change of mind
A bill in Texas state legislature would protect pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions based on their opposition to abortion. Most of the prescriptions are for emergency contraceptives and birth control. Ten states are looking to expand "conscience clauses" for pharmacists. from NPR
When I first heard about this situation I took my basic ACLUnik stance and have been appalled that the argument is even taking place each time its come up in the news since then. Until last night.
Nothing has changed about my opinions in the specifics of this case, but it suddenly occurred to me how scary it is for a society to be telling a citizen to ignore her conscience.
In the history of humanity, it seems to me that the majority of instances where someone has said, "My conscience dictates...." have been for the sake of good. Those words are rarely followed by "that I must kill, must harm, must wage war."*
When life places a decision of conscience in your path you have three choices. You can ignore your conscience; you can listen to your conscience and walk away; or you can listen to your conscience and stand your ground.
I haven't changed my opinions about the right for people to get these prescriptions. But I know I want all people to listen to, not ignore, their consciences.
*Dr. Kevorkian is possibly an exception here. In thinking about this aspect I didn't think of Dr. K. right off, but George from Of Mice and Men.
When I first heard about this situation I took my basic ACLUnik stance and have been appalled that the argument is even taking place each time its come up in the news since then. Until last night.
Nothing has changed about my opinions in the specifics of this case, but it suddenly occurred to me how scary it is for a society to be telling a citizen to ignore her conscience.
In the history of humanity, it seems to me that the majority of instances where someone has said, "My conscience dictates...." have been for the sake of good. Those words are rarely followed by "that I must kill, must harm, must wage war."*
When life places a decision of conscience in your path you have three choices. You can ignore your conscience; you can listen to your conscience and walk away; or you can listen to your conscience and stand your ground.
I haven't changed my opinions about the right for people to get these prescriptions. But I know I want all people to listen to, not ignore, their consciences.
*Dr. Kevorkian is possibly an exception here. In thinking about this aspect I didn't think of Dr. K. right off, but George from Of Mice and Men.
posted by sparklestone at 7:51 AM
12 Comments:
One of the reasons that I respect you so much and that I love living with you is because you don't turn off your thinker, even after you've figured out something. And even more, you keep your thinker connected to your heart, so you think about things in a big-picture, what's the best for everyone kind of way.
And you challenge me. I can't disagree with you, Love of my Life, that the world would be much better if those of us who can hear our consciences would act on them. And that if it were the norm that we act on our consciences, maybe more people would learn to listen to themselves. But what do we do when my conscience completely disagrees with another's? Isn't that what this Texas case is about? If we make health policy based on conscience, then who's conscience trumps?
Wow, this is a much more fun conversation than talking about you living on the street...
I agree with you in a limited sense – it would be a wonderful world if everyone followed their conscience. The problem, as Miss Kate points out, is that at some point, someone’s conscience will be in conflict with someone else’s. What happens then?
In an extreme example, what if a bus driver feels deeply that blacks are subhuman (it seems bizarre that it’s not hard to imagine someone feeling this way – the Klan is still around after all) and should either not be allowed on the bus at all, or relegated to a particular section. If we were allowed to choose how we perform our jobs based on our conscience, then he would be permitted to ban blacks (or Asians or women for that matter) from his bus.
On a related topic – we’re having much the same debate in Canada in regards to gay marriages. Some have proposed legalizing it, but allowing individual priests/clergy to decide whether or not they will perform the ceremony. The same counter-argument applies – how does the right to discriminate based on sexual preference differ from discrimination based on colour or gender?
(aren’t you impressed that I haven’t mentioned foul odours, corn, or other noxious substances? Wait…I just did, didn’t I? DOH!)
I at least want dialogue. The dissenting pharmacists have spoken out as to why their consciences forbid them this and their reasons are based on a belief that biologically these pills commit murder. I disagree, but I always hope (vainly?) that there is room to discuss. Does your store sell condoms? Is that murder? There can be some mediation, no? "Ignore your conscience" allows for no room to discuss, to grow.
Some instances, perhaps this one, can probably have no dialogue. The Captain's bus driver is probably such a case. These are the people who Eleanor Roosevelt was talking about when she said, "Just kick those fuckers in the nards."
