Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, April 18, 2009
News Do Your Job
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Maybe this anti-gay-marriage county clerk in Iowa...
"This is putting us in a very, very difficult position here," Wayne County Recorder Angela Horton said Thursday in an interview. "But sometimes you have to put aside your personal beliefs, your religious beliefs, when you're doing a job you've sworn under oath to provide."
...should have a little chat with anti-birth-control pharmacists.
1
I know a number of people near the business of civil marriage (though not in Iowa) who feel the same way. I know they're generally good people, and I hope that once this woman starts to actually see gay couples coming and getting their marriage licenses, her attitude will start to change. I think it would be very hard to see joyful gay about-to-be-weds coming in with the same joys and terrors as any couple and hold on for too long to old prejudices. I hope, anyway.
2
Amen to that one, brother!
And send that out to the anti-insemination medical practitioners and the anti pavilion pavilion keepers, etc.
One of the things They say about Us that's true is that we blur the line between tolerance and acceptance. It's true. We do.
But They see absolutely no line between acceptance and outright endorsement.
And send that out to the anti-insemination medical practitioners and the anti pavilion pavilion keepers, etc.
One of the things They say about Us that's true is that we blur the line between tolerance and acceptance. It's true. We do.
But They see absolutely no line between acceptance and outright endorsement.
3
Doctors swore an oath to provide non-emergency services in regardless of their convictions? I was unaware.
4
Hi Angela: That's a good job you have there, and in this economy, you're lucky to have it. I know it's terrible that your state's constitution grants the homos more rights than you think they deserve, but if you think that constitutes "a very, very difficult position," I have news for you.
5
Kinda like asking 'journalists' to put aside their personal beliefs and report the news in context....
yeah right.
yeah right.
7
Meanwhile, at our very own U District farmer's market, bible-thumpers (the guy was literally thumping his bible) wearing anti-homo t-shirts.
8
I think a better plan would be for all the various conservative religious groups to segregate themselves into separate parts of the U.S. and then seal the borders around their respective regions, so that none of them has to have any contact with, or provide any service to, or conduct any sort of business with whatsoever, or even live remotely near anybody who does not share their same convictions and beliefs. The Baptists can have Georgia, the Catholics can have, let's say, Maryland, the non-denominational Protestant mega-churches can divvy up Colorado, and the Mormons keep their Utah. Fred Phelps and his followers can be loaded onto a shuttle and jettisoned into space, as they apparently hate the rest of humanity in its entirety. Let those who remain in their segregated regions abandon Constitutional law and set up theocracies according to their belief systems, and then they can all just shut the fuck up and keep the fuck out of everyone else's business.
9
@3, shut the fuck up. birth control is prescribed by doctors, and should be given, regardless of what pharmacists think. it's not at all what you're trying to make it out to be.
while i think this girl's position isn't exactly enlightened, it must be said, she's doing her job and not letting her personal beliefs interfere. there's something to be said for that. ESPECIALLY TO PHARMACISTS.
while i think this girl's position isn't exactly enlightened, it must be said, she's doing her job and not letting her personal beliefs interfere. there's something to be said for that. ESPECIALLY TO PHARMACISTS.
10
If nurses have to empty bedpans full of shit then I guess clerks should have to give licenses to homosexuals.
11
@7 I saw that. It was really disappointing. I wanted to walk up to the kid holding the big sign and wearing the "FEAR GOD" t-shirt and say, "you know, according to your Bible, the two most important commandments are love God and love one another. How is what you're doing accomplishing either of those commandments?"
Thankfully, everyone seemed to be ignoring them. I felt bad for the Real Change vendors, because those fundies hustled them out of their usual spots.
Thankfully, everyone seemed to be ignoring them. I felt bad for the Real Change vendors, because those fundies hustled them out of their usual spots.
12
PATRONIZE CVS PHARMACY!!
CVS has a company policy REQUIRING pharmacists to dispense birth control and morning after pills, regardless of their personal beliefs.
CVS has a company policy REQUIRING pharmacists to dispense birth control and morning after pills, regardless of their personal beliefs.
13
@6: Freudian slip. Doctors have oaths regarding their obligations, I'm not sure Pharmacists have anything similar.
