When Conscience Clauses Can Kill

This article, specifically.

So what is the general consensus? What the pharmacist did went too far, but I'm not about to say that people should be forced to do things that go against what they hold to be true. Such is cruel.

I'll answer the first comment on the article:

I'd say yes. Though this raises other issues, it would still be wrong to brush them off.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

I got a small problem with that. You work at a Pharmacy, filling prescritpions. You don't like that a few medications could be used for [whatever doesn't suit you]? If it's such a moral quagmire for you, simply quit your job on moral objections. You'll sleep better at night.

...however, there will still be bills to pay.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Kind of a dumb example, since Jews believe Gentiles are only bound by Noahide Law, not Mosaic.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

I'd ask why a Jewish guy is working as a waiter at a place that regularly serves pork in the first place if he's taking things that seriously. There are other low-wage generic jobs to pay the bills and it seems a needless conflict. A professional job with highly focused training that performs other crucial tasks to protect people's lives is quite another matter and can't just be tossed out for the sake of avoidance.

And that for semantics.

Mandating that someone perform duties that violate their conscience is a very, very dangerous slope though, and not one I'd be willing to threaten.

edited 8th Feb '11 12:37:21 PM by Pykrete

Conscientious Clauses are bullshit. These people should just get fired. If they're not willing to do their job, let them take orders at a fast food restaurant.

As for the woman in the article, she should be charged with criminal negligence.

My other signature is a Gundam.

The point of the clauses is to allow people to object to things without losing their livelihood. Having to quit their job, in the case of a pharmacist, a job that required a five year degree, for a tiny aspect of the job, is what the law is supposed to object to.

Though I for one wish people didn't object to things like eating pork in the first place, I can't change peoples moral choices. However, I'd say that in cases like this, where lives are threatened, there should be a clause saying no, you do not leave that person to die.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

How many pharmacies only have one pharmacist? Not many. If it hurts her conscience too badly to dispense a particular medicine, another pharmacist can do it. She's not a doctor; she doesn't get to decide what constitutes appropriate treatment and what doesn't. If she wanted that right, she shouldn't have become a pharmacist.

Besides, let's turn the question on its head — should a pharmacist have the right to dispense a medicine that hasn't been prescribed because they think it's right?

edited 8th Feb '11 12:44:46 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Okay, I was a bit harsh. How about: You don't like giving out that particular medication? Let someone else issue it.

Ninja, what ^ said.

edited 8th Feb '11 12:44:14 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

That could go both ways: Why would you stay in a restaurant when there are so many others? It's needless conflict.

Capitalism, ho!

If the place's owner is willing to hire picky jewish guys, it's his loss, if the customers go elsewhere, and his right to deal with this loss.

edited 8th Feb '11 12:46:53 PM by EternalSeptember

Dietary laws have always confused me. If the omnipotent creator of the universe didn't want us to eat something, why would it be edible in the first place?

I never said it wasn't his right to object, just that I'm curious why he's sticking it out there as opposed to like, a vegetarian restaurant or hardware store retail or something.

^ Many of the things in those dietary laws were notorious for being harder to cook properly and having a high risk of foodborne illness at the time they were made, for one. Also, nearly anything is edible, but not everything is particularly good for you.

edited 8th Feb '11 12:52:17 PM by Pykrete

The problem is, how do we decide how far is "too far" to let people go when refusing to perform the duties of their job in the name of their conscience? I think almost anyone would agree that you don't have the right to cause someone's death this way, but what if it's not quite that dire? How dire does it have to be before we say "No, you signed up for the job, now do it."

If an infinite being is picky about what we eat, why is everything edibile?

Also, I'm aware that, for example, pork went off quickly in the middle east back then, so it was a bad idea to eat it, but that sounds to me that people have taken a cookery tip and treated it as law.

Sometimes you don't have a choice.

I come from a Christian church where people don't work on Saturdays, based on the Sabbath law from the Ten Commandments.

I personally know people who, after months of unemployment, had to accept a job where saturday was supposed to be a work day, and (literally) praying that the problem will somehow solve itself in five days. That, or not eating.

edited 8th Feb '11 1:01:45 PM by EternalSeptember

Ummm...shouldn't these people be fired for not just not doing their job, but outright refusing to do their damn job?! For such a silly reason no less.

edited 8th Feb '11 1:04:24 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Because we have mouths and are idiots enough to put anything smaller than a sofa in them.