I agree - discussion about (almost) any subject is good. And I agree that people should be allowed to make choices based on conscience in most circumstances (I read about kids who have been suspended because they refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag, or refuse to recite the Lord’s Prayer in school. They are being punished for a choice based on conscience). On the other hand, as you point out, are not open for debate (such as racism).
The pharma-care question is an interesting one as it seems to fall into that grey area in between. The rights of the pharmacists have to be taken into account, but what about the rights of the people who have made the choice, based on their own conscience, to use these drugs? It is easy enough in major urban centres to simply choose another pharmacy where they will dispense the drug, or even wait until another pharmacist comes on shift, but what about in rural counties where there only is one pharmacist? Does that person get to make the choice for the entire county? If not, how can they be forced to dispense a drug that others are not?
It will be interesting to see what happens when the new Pope is chosen – for all that America isn’t predominantly catholic, it seems that many of the views of the American conservatives align with those of the catholic church (on abortion, birth control etc). I’ve seen many cardinals talking about the hard-line conservative nature of John Paul II, and how the church has to update it’s stance to appeal to modern times. Will the views of the pro-lifers change with the church’s?
I agree with everything you say, underpants. Even if your name is underpants.
My gig here is that I am working hard to see the other point of view. In this case, in the rural areas with only one pharmacist I agree it would be very crappy for the person trying to get their presciption filled if that pharmacist said no. But the one doctor in the community has the right to say, 'I cannot prescribe these, you must find a different doctor.' We hope that this doctor will be forthcoming with that information right off the bat. But they have that right and the patient may need to find a different doctor in a different county. The pharmacist wants that same right.
I have and will march for the right of patients to get these pills. But I am scared of forcing people into a "I am just doing my job" mentality.
Isn't there a point in medical school when they tell internists "Look, someday you'll have to lube up your fingers and stick them up some stranger's ass. If you can't do that, this isn't the profession for you."
Hence, I'm a librarian.
Sparks - fair enough - I was a philosophy minor at uni so like playing the devils advocate from time to time.
Sylow - I know people who do that with absolutely no training at all.
There's nothing quite like the feeling of being involved in a serious topical and universal discussion when three of the participants have about an equal chance of mentioning a lubed finger in someone's ass. (hint: MissKate is not one of them)
You win this round, Sylow.
No training? Did you have to pay them?
I wasn't trying to kill the discussion. I just think if you're going to be a pharmacist it should be because you wanna be a pharmacist, and not because you've got some agenda.
I don't go around telling patrons they can't read anti-semitic literature because of my conscience.
I don't know what you sickos are talking about - I meant that I know some people who are librarians with no training.
Sheesh...people on the internet these days.
I agree with you Sylow. But I am not sure we always get to choose to opt out of these types of dilemmas. Maybe these pharmacists did have that choice and now are feeling the effect of that. I am trying to look at this as if this is a dilemma of conscience (which it might not be) and one that they couldn't predict (which maybe they could have).
I am doing this not so much for the practicalities of this particular situation, but as a lesson for myself to really try to see a group of people in a different light. Because I really went into this with months of thinking "stupid, fuckin' pharmacists...why don't you work at Blockbuster" and maybe they should. But I want to try to see it a little more sympathetically, which is not my strong point.
OK, as usual, I've got the job of bringing this discussion back to polite society. Or at least post-adolescent society.
Yes, Sylow, I am completely down with your point. I have heard BB's "You will be asked to help someone find some information that is abhorrent to you and if you can't do that, then leave now," speech at least 3 times. That speech is how I knew that I was in the right place and walking down the right path. Maybe those pharmacists didn't get that speech when they started school. Maybe future classes of pharmacists will start getting that speech.
And this particular case is a topic about which I have incredibly strong feelings -- no doubt, right? For all the anonymity that blogging allows us, there's still that incredibly public aspect of this forum that is going to force me to hold back here. I am not one who holds back... Sparkle and I marched together to demonstrate our support for an individual's right to be able to choose.
Well, I guess that's it. I didn't march for the right for a woman to have an abortion. I marched to keep the protection that NO ONE CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY OWN BODY OR MY OWN CONSCIENCE. So dammit, I suppose I was marching for that Texas pharmacist too.
Shit. Sometimes being a liberal really bites my ass. My mother in law tells me I'm not liberal, I'm radical.
I wish.
Post a Comment
<< Home