What is it about Pharmacists that prevents them from making judgment calls on the job? Because they form a public service? Because their trade is in some way regulated by the government?
Is the expectation that Pharmacists would essentially be like vending machines, getting prescriptions in and churning out medicine? Why not replace them with vending machines?
Here's another way to look at it: if someone gets an advanced degree to become a Pharmacist under the assumption that they would be able to run their pharmacy in accordance with their beliefs (as at the time, that was a reasonable assumption) only to find they are unable to perform their duties due to their convictions after they have graduated with their degree (due to changing of the interpretation of the law), the state has essentially taken away their livelihood. Really, I think the government has the same responsibility to repay the cost of their schooling in the same way it would pay someone for land taken by eminent domain.
The reality is, I think most people want medical professionals to have the right to exercise freedom of conscience. If a plastic surgeon wanted to fix kids with cleft palates instead of giving boob jobs, good for him. If a fertility doc wants to turn down the octomom, good for him. If a pharmacist isn't willing to sell medicine based on a suspicion the prescription has been forged by a junkie looking for a fix, good for him. I can't think of any compelling reason, legal or otherwise, why abortifacients fall in a different category.
What is it about Pharmacists that prevents them from making judgment calls on the job? Because they form a public service? Because their trade is in some way regulated by the government?
Is the expectation that Pharmacists would essentially be like vending machines, getting prescriptions in and churning out medicine? Why not replace them with vending machines?
Here's another way to look at it: if someone gets an advanced degree to become a Pharmacist under the assumption that they would be able to run their pharmacy in accordance with their beliefs (as at the time, that was a reasonable assumption) only to find they are unable to perform their duties due to their convictions after they have graduated with their degree (due to changing of the interpretation of the law), the state has essentially taken away their livelihood. Really, I think the government has the same responsibility to repay the cost of their schooling in the same way it would pay someone for land taken by eminent domain.
The reality is, I think most people want medical professionals to have the right to exercise freedom of conscience. If a plastic surgeon wanted to fix kids with cleft palates instead of giving boob jobs, good for him. If a fertility doc wants to turn down the octomom, good for him. If a pharmacist isn't willing to sell medicine based on a suspicion the prescription has been forged by a junkie looking for a fix, good for him. I can't think of any compelling reason, legal or otherwise, why abortifacients fall in a different category.
14
Some people equate "freedom of religion" with dictating how others must live their lives. Others are just hateful and spiteful because they are jealous. Jealous that they don't have the guts to live their lives and stand up to bullies and liars.
15
@13: Actually, Josh (may I call you Josh?), as the daughter of a pharmacist who has spent most of her adult life working side by side with him in his store I can tell you that there was never an assumption that he would be able to decide when to fill and when not to fill prescriptions based on a personal moral code (and he graduated in 1962). Let me give you an example: there are plenty of times when a patient comes in with a prescription for, let's just say, a very strong antibiotic when they are suffering from the common cold. My father and I both know that this sort of misuse of antibiotics is helping to create stronger "super viruses" and he hates filling them. Usually, when a patient comes in with one he will call and consult with their doctor (making sure they really really want to dispense this medication, alerting them to the possible risks, etc). However, if the doctor gives it the go ahead, he has no choice but to fill the RX. In fact, if he refuses to, he can and will be sued and lose his license (and thus his livelihood). When it comes to something like a "suspicious" prescription, the same rules apply: call the doctor and make sure he really meant to dispense the RX, try and figure out if he's sure that's for the best, etc. He, as a pharmacist, has no legal standing to argue with a doctor's direct orders since the assumption is that a doctor is more knowledgeable and involved in his patient's disease and its treatment. So, I agree with your point, birth control and Plan B should not be exempted from these rules.
As for Ms. Angela: I might not agree with your point of view but at least you realize that you have sworn to uphold your duty. I'm sure there are certain clerks who don't like marrying interracial couples or young couples or couples of a different faith system than them or interfaith couples, but they also have to do so. If you don't like it you can stop doing the work and find something that appeals to you more (clearly, Ms. Angela Horton has decided that she likes her work enough to do what she is legally obligated to do and good for her.) Also, I totally agree with you @1!
