Pharmacy Professors Who Want a Job, Step Forward! Not So Fast, Non-Christians…

If you’re a Christian pharmacy professor, they have a job for you:

Three private, Christian universities in the state — Belmont, Lipscomb and Union — are hiring positions for new pharmacy colleges scheduled to open next fall. Although the process has been smooth, school administrators know they’re only beginning what could be a long ordeal.

At all three schools, faculty members must be Christians, including pharmacy faculty.

First of all, I didn’t realize you could learn about pharmacy from people who don’t fill prescriptions.

Secondly, they’re private schools. They’re welcome to hire whomever they want. It’s legal.

But if I were Christian, I’d wait before filling out my application to these schools. Any university that placed a potential professor’s Christian faith above his or her competence in the field is not worth attending.

“We encourage members of the Church of Christ in the pharmacy realm to apply for our positions,” said Roger Davis, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Lipscomb.

Even though Lipscomb and Southern Baptist schools Belmont and Union don’t require their hires to be denomination-specific, their religious requirements could still shrink the pool of applicants.

Did I mention pharmacists are in high demand across the state and, with the baby boomers retiring, positions are becoming more and more vacant? There are an “estimated 1,060 new pharmacy positions… needed statewide,” according to the article.

And these schools are turning away competent teachers who know the science as well as the ins and outs of pharmacy because they believe in a different God (who has nothing to do with how you teach classes in this field) from the school officials.

Best comment in the article‘s thread so far?

It’d be similar to if you two knuckleheads opened an atheist school, you wouldn’t hire a Christian to teach. In the same vein, they don’t wanted some hate-speak filled fool who thinks like both of you to come in and POLLUTE the student population.

We have enough polluting of young minds going on at secular universities across our country.

I’ve never heard of any “secular university” firing or not hiring someone simply for being Christian. (If they did, the ACLU would be on the Christian’s side, for what it’s worth.)

Now, off I go to spew some more of my hate-speech.

(Thanks to Susan for the link!)


[tags]atheist, atheism, pharmacy schools[/tags]

  • spin sycle

    I don’t know, it still reeks of discrimination to me.

  • Mriana

    I guess they are afraid those other than X-ian will fill Rx’s of Plan B, birth control pills, and alike. :roll:

  • http://doubtfuldaughter.blogspot.com doubtfuldaughter

    Mriana, I had the same thought. It’s that fact that worries me the most about this. Not that they are excluding non-Christians, as a Christian university that is their right, but that they might be teaching that it is perfectly fine to not perform the job you were hired to do, based on what their faith tells them is right or wrong.

  • Mriana

    It worries me too for so many reasons. It not only oppresses women, but such things can actually be life-threatening. It could also oppress other groups, come to think of it, because they could deny much needed medicine to others for various reasons. Like say an AIDS victim. They could attempt to deny medicine to them on some bizarre basis such as, “Oh that’s God’s punishment, therefore you MUST suffer.” :roll: This is bad/wrong thinking, IMO, but even so, it could very well happen. :(

  • http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/ miller

    I know an atheist who teaches at a Christian college. But then again, this is in a blue state where everything is backwards.

    I like the comment’s smooth transition from atheist to secular university, not to mention his assumption that he was talking to two atheists.

    btw, I made a blog on a whim.

  • http://blog.lib.umn.edu/fole0091/epistaxis/ Epistaxis

    It’d be similar to if you two knuckleheads opened an atheist school, you wouldn’t hire a Christian to teach.

    That’s wrong for so many reasons.

    There’s no such thing as an “atheist school,” nor should there be. Only believers have a reason to Inculcate views about religion into captive minors. That shouldn’t be confused, or mixed, with education. As for a secular school, like you say, it would be silly not to hire a Christian or any other religious person; since their job description doesn’t include brainwashing children into accepting their beliefs, it doesn’t matter what those beliefs are.

    Whereas, if their job description includes, say, filling prescriptions, they should fill prescriptions. (Though it’s the role of the employer, not the government, to fire employees who refuse to work, whatever their reasons – at least until health care becomes a publicly guaranteed right instead of a privileged commodity for sale on an open market.)

