http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/idaho_state_affairs_committee_passes_conscience_bill/C564/L564/
Idaho (where I live) has just passed this bill. I'm cranky about it, but wanted you guys' opinions. (Please no flaming, btw. Just state your opinion and remember that everyone else is also entitled to theirs.) Basically, this bill states that if my doctor prescribes birth control pills (or whatever else) to me, and I take it to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist is one of those people who is against birth control, that pharmacist can legally refuse to give me the pills. My issues are this:
1.) What I do with my body and my life is my problem. It is not the pharmacist's job, place, or right to decide what I can and cannot do with myself.
2.) If someone is so offended by modern medicine that they would refuse to give prescribed medicines or treatments to people, then they simply should not be in the medical field in any way.
3.) The pharmacists can argue that their morals don't allow them to feel ok about these medicines. That's fine for them, no one is making them take the medicines. But they have no right to deny me what I need because of their morals, and no right to shove their morals down my throat.
It might be alright for places like the college town I am in, because if one nurse or pharmacy denies me, I can just go to a different one. But in my hometown, there is only one pharmacy. Any girl in my situation (married and completely uninterested in children and therefore on some form of prescribed birth control, or even unmarried, it shouldn't matter) is just sorta screwed. Anyways, I am mildly crabby and I think any medical person who chooses to deny a patient their medicine should therefore have to pay for the consequences of that patient not taking it (for example, you deny me cough medicine and my cough grows worse until it's bronchitis or whatever. Fine, you pay for my doctor to fix the bronchitis. You deny me birth control or the morning after pill, then you get to pay for my child if a child results from that, etc.) Making the nurse or pharmacy pay like that might be a bit harsh, but seriously. What right do they have to tell me that I can't get my medicine because of their personal beliefs? Am I wrong in thinking this is ridiculous? What do you guys think?
Pharmacists' Choice
Pharmacists' choice
If they're gonna be offended by types of meds, then WTF are they doing working as a pharmacist? I think the bill is BS as well.
[+]
I live in Idaho too ; ; lol.
This is disturbing how everyone's always so scared of offending eachother in this country that it goes over common sense bounds.
I can understand the feelings of someone not wanting to have a loss-of-life on their hands so-to-speak in the cases of abortion medications, and life shortening prescriptions. But it's America and it won't stop there. There's always someone who will get upset by something. And before you know it, someone will get butthurt about prescribing painkillers because "Onoez! someone could get addicted" (far stretch, but nothing surprises me anymore x_x)
There's a serious common-sense limit here. The sad thing is tho, this bill is probably going to save the State a few lawsuits from 'Pharmacists' who were traumatized (Read: looking for a quick buck) because they handed out medications that ended the life of another. ~___________~
I think I'm done rambling ._.;
This is disturbing how everyone's always so scared of offending eachother in this country that it goes over common sense bounds.
I can understand the feelings of someone not wanting to have a loss-of-life on their hands so-to-speak in the cases of abortion medications, and life shortening prescriptions. But it's America and it won't stop there. There's always someone who will get upset by something. And before you know it, someone will get butthurt about prescribing painkillers because "Onoez! someone could get addicted" (far stretch, but nothing surprises me anymore x_x)
There's a serious common-sense limit here. The sad thing is tho, this bill is probably going to save the State a few lawsuits from 'Pharmacists' who were traumatized (Read: looking for a quick buck) because they handed out medications that ended the life of another. ~___________~
I think I'm done rambling ._.;
[+]
50k gil says the us supreme court over turns it on the basis that church and state should be separate.
Well at least you guys didn't get Utah's HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE law about miscarriages. Lemme find it http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14429070 in a nut shell if you miscarry and they suspect foul play then you're going to be charged with murder. The west fails, hard.
Honestly I agree with Weewoo, why are these people pharmacists?! Should they also refuse to fill sleeping pill prescriptions because people commit suicide with them?
Honestly I agree with Weewoo, why are these people pharmacists?! Should they also refuse to fill sleeping pill prescriptions because people commit suicide with them?
[+]
Yeah, I'm from Idaho as well, as this bit of legislation pertains to any medicines, we must also consider what it means for such emergency options as the morning after pill, etc. It comes down to the fact that we live in a fundamentalist state which has recently passed some pretty ridiculous legislation. I can't wait to move ; ;
[+]
Time to move to Europe. Where people have actual rights.
[+]
Everyone has the right to refuse service.
As far as why they became pharmisist maybe cause they thought they would be saving lives and they view BC (or whatever drug) as ending them and/or making them worse. Not everyone becomes a pharmisist for the money or to be a legal drug dealer. If I was a pharmisist and they started proscribing crack left and right I'd like to be able to refuse to provide
As far as why they became pharmisist maybe cause they thought they would be saving lives and they view BC (or whatever drug) as ending them and/or making them worse. Not everyone becomes a pharmisist for the money or to be a legal drug dealer. If I was a pharmisist and they started proscribing crack left and right I'd like to be able to refuse to provide
[+]
Ramuh.Dasva said:
Everyone has the right to refuse service.
As far as why they became pharmisist maybe cause they thought they would be saving lives and they view BC (or whatever drug) as ending them and/or making them worse. Not everyone becomes a pharmisist for the money or to be a legal drug dealer. If I was a pharmisist and they started proscribing crack left and right I'd like to be able to refuse to provide
As far as why they became pharmisist maybe cause they thought they would be saving lives and they view BC (or whatever drug) as ending them and/or making them worse. Not everyone becomes a pharmisist for the money or to be a legal drug dealer. If I was a pharmisist and they started proscribing crack left and right I'd like to be able to refuse to provide
There's a difference between conventional doctor prescribed medication and street narcotics. Though it is true that most businesses have a right to refuse, to have necessary drugs denied to people because of an overly religious or bigoted person behind the pharmacy counter, then I see problems arising.
