HB 1014 states that a physician, nurse, pharmacist or someone studying to do one of those jobs can’t be required to dispense a drug or medical device if the person believes it would be used to cause an abortion or assist a suicide. It appears to grant the person civil immunity if the person’s refusal injures someone else and can’t be reason for an employer to discipline the individual.
It’s a tough old world out there; and, if your morals conflict with your job, you should probably do a different job. And, if acting on your morals causes harm to someone else who was relying on you to do your job, you should probably be accountable for such injury as you cause.
Well said, Mr. Masson. Well said.
I don’t know. I sympathize, but I’m not sure this is such a great idea. There is a lot of good these people can do for people in realms where abortion or doctor-assisted suicide aren’t an issue, and plenty of other doctors who are willing to perform those procedures (with which I have no problem, I should point out).
Failure to dispense a drug for suicide as “causing harm,” with a prospect of accountability for the injury caused? What a weird world has emerged during my lifetime.
Timely counterpoint at the Wall Street Journal (likely paywall): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577070414143725908.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecondBucket
The person isn’t immunized only if the drug or device was, in fact, going to be used to cause suicide but also if the person believed that to be the case. There is no apparent requirement that the belief be well-founded or even reasonable.
This is basically so that pharmacists can inconvenience people who desire birth control in order to have fun, non-procreative sex. The pharmacist, believing sex is inherently wicked on some kind of religious grounds, uses a supposed belief that oral contraceptions cause abortion in order to refuse to fill the prescription. This bill is to allow them to not do their job, and yet still work.
I went to a website for pharmacists who want to pick and choose the meds the patient may receive. I think I need a shower now. It has a nice picture of Heinrich Himmler. It advocates that pharmacists be allowed to refuse to fill oral contraceptives, as well as diaphragms. It also rationalizes that said physician is doing the customer a favor by saving her from evil, and advocates not returning the prescription to the patient. Wall Street Journal may wish to focus on morning-after pills. But at least some of the pharmacists in question appear to have a big problem with sex not resulting in pregnancy.
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
So in fairness the same standards have to apply to Viagra or Levitra prescriptions unless the prescription bearer can prove they are using the drug only for having procreative intercourse with their legal spouse, right? Or does, once again, the standard of moral sex only fall on the shoulders of a woman?
Donna– no, and yes.