  • monkeymind

    Mriana and dd – Haven’t there been cases where pharmacists refused to fill the types of prescriptions you mentioned? I don’t remember ehat the courts decided. I guess a private university gets to decide its own personnel policies, but if they advocate going against the doctor’s judgement and refusing to fill perscriptions, they should have their accreditation revoked. The problem would be to document this of course.

  • Mriana

    Yes there have been, monkeymind, and if I remember correctly, the court ruled that they had to fill women’t Rx’s even if the Rx is the morning after pill. Now sure about AIDS meds though, but it could happen if it hasn’t already.

  • http://doubtfuldaughter.blogspot.com doubtfuldaughter

    Yes, Mriana is correct. But court rulings I think have only been on a state by state basis. I’m not sure if there is a federal ruling yet, or if there will be.

  • Mriana

    And that is the problem. Until it goes to the Federal level and they say you have to fill the Rx’s regardless of religious views, the states can do what they want.

  • Karen

    If a medication has been approved by the regulatory officials and is legally for sale on the open market, it should be available to anyone who wants it, period. And that principle should be made clear on the first day of pharmacy class, IMO. Students who can’t agree should be told to change majors.

    I am so opposed to medical professionals who won’t dispense medication or provide treatment because of their moral squeamishness. Who are they to decide I can’t get access to a medication that my doctor has prescribed? Notice how these conflicts almost always seem to involve restricting women’s rights!? It’s a worrisome trend.

  • http://www.sadcrc.wordpress.com Calvin Moore

    So, if this were the other way around and an classical atheistic/secular “no comment” institution were hiring a science position and said, “scientists who adhere to scientific creationism need not apply” would this not whittle out a large amount of Christians (whether explicitly stated or not)? Because, in my experience, this is the practice of most colleges and universities these days. If a Christian institution puts someone’s faith above their expertise it is really in keeping with Christian teachings. However, because the institutions call for Christian belief is not an indication they will not hire the most competent individual for the job. This argument always assumes that if you put stipulations on who is hirable then you will likely not get someone most qualified for the job (i.e. the most qualified person for the job could not “possibly” be a Christian).

    I am so opposed to medical professionals who won’t dispense medication or provide treatment because of their moral squeamishness. Who are they to decide I can’t get access to a medication that my doctor has prescribed?

    I also believe that those in the medical (or any) profession SHOULD appeal to their moral/religious beliefs when dispensing medicine or performing a procedure. Doctors who are uncomfortable performing certain procedures should not be forced to do them. Is it any more agreeable to force someone to perform a procedure you agree with simply because it is your “right”? People disagree on what “rights” people have–one should have no more power over the other. Which is why, if a doctor refuses to do a certain procedure, you can choose ANOTHER DOCTOR. (It ceases to amaze me why seeing another doctor is never an option on the table; it is as if that one doctor is the ONLY person on the planet able to perform whatever “rightful” procedure a person wants to have.) This way your “rights” are met and the doctor is not FORCED to violate his moral/religious code. (And this does not suppose only those who are religious have problems with certain procedures being administered because of someone’s “rights.”*

    Christian institutions view theology as the “queen of sciences.” Everything else springs forth from this–anthropology, geometry, biology, psychology, etc. One may disagree with this, but it is how it is. Now, for most, theology falls beneath the category of “anthropology.” Because of this, it is easy to look at decisions like “Christians only” to fill positions makes no sense. But, this is how the decision ought to be understood–Christians and (for the purposes of this argument) atheists are simply coming from differing points of view.

    YHWH’s pax.

    *Some would argue that if you don’t have moral/religious/philosophical morals, then you’d just be handing out perscription medicine unscrupulously. The reason I don’t use that argument (nor do Christian institutions) is because it is untrue (in most cases).

  • Jen

    Calvin, dear, do you ever read your medical insurance packets? Very often, people don’t have very many options when it comes to doctors. For instance, when I was still on my parent’s insurance, we had four eye doctors to pick from. Two were pretty far away, one was a Walmart, and the other had very few appointments available. When it came to medical doctors, I had for all intents and purposes one choice. There are lots of things limiting people’s choices- not everyone had medical insurance, not everyone is free when the doctor has available appointments, not everyone has a car to get to another doctor. It is the same with pharmacies- I have access to many pharmacies, but not everyone does, and if I needed Plan B, I would need it as soon as possible- I don’t need my pharmacist to dick around with my prescription only to tell me that his religion forbids him to help me get what I need when what I need is something I need right away.