More...
As for Ms. Angela: I might not agree with your point of view but at least you realize that you have sworn to uphold your duty. I'm sure there are certain clerks who don't like marrying interracial couples or young couples or couples of a different faith system than them or interfaith couples, but they also have to do so. If you don't like it you can stop doing the work and find something that appeals to you more (clearly, Ms. Angela Horton has decided that she likes her work enough to do what she is legally obligated to do and good for her.) Also, I totally agree with you @1!
16
Oh, and @13: They do take oaths, very similar to the Hippocratic Oath. They also swear to follow all of the guidelines set up by the Board (whether they are in existence now or if they are created in the future).
PS: My dad graduated from a Catholic pharmacy school and he still was taught that he had to dispense whatever he was instructed to regardless of personal moral beliefs.
PS: My dad graduated from a Catholic pharmacy school and he still was taught that he had to dispense whatever he was instructed to regardless of personal moral beliefs.
17
@8: That sounds very nice on the surface but as we all know right wing nuts churn out just as many queer kids as everyone else... Possibly more actually, as I would suspect they tend to be bigger breeders than the rest of us. Just imagine the kinds of human rights offenses that would occur within their borders... Oh wait, we don't have to imagine. We can just look at places like Pakistan.
Now if we made sure we sterilized every last one of them before we send them off.... Well... Then you may have something, albeit a little bit Germany circa 1930's...
Damnit! Goddamn conscience always getting in the way :(
Now if we made sure we sterilized every last one of them before we send them off.... Well... Then you may have something, albeit a little bit Germany circa 1930's...
Damnit! Goddamn conscience always getting in the way :(
18
@13: Sorry, just one more thing: Any pharmacist who has followed his oath and kept up with modern medical practice and principle knows that neither birth control or Plan B are "abortion pills". Both of these pills PREVENT conception, neither has any effect once conception has taken place.
19
Jen:
You make a very good point. It also makes me not want to be a Pharmacist, and does sorta present the, "why not really replace you with a vending machine?" Heck, my grandma gets her meds in the mail, and the re-ordering all happens over the phone with their automated system.
It's essentially the same problem with the UK NHS: the system prescribes the reaction (and what the state will pay for) in most cases, essentially reducing the ability of the doctors to make their own judgment. As a result, most doctors would not recommend their profession to their children. [Granted, this is my understanding based on limited data, I could be as ignorant about this as the pharmacy profession]
You make a very good point. It also makes me not want to be a Pharmacist, and does sorta present the, "why not really replace you with a vending machine?" Heck, my grandma gets her meds in the mail, and the re-ordering all happens over the phone with their automated system.
It's essentially the same problem with the UK NHS: the system prescribes the reaction (and what the state will pay for) in most cases, essentially reducing the ability of the doctors to make their own judgment. As a result, most doctors would not recommend their profession to their children. [Granted, this is my understanding based on limited data, I could be as ignorant about this as the pharmacy profession]
20
The thing is, these conservative pharmacists with their strongly held beliefs, can certainly do what generations of pharmacists used to do: Open their own store, where they can fill or not fill as they please.
But that's too hard, and downright inconvenient - those big chain pharmacies will eat their lunch! So it's easier, and feels so good, for them to be comfortable victims. That seems to be the American Way anymore, at least for conservatives.
But that's too hard, and downright inconvenient - those big chain pharmacies will eat their lunch! So it's easier, and feels so good, for them to be comfortable victims. That seems to be the American Way anymore, at least for conservatives.
21
@20: Actually, even if you own your own pharmacy you are still required by law to fill legal prescriptions that come your way, including ones for things like Plan B and birth control. If you do not you can be sued by the patient and investigated and sanctioned by the state board. What conservative pharmacists can do is either a) choose a profession that is more in line with their particular moral code or b) go to work in (or open) a pharmacy that has at least two pharmacists on duty so that you do not have to fill prescriptions you are not comfortable filling. Many big chains allow pharmacists to pass prescriptions they have a moral objection to onto their co-pharmacist, so as long as there is another licensed practitioner there they can get away with (sort of) breaking the law.