As for why something like that is being treated as divine law instead of situational health advice, it's an ongoing debate within the faith because people don't really have any way to tell. Kind of what happens when your sacred text goes through a thousand-year-long game of telephone before anyone writes it down.

^ Because they're not refusing to do their job. They're refusing to do an objectionable facet of it and performing the rest of their job to standard. And saying abortion is a silly reason to a pro-lifer is rather missing the point of why there's even a pro-life movement in the first place.

edited 8th Feb '11 1:08:15 PM by Pykrete

As long as the service objected to is available without undue hindrance I see little problem in conscience clauses but if, for example, every pharmacist in Idaho tried the same refusal it would become unacceptable. Then one should just bite the bullet and find someone who can do the job that is to be done and object later.

However, the article made a serious mistake in the last paragraphs:

If one considers abortion evil enough denying medication to people who've had it is the rational choice since it makes the world such that anyone who has an abortion can expect that finding proper care afterwards will be difficult and this works as a disincentive against abortion, and expectations of the same can work acausally to increase the number of people who don't have abortions because they expect to be denied medication afterwards. In this way it is entirely "pro-life" if said pro-life is radical enough. (Disclaimer: poster doesn't object to abortion in the first two trimesters and that date is sensitive to good arguments)

Personally I think this is one of those issues where sane compromise breeds negative privilege. I know that in an old job, I had to do many a thing that I found to be extremely morally distasteful. I didn't have the ability to say, no, I won't do this, someone else do this. That would have cost me my job.

So in the end, it's a case where either everybody can do it or nobody can do it in terms of non-illegal acts. That's the way I look at it.

Also, I'd also like to point out that one thing about Conscience clauses is that generally we're talking about promoting and protecting extremism here. The idea that chemical birth control is equal to abortion is an extremist view. If we're ever going to see some sort of grand compromise, the debate needs to go in the opposite direction, back towards the center.

Edit:And yes, that means that I should have the choice to say...serve someone who refuses to dispense birth control because I think that serving such an immoral person goes against my better judgment. Personally, I think this whole thing would just end up absurdly messy, so it's better not to pass out the privilege at all.

edited 8th Feb '11 1:12:11 PM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Then tell me, what if a life guard refuses to perform CPR because his religion forbids anything remotely resembling a homosexual act, and the two of them happen to be guys? And he's the only one around who knows CPR?

Also, having a reason to dislike doing something as part of your job is NOT a good excuse to not do your job...if you have a debilitating illness that prevents you from doing that aspect of it, fine, but something trivial like personal beliefs? No.

edited 8th Feb '11 1:22:25 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

I figured out what annoys me about conscience clauses. They are designed to pander to people who want to get Brownie Points for choosing their religion over their job without having to actually make the choice and consequently lose their job. We wouldn't think much of people who wanted the reputational benefits of martyrdom without the inconvenience of dying, and these people are operating along similar lines.

Also, it seems like the only "consciences" these sorts of laws respect are those of conservative Christians who hate abortion, birth control, and gay rights. If I worked for an advertising firm and was assigned to design a promotional poster for a TV show about preteen fashion models, and refused on the grounds that I considered such a show to be promoting an unhealthy obsession with appearance among children, I doubt I would have the sympathy of many Republican lawmakers.

This. If they feel it is such a big thing, someone can form a "Christian pharmacy" chain or something like that and their customers can take pride in supporting a business that feels those abortion-acquiring loose women should die.

Me, bitter? Nooooooo.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

^^ You'd have my sympathy...

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

^^^ Mine too. One assumes that's not the only project the network is doing, it's not like they'll have a dearth of other things to put you on.

Face Palm

edited 8th Feb '11 3:23:20 PM by Pykrete

There's no such medical conscience clause in Australia, and I was surprised to learn of its existence in the US. In fact, the interview for university admission into medicine takes inflexible adherence to a religious or political view that could prevent a doctor from helping a patient as grounds for failure.

edited 8th Feb '11 3:26:31 PM by Yuanchosaan

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

I think conscience clauses are a good thing. No one should be forced to perform an abortion if they believe in their heart that it is murder.

But yeah... in this case, where the drug wasn't an abortifacent but a life-saving drug, Christianity does not justify withholding it. That's not saying "This fetus deserves to live", that's saying "this woman deserves to die". Not on.

Be not afraid...