    My aunt is a pharmacist that doesn’t believe in pain medication for herself, but she fills pills, and organizes my grandma’s pain pills. I am a vegetarian, but in college I worked in a deli- I thought it was gross, but I wasn’t getting paid to ignore people’s requests. I got paid to do a job, and I did it.

  • http://www.sadcrc.wordpress.com Calvin Moore

    So, if a doctor is the ONLY option for a person, that makes violating his conscience less of a problem for you? I’m sorry, but there are no eye doctors I know of who use their religious/moral underpinnings to deny someone any type of care. As for “rights” that have to do with women, most are referring to birth control (which is available without a prescription and through Planned Parenthood for FREE) and most hospitals deny abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger (which accounts for less than 3% of all abortions in the US) or she has been traumatized through rape (which accounts for 1% of all abortions in the US). As a general practice, they refer you out. Whether you have a car or not is not something doctors take into consideration. And we’re certainly not talking about pain pills here. You and I both know doctors aren’t arguing over whether or not to prescribe pain pills based solely on religious convictions. Doctors who don’t take pain medication themselves for religious/medical reasons generally place those within the realm of deeply held “personal” convictions and will not impress those beliefs on others. It is not a “deal-breaker” so to speak. You have now left the realm of personal convictions that effects you and have entered the realm where other people’s lives are deeply affected by what you are doing and the choices you must make. However, women’s “rights” is a horse of a different color and I think we both know that. If we’re talking about women’s “rights” not being recognized, that generally refers to birth control or abortions. But, doctors refer to their religious convictions and oaths (religious language) they took upon becoming doctors when it comes to topics such as end-of-life care/euthanasia. You COULD argue that if they are squeamish about such tough issues they ought not be doctors in the first place. But, that is an entirely different conversation. As things stand now, because a person lacks a choice because of insurance companies and insurance plans giving them limited options should NOT force a doctor to violate his principles or beliefs, religious or otherwise. You job as a deli slicer and personal choice of vegetarianism ought not be elevated to the level of life and death choices doctors have to make on a daily basis when caring for patients and traversing the medical/moral/spiritual/philosophical world that is HIS job. Even the more, in cases where doctors will not care for a patient because of such convictions, their referral, for such reasons, as a general rule are covered by most insurance carriers.

  • Jen

    So, if a doctor is the ONLY option for a person, that makes violating his conscience less of a problem for you?

    Absolutely. Without a question. Doctors take an oath to help people, regardless of their beliefs.

    I’m sorry, but there are no eye doctors I know of who use their religious/moral underpinnings to deny someone any type of care.

    I was using that as an example of how few options I had. You’ll notice my GP was the only one that my insurace would pay for that was vaguely nearby me.

    As a general practice, they refer you out. Whether you have a car or not is not something doctors take into consideration

    .

    And doesn’t that suck? Not everyone has cars. Not everyone has relatives that can drive them places. Very few places in the US have public transportation. Wouldn’t it suck to have to pay for a cab to go to yet another doctor’s office? Especially if you make minimum wage?

    As for “rights” that have to do with women, most are referring to birth control (which is available without a prescription and through Planned Parenthood for FREE)

    What the hell are you talking about? Some women qualify for free birth control through Planned Parenthood, but they have to be under a certain income level, and it varies based on location. I don’t know what hormonal birth control is available without a prescription.

    You and I both know doctors aren’t arguing over whether or not to prescribe pain pills based solely on religious convictions.

    It certainly could. Not all religions believe in modern Western medicine- you think this won’t be an issue at some point?

    Doctors who don’t take pain medication themselves for religious/medical reasons generally place those within the realm of deeply held “personal” convictions and will not impress those beliefs on others. It is not a “deal-breaker” so to speak. You have now left the realm of personal convictions that effects you and have entered the realm where other people’s lives are deeply affected by what you are doing and the choices you must make.