22
How do the clerks get away calling this "civil disobedience"?
They are civil servants themselves...they can't protest their own civil service. The President can't picket the White House...right?
If they disagree, let them quit...then picket or write leaflets.
They are civil servants themselves...they can't protest their own civil service. The President can't picket the White House...right?
If they disagree, let them quit...then picket or write leaflets.
23
While I'm glad Ms Horton is actually doing the job she was hired to do, I bet she will blabbing all over her mega-church about how "Christians" are being persecuted by those evil homos.
24
@19- I had this same conversation with a table full of pharmacists last night and we all came to one thing we could agree on, despite many disagreements. Pharmacists are very necessary because of their expertise regarding pharmaceuticals, not because of their expert moral judgment. Pharmacists play a valuable role in catching drug interactions and helping prevent harmful side effects by collaborating with doctors. Their job is to judge the factual, pharmacological outcomes likely with the drugs prescribed, not to judge the likely moral outcomes for the patient.
25
@ 13 -- it is not the pharmacist's job to decide whether to give a patient a medication or not, that decision is made by the FDA regarding the drug's safety and by a physician regarding its use in treatment of a particular patient. The pharmacist's job is to answer questions regarding medications, prevent harmful drug interactions, communicate with insurance providers, and dispense prescriptions as written by a doctor. If a pharmacist is personally incapable of fulfilling these basic job duties, they should be fired.
26
I'm from the UK, and this very issue has come up as a legal challenge to our Sexual Orientation (Goods and Services) provisions, which forbid discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation.
In brief: a registrar in Islington - Lilian Ladele - objected to performing civil partnerships, and was fired. She sued her employer, Islington Council (with the backing of ultramorons the Christian Institute - see here for more on their idea of fun times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_I…) on the grounds of harassment and direct and idirect religious discrimination. The case turned on whether it was reasonable for her to expect her employer to make an exception for her and allow her to opt out of performing same-sex ceremonies because of her religious beliefs. The tribunal found in her favour, but this was swiftly overturned on appeal, as was expected. Islington followed up, courageously, with a Charter For LGB Rights in the wake of the case: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/… .
Here in the UK the legal picture around equality is gradually becoming clearer, though the tensions between LGBT rights and religious freedoms remain, locally, unresolved. International Human Rights law, however, makes a clear distinction between freedom of belief - an absolute right - and freedom of expression, which is a limited human right. Freedom of expression is curtailed precisely where expression of beliefs would limit other rights, as in this case: the registrar's expression of her belief limited same sex couples' right to access services without discrimination.
Fortunately, the woman Dan quotes seems to understand the difference between her beliefs and their expression - it's an important distinction often lost as religious extremists propose that exercising LGBT rights impinges on religious freedom. It's always worth reminding them that religious freedom is the freedom to believe, but not necessarily to express that belief.
More...
In brief: a registrar in Islington - Lilian Ladele - objected to performing civil partnerships, and was fired. She sued her employer, Islington Council (with the backing of ultramorons the Christian Institute - see here for more on their idea of fun times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_I…) on the grounds of harassment and direct and idirect religious discrimination. The case turned on whether it was reasonable for her to expect her employer to make an exception for her and allow her to opt out of performing same-sex ceremonies because of her religious beliefs. The tribunal found in her favour, but this was swiftly overturned on appeal, as was expected. Islington followed up, courageously, with a Charter For LGB Rights in the wake of the case: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/… .
Here in the UK the legal picture around equality is gradually becoming clearer, though the tensions between LGBT rights and religious freedoms remain, locally, unresolved. International Human Rights law, however, makes a clear distinction between freedom of belief - an absolute right - and freedom of expression, which is a limited human right. Freedom of expression is curtailed precisely where expression of beliefs would limit other rights, as in this case: the registrar's expression of her belief limited same sex couples' right to access services without discrimination.
Fortunately, the woman Dan quotes seems to understand the difference between her beliefs and their expression - it's an important distinction often lost as religious extremists propose that exercising LGBT rights impinges on religious freedom. It's always worth reminding them that religious freedom is the freedom to believe, but not necessarily to express that belief.
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 (26) RSS