight" from public schools that gave rise to the "christian" schools in the late 60s, early 70s and 80s have a well-documented history of having "edited" the public school books that they used in their early years by tearing page and chapters from science and history books and by redacting words, phrases and whole paragraphs from the first books that they used from the public schools. By the late 70s and early 80s, conservative, religious publishers began writing their own versions of science and history that conformed strictly to their own flavor of religious dogma and political persuasion. These books are "fair and balanced" in much the same way that Fox News is "fair and balanced."
That having been said...
I do not support evolution being taught as a universal truth. Evolution is an interesting and amazing scientific theory. Evolution is not and should not be approached as religious dogma. Evolution, well, evolves. It is subject to change over time in response to new knowledge and understanding. Would that its religious opponents did the same.
I do not support the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific theory because creationism by any other name is still religious belief. It is not science. No, it's not. And, I seriously doubt that its proponents would accept a simple, honest interpretation of intelligent design that allows creationism to be taught as equal and parallel to some theory that all life on Earth was deposited here by aliens, either by their brilliant design or as a byproduct of Earth being their favorite landfill and litter box as they traveled this part of the universe.
Instead, I do strongly support a curriculum, especially in high school, that would teach creationism as part of a much broader study of world religions, cultures and societies.
Religion is not science. Science is not religion.
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.
More...
If you elect to function in a diminished capacity based on your chosen bias or bigotry, you should accept a restricted designation in your title, license and function.
If you want to discriminate against a doctor's prescription, a medical treatment or a sick patient, you should accept the same, extreme levels of discrimination against you by the doctors, the state, the patients, the public and, of course, your employer.
Stating that you have the right to discriminate against others, but that they don't have the right to discriminate against you is blatant hypocrisy and imperial arrogance.
Your choice to live a life narrowly defined by extreme, religious dogma does not somehow magically entitle you to Royal Prerogative over the lives of others.
You will please forgive those of us who don't want to live in a society that is sorted by religious dogma into class and caste. Some of us actually do learn from history...including modern history. No Dark Ages for us...thank you very much.
BTW, to those who have argued that private, christian schools offer a fair and balanced approach to teaching creationism along with evolution, you're liars, and you know it. The great "white flight" from public schools that gave rise to the "christian" schools in the late 60s, early 70s and 80s have a well-documented history of having "edited" the public school books that they used in their early years by tearing page and chapters from science and history books and by redacting words, phrases and whole paragraphs from the first books that they used from the public schools. By the late 70s and early 80s, conservative, religious publishers began writing their own versions of science and history that conformed strictly to their own flavor of religious dogma and political persuasion. These books are "fair and balanced" in much the same way that Fox News is "fair and balanced."
That having been said...
I do not support evolution being taught as a universal truth. Evolution is an interesting and amazing scientific theory. Evolution is not and should not be approached as religious dogma. Evolution, well, evolves. It is subject to change over time in response to new knowledge and understanding. Would that its religious opponents did the same.
I do not support the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific theory because creationism by any other name is still religious belief. It is not science. No, it's not. And, I seriously doubt that its proponents would accept a simple, honest interpretation of intelligent design that allows creationism to be taught as equal and parallel to some theory that all life on Earth was deposited here by aliens, either by their brilliant design or as a byproduct of Earth being their favorite landfill and litter box as they traveled this part of the universe.
Instead, I do strongly support a curriculum, especially in high school, that would teach creationism as part of a much broader study of world religions, cultures and societies.
Religion is not science. Science is not religion.
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.
36
So if a Fundie "Pharmacist" can deny you Plan B . . .
Can a Christian Scientist "Pharmacist" deny you antibiotics?
Can a Scientologist "Pharmacist" deny you anti-depressants?
If so, will they still get paid? Do they get to keep their job?
It's simple. The job of the pharmacist is to give people the drugs their doctors prescribe. If you can't do your job you have to find a different one.
Can a Christian Scientist "Pharmacist" deny you antibiotics?
Can a Scientologist "Pharmacist" deny you anti-depressants?
If so, will they still get paid? Do they get to keep their job?
It's simple. The job of the pharmacist is to give people the drugs their doctors prescribe. If you can't do your job you have to find a different one.
37
Huh? Pharmacists can already administer vaccines. And if one of them refuses to administer a vaccine, perhaps due to the false belief that vaccines cause autism, that pharmacist should be fired.
Plan B prevents ovulation. It no more causes "abortions" than a regular birth control pill.
What is provable is that a woman's own body "kills" more fertilized eggs than any form of birth control. Natural family planning, aka the rhythm method, is a veritable holocaust of innocent widdle baybees.
...what if pharmacists could give kids vaccines? There are a lot of different things that pharmacists could potentially run into that people object to, so do we want to take away their right to refuse in those cases too?
Huh? Pharmacists can already administer vaccines. And if one of them refuses to administer a vaccine, perhaps due to the false belief that vaccines cause autism, that pharmacist should be fired.
And as other commenters have pointed out, there is nothing provably false or inconsistent about the belief that Plan B causes abortions...
Plan B prevents ovulation. It no more causes "abortions" than a regular birth control pill.
What is provable is that a woman's own body "kills" more fertilized eggs than any form of birth control. Natural family planning, aka the rhythm method, is a veritable holocaust of innocent widdle baybees.
38
This whole "conscience" argument is so fallacious that it makes me tired. There are a whole host of reasons why some women should not get pregnant and may be prescribed birth control besides simply controlling their fertility. The pharmacist is not in a position to know whether the woman has severe endometriosis that will cripple her with pain if she attempts to get pregnant, or whether pregnancy might kill her. A woman may be prescribed birth control pills to regulate her menstrual cycle, or control heavy bleeding. It's not the pharmacist's job to know that; it's the doctor's. It is the pharmacist's job to dispense the medication legally prescribed, and to watch for drug interactions with other prescribed medications.
Any pharmacy that allows the pharmacists to pick and choose which medications to dispense should be required by law to display signs indicating that they are a limited-service pharmacy. They should have to put it on all advertising and signage, so that people know they can expect to be morally judged for their legally-prescribed medications at that venue.
Any pharmacy that allows the pharmacists to pick and choose which medications to dispense should be required by law to display signs indicating that they are a limited-service pharmacy. They should have to put it on all advertising and signage, so that people know they can expect to be morally judged for their legally-prescribed medications at that venue.
39
keshmeshi @38:
The difference between Plan B and the pill is that Plan B is also effective AFTER ovulation in that it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting into the womb. The pill theoretically could do the same thing since it's basically the same drugs, but if you are on the pill, the likelihood of fertilization is very low, so this controversial scenario is unlikely. Thus the relative lack of nut-job outrage over the pill.
The difference between Plan B and the pill is that Plan B is also effective AFTER ovulation in that it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting into the womb. The pill theoretically could do the same thing since it's basically the same drugs, but if you are on the pill, the likelihood of fertilization is very low, so this controversial scenario is unlikely. Thus the relative lack of nut-job outrage over the pill.
40
Erica,
Thanks for calling Connelly out on this. I like your piece here - and yes it is a slippery slope - pharmacists don't get to decide what's best for us - based on their moral beliefs or otherwise.
Thanks for calling Connelly out on this. I like your piece here - and yes it is a slippery slope - pharmacists don't get to decide what's best for us - based on their moral beliefs or otherwise.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (40) RSS