    As it should be with abortion and birth control. Personally, I would rather suffer through pain than have a baby. A doctor who refuses me birth control is going to affect my life way, way, way more than denying me pain medicine.

    As things stand now, because a person lacks a choice because of insurance companies and insurance plans giving them limited options should NOT force a doctor to violate his principles or beliefs, religious or otherwise.

    Oh, ok. You totally proved that. Thanks.

    You job as a deli slicer and personal choice of vegetarianism ought not be elevated to the level of life and death choices doctors have to make on a daily basis when caring for patients and traversing the medical/moral/spiritual/philosophical world that is HIS job.

    And doctors’ personal choice of religion shouldn’t have anything to do with my sex life, because when they make it about them, it affects me in a negetive way. It also hurts people because we as people tend to view doctors on a higher moral plane than the rest of us- so what a doctor says affects us more. A doctor telling me I am a slut and that I don’t deserve birth control because he is a Catholic- that is going to hurt way more than some random internet person.

    I could argue that vegetarianism is a matter of life and death to, oh, say, animals, but I will ignore that because my vegetarianism is personal to me. I agree that doctors have a lot of things they have to deal with, but again, if they want to be doctors, they should realize they are going to have to do things that they won’t like- work with the gross and homeless and the morbidly obese and the very sick and those with beliefs that are different from the doctors’- and they have to treat all those people equally.

  • Karen

    Calvin, if a woman is raped and the emergency personnel take her to the closest hospital to the crime scene, which happens to be a Catholic institution, she may be denied access to the “morning after” pill within the short range of time that it is effective to prevent pregnancy. The ER docs there may simply neglect to even tell her she has the option to get the pill and be quite assuredly spared the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

    If she’s hospitalized there for other injuries, and can’t get out to another institution to have the pill prescribed, or she doesn’t have access to a friend or relative who can get it for her, she’s SOL if the rape results in a pregnancy.

    How in the hell can you imagine that some ER doctor has the right to make a decision like that for an adult woman who has every right legally in this country to make that decision FOR HERSELF?! That is the height of arrogance and it’s illegal and frankly immoral for a doctor or other medical person to impose their religious convictions on someone else when they have taken an oath to give care to anyone who needs it.

  • http://www.sadcrc.wordpress.com Calvin Moore

    I think you make some good points. Very good points and I will take them into consideration. (That is not a snub. I seriously will.) However, I don’t agree with everything you have said.

    First, doctor’s take an oath to “Do no harm,” not an oath to help people. (I make this distinction because what a person thinks will help themselves may be very different than what the doctor believe to be necessary. Of course, this MAY simply be a matter of semantics.) The Hippocratic Oath is also RELIGIOUS in nature–praying to the Greek Pantheon of Gods. The oath also disallowed a physician to violate one’s conscience or participate in providing abortions. The modern version has dropped allusions to the Green Pantheon and the proscription against abortions, but the oath still stems from a clearly religious understanding of what the gods or someone above and beyond wants from those who handle the lives of others.

    Second, the people I have known who have used Planned Parenthood are generally from low income families as nearly 90% of Planned Parenthoods are in urban locations–black and Hispanic areas. So, you are likely correct about a person needing to be in a certain income bracket in order to receive free services and birth control. I will have to look into it more. Still, they hand out condoms like lollipops and then provide abortions when they are not used properly.

    Which brings me to my third problem. I’m going to assume your freedom and desire to have sex free from consequences is a big area where we differ. I believe people should be married in order to have sex. As much as I disagree with God on the matter (as I would LOVE to have sex with my girlfriend), He tends to be right and I tend to be wrong. However, you said,

    And doctors’ personal choice of religion shouldn’t have anything to do with my sex life, because when they make it about them, it affects me in a negative way. It also hurts people because we as people tend to view doctors on a higher moral plane than the rest of us- so what a doctor says affects us more. A doctor telling me I am a slut and that I don’t deserve birth control because he is a Catholic- that is going to hurt way more than some random internet person.

