John Kerry jumps the shark
Daily Kos :: Fuck you, John Kerry
I do try to keep the dialog (diatribe?) PG-rated here most of the time. Invective loses power through overuse, but when used sparingly, it is one of the ways language can convey passion without the benefit of "emoticons" which I despise. I'm just quoting here, 'kay?
Seems John Kerry is intent on alienating the only folks left who don't think he is a complete boob. He has signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill to allow pharmacists to decline to sell "objectionable" medications.
If you are someone whose religious beliefs require you to refuse to dispense certain medications to patients in need of said medications, then you should not become a motherfucking pharmacist. The free exercise of religion stops at the point where your religous proclivities require you to harm someone at least derivatively in your care. Can anyone here possibly imagine this debate even being seriously carried out if the issue were Jehovah's Witnesses who became emergency room physicians but refused to administer needed medical treatment? Imagine a Jehovah's Witness doctor who refused to provide a blood transfusion because it was "against God's will." People would be screaming to have his license revoked, not defending his BS "right of conscience." How is the pharmacist case any different? Don't ponder that one for too long, because it's not any different.
I can see the Kerry 2008 campaign now: "We need to pander to the wingnuts, but we need to do it better. I will be a more competent panderer."
If this story is true, I hereby withdraw from the no Kerry-bashing armistice treaty.
I do try to keep the dialog (diatribe?) PG-rated here most of the time. Invective loses power through overuse, but when used sparingly, it is one of the ways language can convey passion without the benefit of "emoticons" which I despise. I'm just quoting here, 'kay?
Seems John Kerry is intent on alienating the only folks left who don't think he is a complete boob. He has signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill to allow pharmacists to decline to sell "objectionable" medications.
If you are someone whose religious beliefs require you to refuse to dispense certain medications to patients in need of said medications, then you should not become a motherfucking pharmacist. The free exercise of religion stops at the point where your religous proclivities require you to harm someone at least derivatively in your care. Can anyone here possibly imagine this debate even being seriously carried out if the issue were Jehovah's Witnesses who became emergency room physicians but refused to administer needed medical treatment? Imagine a Jehovah's Witness doctor who refused to provide a blood transfusion because it was "against God's will." People would be screaming to have his license revoked, not defending his BS "right of conscience." How is the pharmacist case any different? Don't ponder that one for too long, because it's not any different.
I can see the Kerry 2008 campaign now: "We need to pander to the wingnuts, but we need to do it better. I will be a more competent panderer."
If this story is true, I hereby withdraw from the no Kerry-bashing armistice treaty.
posted by bluememe at 4/19/2005
3 Comments:
Your story is incorrect, leaving out some very important information.
The bill is to guarantee that patients would always be able to receive prescribed medications--the opposite of what you claim in your post. Pharmacists would only be allowed to refuse to prescribe a medication if there is someone else on duty at the time in the same pharmacy who will prescribe it instead of them--otherewise they would be required to dispense the medication.
In an ideal world, there would be no need for any legislation such as this. Currently a pharmacist could refuse to prescribe in many states and there is nothing which could be done. This bill offers a compromise to Republicans, which is necessary to have a chance a passage, but puts real and meaningful restrictions on such religious objections.
I should also add this is nothing new--which at very least would make jumping the shark a poor analogy here.
This is something Kerry has pushed for several years--not restricted to pharacists.
The point is to protect people's ability to practice their religion at work, placing reasonable limits so that it does not harm either their employer or customers. In this case it protects customers by ensuring that prescribed medications will be dispensed regardless of the religious beliefs of the pharmacist.
They may object, but it does not mean that it might spare someone the self-righteous lecture these "religious" pharmacists often feel the urge to deliver. It is bad enough a woman or someone else may need a certain type of medication without the pharmacist not only denying it, but giving them a moral lecture on why they are going to hell for using X or Y. And in the stories where the pharmacists went so far as to refuse to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy, that is just an abuse of what should be a trusted position. I could not agree more. A pharmacist holds a sincere belief about contraception or other medication use, that is fine. But it stops when it comes to imposing it on someone else. His job is to dispense the prescription, not to be casting judgments. He or she wants to cast judgments, they should go into some other line of work.
Post a Comment
<< Home