4 ms·

Although a possible interpretation, I consider that unlikely. Immediately preceding the section on abortion we have the following comment: > There is nowadays

Although a possible interpretation, I consider that unlikely. Immediately preceding the section on abortion we have the following comment: > There is nowadays a tendency for rights to spread, like ink through blotting paper. And then immediately following: > A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that doctors should not be permitted to opt out of performing procedures that they considered unethical on the grounds of conscientious objection. Having read some of the author's other work, I'm fairly confident he is against abortion. However, think the broader point here is that increasingly doctors are being legally required to act in ways that run contrary to their own personal moral judgments. Regardless of how the young aspiring doctor feels about abortion (or anything else) It seems reasonable to prepare them for the possibility that they may have to choose between their conscience and the demands of their profession.

nradov 8y ago
It's not just physicians. There have been issues with pharmacists refusing to dispense legally prescribed abortifacients. Should they be legally required to give patients certain drugs which conflict with their personal morals?
- nkrisc 8y ago
  Perhaps not required but instead prohibited from abusing their role as a middleman in interfering with another's treatment.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Pharmacists aren't middlemen. They are licensed healthcare providers with a critical role in patient care that goes beyond just handing over pill bottles.
    - evrydayhustling 8y ago
      That may describe the professionals training and intended role in the ecosystem, but it does not describe most patients' experience of the pharmacist.
      - daodedickinson 8y ago
        What empirical studies do you know justify this claim?
        evrydayhustling 8y ago
        Um the experience of waiting in line at the drug store in four states in the last fifteen years? If you think most people have a more involved relationship with their pharmacist, I doubt I'm going to dissuade you.
        perl4ever 8y ago
        It was just over ten years ago, but I had the experience of having an allergic reaction to a medication prescribed to me, and a pharmacist that was knowledgeable enough to warn me not to take the obvious OTC remedy for my symptoms because it would likely make things worse.
        evrydayhustling 8y ago
        Your comment makes me recognize that my own above could sound fundamentally dismissive of a pharmacist's role, which I don't intend. I recognize that good pharmacists can be a safety check or troubleshooter, and safeguards are valuable even when rarely needed. However, the fact that your anecdote was 10 years ago underscores the point that the vast majority of pharmacy interactions are transactional: pick up the medicine the doctor ordered in. This is demonstrated in how doctors and insurance treat pharmacies as interchangeable, and the pharmacies themselves advertise discounts and quick pickup rather than diagnostic track record. Per the post further up the thread, it is reasonable for most patients to think of pharmacists as middlemen. I think this is why many people are shocked that a pharmacist can block a prescription on moral grounds. The lack of a relationship makes the pharmacist overriding you and your doctor's judgements seem entirely out of the spirit of the transaction. It feels like a neighbor you barely know using a moment of economic leverage to have a major impact on your life, for which they will have no accountability. I'm personally sympathetic to the idea that a pharmacist, or anyone, shouldn't have to act outside their moral principles. But that should come along with clearly advertising what transaction is being offered -- "We fulfill prescriptions" is a different service offering than "we fulfill prescriptions that we agree with", and a patient needs to know in advance which they are sending their order to.
    - nkrisc 8y ago
      Perhaps my language was too dismissive. I regret that. Are you suggesting that pharmacists who refuse to hand over drugs that they disagree with for whatever reason are doing so because they have the patient's wellbeing in mind?
- DanBC 8y ago
  > Should they be legally required to give patients certain drugs They're not legally forced to do so. They can chose any other job. But if they chose that job then yes, they need to fill the fucking prescriptions correctly.

nradov 8y ago

It's not just physicians. There have been issues with pharmacists refusing to dispense legally prescribed abortifacients. Should they be legally required to give patients certain drugs which conflict with their personal morals?

nkrisc 8y ago
Perhaps not required but instead prohibited from abusing their role as a middleman in interfering with another's treatment.
- nradov 8y ago
  Pharmacists aren't middlemen. They are licensed healthcare providers with a critical role in patient care that goes beyond just handing over pill bottles.
  - evrydayhustling 8y ago
    That may describe the professionals training and intended role in the ecosystem, but it does not describe most patients' experience of the pharmacist.
    - daodedickinson 8y ago
      What empirical studies do you know justify this claim?
      - evrydayhustling 8y ago
        Um the experience of waiting in line at the drug store in four states in the last fifteen years? If you think most people have a more involved relationship with their pharmacist, I doubt I'm going to dissuade you.
        perl4ever 8y ago
        It was just over ten years ago, but I had the experience of having an allergic reaction to a medication prescribed to me, and a pharmacist that was knowledgeable enough to warn me not to take the obvious OTC remedy for my symptoms because it would likely make things worse.
        evrydayhustling 8y ago
        Your comment makes me recognize that my own above could sound fundamentally dismissive of a pharmacist's role, which I don't intend. I recognize that good pharmacists can be a safety check or troubleshooter, and safeguards are valuable even when rarely needed. However, the fact that your anecdote was 10 years ago underscores the point that the vast majority of pharmacy interactions are transactional: pick up the medicine the doctor ordered in. This is demonstrated in how doctors and insurance treat pharmacies as interchangeable, and the pharmacies themselves advertise discounts and quick pickup rather than diagnostic track record. Per the post further up the thread, it is reasonable for most patients to think of pharmacists as middlemen. I think this is why many people are shocked that a pharmacist can block a prescription on moral grounds. The lack of a relationship makes the pharmacist overriding you and your doctor's judgements seem entirely out of the spirit of the transaction. It feels like a neighbor you barely know using a moment of economic leverage to have a major impact on your life, for which they will have no accountability. I'm personally sympathetic to the idea that a pharmacist, or anyone, shouldn't have to act outside their moral principles. But that should come along with clearly advertising what transaction is being offered -- "We fulfill prescriptions" is a different service offering than "we fulfill prescriptions that we agree with", and a patient needs to know in advance which they are sending their order to.
  - nkrisc 8y ago
    Perhaps my language was too dismissive. I regret that. Are you suggesting that pharmacists who refuse to hand over drugs that they disagree with for whatever reason are doing so because they have the patient's wellbeing in mind?
DanBC 8y ago
> Should they be legally required to give patients certain drugs They're not legally forced to do so. They can chose any other job. But if they chose that job then yes, they need to fill the fucking prescriptions correctly.