    Why is your sex life more important than a doctor’s deeply held religious beliefs? A doctor will tell you that, though anal sex won’t necessarily kill you, it is not as healthy as vaginal sex. He doesn’t call you a slut if you do it. He doesn’t call you a slut if he won’t give you contraceptives. He doesn’t call you a baby-killer if he won’t give you an abortion. He simply says, “I cannot, in good conscience, do these things without violating my religious beliefs or my understanding of the oath I took upon becoming a doctor.” Basically, what I hear you saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that your right to do whatever you please with your body in whatever manner you please is no concern of the doctor’s and he should cater to you because its his job to give you whatever you want to make sure you can have a sex life free of consequences? Does that about sum it up?

    Fourth, I think I see your point on the vegetarianism. While I disagree with you, I see your point and will think on it. But, as you say, doctors must realize the world in which they live in. On the reverse side of that, patients must realize that they need to take responsibility for their actions. A person should not eat themselves silly simply because the option of gastric bypass surgery is available. They need to eat and exercise properly. A person should not have sex with everyone they want just because they know they can get an abortion. (I think we both agree that prostitution is wrong, for religious and societal reasons. I also do not think you are arguing for wanton sexual promiscuity in your own life.) Where does a person draw the line? Can we do whatever we want and just expect a doctor to violate his conscience any time because our “rights” always supersede his or her personal convictions?

    Yes, what a doctor does say or prescribe does affect us. However, you seem to be disregarding the biggest equation. YOU. You affect yourself more than any doctor ever will and in bigger ways than any doctor will. I’m not clear on the numbers of doctors making horribly bad decisions (so this may seem bigger than it is for the purposes of our conversation), but I should hope people realize (before they see a doctor) how much their own lifestyles and practices affect them.

    By the way, how the heck did we move from Lipscomb’s hiring practices to THIS conversation?

  • http://www.sadcrc.wordpress.com Calvin Moore

    Karen,

    Even if it disagrees with a Catholic doctor, he is, by law, required to tell you of your options. He would likely be sued for malpractice if he or she did not let the woman know her options. So in such a case the law of the land supersedes his religious beliefs. And, in the case of a rape victim, I’m not sure a Catholic doctor would not prescribe the morning after pill (just to be safe).

    But, by and large, we’re not talking about rape victims as, as I stated earlier, rape victims comprise 1% of all abortions. If this is the case, then doctors are CLEARLY prescribing the morning after pill in the case of rape on a large scale. Is this not a hard thing to see? In most cases we’re talking about a person’s desire to do as the please without feeling judged for doing it.

  • Mriana

    Which brings me to my third problem. I’m going to assume your freedom and desire to have sex free from consequences is a big area where we differ. I believe people should be married in order to have sex. As much as I disagree with God on the matter (as I would LOVE to have sex with my girlfriend), He tends to be right and I tend to be wrong.

    Calvin, why does it have to be based on God? What if tomorrow you decided there is no God, where would you stand? Esp if that is the only reason for your sexual morals and values? Don’t you think you need more reason than JUST God? Now think about it for a minute before you shout that I’m picking on you…

    The reason why I’m celebate is because I see no need to sleep around. To do so could not only mean getting pregnant and dying (in my case that is), but also getting an STD or worse yet, AIDS.

    No, I didn’t have my tubes tied, even though the dr said if I had another child, I could die. My younger son was born at a Catholic hospital, a month early because I had a form of toxemia, but even so, another child could mean my life. The reason why I didn’t have my tubes tied some place else was because leaving my first husband, with my sons, was much more important. So, it never got done.

    My second marriage I just used birthcontrol, but that is beside the point. Now that I’m not married again, I see no reason to just snag a man for sex. For me, making love has meaning to it and not meant to be done with just anyone. It is sharing a part of me, with the ultmost trust, that I would not share with anyone else. It is, do I dare say, a spiritual thing. Not religiously spiritual, but another sort of spirituality- the emotional connection between two people who love each other above and beyond friendship. (If you are a Trek fan and read Peter David’s book, the word Imzadi is a good example.)

    To have sex just to have sex makes it meaningless (IMO) and a great health risk at that- on many different levels.

  • Jen

    The modern version has dropped allusions to the Green Pantheon and the proscription against abortions, but the oath still stems from a clearly religious understanding of what the gods or someone above and beyond wants from those who handle the lives of others.

    The Hippocratic Oath, for the record, was written by a fringe group of unpopular doctors 2000 years ago. In addition to banning abortion, they ban all surgery. Don’t you hate it when doctors violate the Oath?

    Second, the people I have known who have used Planned Parenthood are generally from low income families as nearly 90% of Planned Parenthoods are in urban locations–black and Hispanic areas. So, you are likely correct about a person needing to be in a certain income bracket in order to receive free services and birth control. I will have to look into it more. Still, they hand out condoms like lollipops and then provide abortions when they are not used properly.

    Again, as a person who has actually been to a Planned Parenthood, I can assure you that white people use PP too. In fact, there are more minorities in urban areas- but there are also more people, period, and that is why PP’s end up in urban areas. They just opened a PP in Aurora, Illinois, an area that is 81% white. Are they targeting minorities? And if I want condoms from PP, they cost me money. Now, the people at the PP are very nice, for the most part, and I have heard of people getting their appointments at even more reduced prices when they flat out stated that they just couldn’t pay for contraception. But I have paid for every service I have received, and full price, so I don’t know where you are getting that condoms=lollipops.

    Which brings me to my third problem. I’m going to assume your freedom and desire to have sex free from consequences is a big area where we differ. I believe people should be married in order to have sex.

    Good for you. Enjoy celibacy. I am sure that you are one of the 5% of people who don’t have sex before marriage, as a recent study indicates.

    Why is your sex life more important than a doctor’s deeply held religious beliefs?

    Because my sexual health is as important as my physical or mental health. Because it is the doctor’s job to worry- and help me regarding- my sexual health.

    He simply says, “I cannot, in good conscience, do these things without violating my religious beliefs or my understanding of the oath I took upon becoming a doctor.”

    Which, to me, will come off as judgmental. Let’s imagine that doctors hate smokers. Can a doctor, in good consciousness, say, “I don’t believe smoking is good for you, and I think your lung cancer is punishment for smoking when you knew it was unhealthy. I cannot in good conscience help violate God’s punishment”? How can a doctor asy they are too morally pure to help me with my health without coming off as jerks?

    Basically, what I hear you saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that your right to do whatever you please with your body in whatever manner you please is no concern of the doctor’s and he should cater to you because its his job to give you whatever you want to make sure you can have a sex life free of consequences? Does that about sum it up?

    What is the deal with you and sex and consequences? I think you need to look deeply into your beliefs and ask yourself if the basis of these beliefs has anything to do with punishing women for their sexuality- because that is how I am reading you. Prescribing me birth control is not catering to my every whim, it is doing the job a doctor signs up to do. Do car manufactures include seat belts to let me drive without consequences? If I get sick as a result of a lifestyle- say not eating healthy or not getting enough sleep or falling and twisting an ankle when I am dancing for the pure sexy fun of it— does that mean the doctor is catering to me and my life free of consequences? Or does it mean she is helping me when I need help?

    On the reverse side of that, patients must realize that they need to take responsibility for their actions

    .

    You, of course, realize that people’s choices are a result of our society and the lives we are born into and how we are raised and our DNA and many other factors beyond our control, right?

    A person should not have sex with everyone they want just because they know they can get an abortion.

    So can I have all the lesbian sex I want, then?

    (I think we both agree that prostitution is wrong, for religious and societal reasons. I also do not think you are arguing for wanton sexual promiscuity in your own life.)

    Again, not about my sex life, and you have no idea what my views are on prostitution based on anything I said here. Let’s not draw conclusions that have nothing to do with the conversation, mkay?

    Where does a person draw the line? Can we do whatever we want and just expect a doctor to violate his conscience any time because our “rights” always supersede his or her personal convictions?

    Why, again, should the doctors right to be a religious person supersede my right to get medical care that I need?

    Yes, what a doctor does say or prescribe does affect us. However, you seem to be disregarding the biggest equation. YOU. You affect yourself more than any doctor ever will and in bigger ways than any doctor will. I’m not clear on the numbers of doctors making horribly bad decisions (so this may seem bigger than it is for the purposes of our conversation), but I should hope people realize (before they see a doctor) how much their own lifestyles and practices affect them.

    Um, ok. I get that. I know that sex will leave me pregnant and suicidal and worthless to future suitors (pretty much verbatim on my high school sex ed class, BTW). But that doesn’t mean doctors can ignore my health needs even if they are the result of poor choices.

    By the way, how the heck did we move from Lipscomb’s hiring practices to THIS conversation?

    Because it is an important conversation to be having in light of all the recent pharmacists who refuse to fulfill birth control prescriptions for women.

  • athenebelle

    #

    spin sycle said,

    October 7, 2007 at 10:08 am

    I don’t know, it still reeks of discrimination to me.

    I agree with you there. I think regardless of whether it is a public school or not they could get sued over discrimination for this I think as it specifies religion and Christianity in particular.

  • Karen

    Even if it disagrees with a Catholic doctor, he is, by law, required to tell you of your options. He would likely be sued for malpractice if he or she did not let the woman know her options. So in such a case the law of the land supersedes his religious beliefs. And, in the case of a rape victim, I’m not sure a Catholic doctor would not prescribe the morning after pill (just to be safe).

    Here’s a study from 2003:

    A recent survey found that the majority of Catholic hospitals said they would not give women emergency contraception, even those who have been raped.

    The survey, commissioned by Catholics for a Free Choice, a Washington-based advocacy group that promotes issues of gender equality and reproductive health, found that only 28 percent of Catholic hospitals in 47 states and the District of Columbia would provide emergency contraception, also known as the “morning-after pill” or EC, to rape victims. Fifty-five percent of Catholic hospitals wouldn’t dispense emergency contraception under any circumstances.

    Washington State, Illinois and California each has a law that requires emergency rooms to provide rape victims with information about emergency contraception. In Washington State, hospitals must provide the pills to rape victims if the women aren’t already pregnant. But 6 out of 18 Catholic hospitals here told women inquiring about emergency contraception over the telephone that it wasn’t available in their emergency rooms.

    I’m not making this stuff up. It’s a real problem for women and if we start excusing it, it’ll only get worse. Only 3 states have laws (as of 2003, it may be more by now) and even in them, the Catholic hospitals were not following the law because they are claiming they have to obey their religious training above the laws of the state.

    How is that “doing no harm” to women they are supposed to be providing care for, Calvin? It seems to me that you’re arguing they should be able to do as they please and as their particular religion dictates, even if they’re squashing a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body and her life.

    But, by and large, we’re not talking about rape victims as, as I stated earlier, rape victims comprise 1% of all abortions. If this is the case, then doctors are CLEARLY prescribing the morning after pill in the case of rape on a large scale. Is this not a hard thing to see? In most cases we’re talking about a person’s desire to do as the please without feeling judged for doing it.

    Rape victims are only the most egregious victims of this kind of mindset. In other instances, women trying to get a prescription for birth control pills filled at their neighborhood pharmacy have been told to go elsewhere because the pharmacist on duty doesn’t believe in contraception and won’t dispense the pill.

    That’s ridiculous. A pharmacist’s job is to safely and accurately dispense medication prescribed by a doctor and requested by a patient. If they can’t bring themselves to do that non-judgmentally, they need to change professions.

  • monkeymind

    Another article from the Sunday Times that suggests we aren’t paranoid to be concerned about this:

    This weekend, however, it emerged that Sainsbury’s is also allowing its Muslim pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers. At a Sainsbury’s store in Nottingham, a pharmacist named Ahmed declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for “ethical reasons”. Boots also permits pharmacists to refuse to sell the pill on ethical grounds.

    The BMA said it had received reports of Muslim students who did not want to learn anything about alcohol or the effects of overconsumption. “They are so opposed to the consumption of it they don’t want to learn anything about it,” said a spokesman.

    The GMC said it had received requests for guidance over whether students could “omit parts of the medical curriculum and yet still be allowed to graduate”. Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC’s education committee, said: “Examples have included a refusal to see patients who are affected by diseases caused by alcohol or sexual activity, or a refusal to examine patients of a particular gender.”

    He added that “prejudicing treatment on the grounds of patients’ gender or their responsibility for their condition would run counter to the most basic principles of ethical medical practice”.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2603966.ece


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X