Would be like me refusing to give you your asthma medicine because it is in fact a steroid.
[+]
Ramuh.Dasva said:
If I was a pharmisist and they started proscribing crack left and right I'd like to be able to refuse to provide
If crack were scientifically proven to provide a beneficial outcome to the point of a licensed physician looking past its detrimental effects and prescribing it, then there's a reason for it. If it's beyond your moral standing for a patient to follow a doctor's orders (because pharmacists go through just as much if not more schooling than M.D.s and D.O.s do), you'd better have a 1:1 comparable alternative. Any pharmacist outright refusing to provide health care services based on his or her moral standing alone is simply in the wrong business.
[+]
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Ramuh.Dasva said:
Everyone has the right to refuse service. As far as why they became pharmisist maybe cause they thought they would be saving lives and they view BC (or whatever drug) as ending them and/or making them worse. Not everyone becomes a pharmisist for the money or to be a legal drug dealer. If I was a pharmisist and they started proscribing crack left and right I'd like to be able to refuse to provide
Would be like me refusing to give you your asthma medicine because it is in fact a steroid.
I actually happen to know a few people that have prescription MJ for any number of random reasons. From tired to I think I have insomnia (not actually tested lol), random aches and pains, I have problems concentrating... to whatever made up reason the person gives etc. Getting a script for anything legal is as easy as going to a doctor till you find one willing to write it.
And you have no idea if it is religious bigotry or not. Just a different set of morals then you and really labeling them as such is bigotry in itself. For all you know they could be looking out for you. But no you just want your drugs now and don't care. Well if you still want them find another person and stop forcing people to sell you something. Solution is simply find someone who doesn't disagree with you and get it from them.
A hospital can refuse treatment why can't you refuse to sell something. What's next you gunna force doctors to perform treatments they don't approve of? Going to make stores carry what you want to eat not what they chose?
This isn't burger king. You can't always have it your way. Though to be far they could tell you to *** off too.
The plus side is if there's a conflict of interest present and the pharmacist notices this, it can prevent a tragic mishap of prescribed drugs given from a faulty/corrupt doctor. The downside is, there would be a gaping window of opportunity to abuse this power based on moral beliefs of the pharmacist.
Btw this bill is only for "which lets medical professionals such as nurses and pharmacists refuse to perform medical actions or fill prescriptions that could cause an abortion—as well as emergency contraception—or hasten the end of life." Not general contraception etc
Actuallly lets just put the whole bill in to avoid misunderstandings. Notice they are not allowed you actually "need", oh and sorry about the format just copypasting
Conscience_bill said:
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Sixtieth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010
IN THE SENATE
SENATE BILL NO. 1353
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
1 AN ACT
2 RELATING TO ABORTION AND END OF LIFE CARE; AMENDING CHAPTER 6, TITLE
3 18, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 18611,
IDAHO
4 CODE, TO DEFINE TERMS, TO PROVIDE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FOR HEALTH
5 CARE PROFESSIONALS, TO PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY, TO PROVIDE
6 AN EXCEPTION FOR EMERGENCIES AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION; AND
7 PROVIDING SEVERABILITY.
8 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
9 SECTION 1. That Chapter 6, Title 18, Idaho Code, be, and the same is
10 hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and
11 designated as Section 18611,
Idaho Code, and to read as follows:
12 18611.
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FOR HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS. (1) As
13 used in this section:
14 (a) "Abortifacient" means any drug that causes an abortion as defined
15 in 18604,
Idaho Code, emergency contraception or any drug the primary
16 purpose of which is to cause the destruction of an embryo or fetus.
17 (b) "Conscience" means the religious, moral or ethical principles
18 sincerely held by any person.
19 (c) "Embryo" means the developing human life from fertilization until
20 the end of the eighth week of gestation.
21 (d) "Fetus" means the developing human life from the start of the ninth
22 week of gestation until birth.
23 (e) "Health care professional" means any person licensed, certified or
24 registered by the state of Idaho to deliver health care.
25 (f) "Health care service" means an abortion, dispensation of an
26 abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment
27 regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or
28 end of life treatment and care.
29 (g) "Provide" means to counsel, advise, perform, dispense, assist in or
30 refer for any health care service.
31 (h) "Religious, moral or ethical principles," "sincerely held,"
32 "reasonably accommodate" and "undue hardship" shall be construed
33 consistently with Title VII of the federal civil rights act of 1964, as
34 amended.
35 (2) No health care professional shall be required to provide any health
36 care service that violates his or her conscience.
37 (3) Employers of health care professionals shall reasonably
38 accommodate the conscience rights of their employees as provided in this
39 section, upon advanced written notification by the employee. Such notice
40 shall suffice without specification of the reason therefor. It shall
41 be unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any health care
42 professional based upon his or her declining to provide a health care service
2
1 that violates his or her conscience, unless the employer can demonstrate
2 that such accommodation poses an undue hardship.
3 (4) No health care professional or employer of the health care
4 professional shall be civilly, criminally or administratively liable for
5 the health care professional declining to provide health care services that
6 violate his or her conscience, except for lifethreatening
situations as
7 provided for in subsection (6) of this section.
8 (5) The provisions of this section do not allow a health care
9 professional or employer of the health care professional to refuse to
10 provide health care services because of a patient’s race, color, religion,
11 sex, age, disability or national origin.
12 (6) If a health care professional invokes a conscience right in a
13 lifethreatening
situation where no other health care professional capable
14 of treating the emergency is available, such health care professional shall
15 provide treatment and care until an alternate health care professional
16 capable of treating the emergency is found.
17 (7) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of conscience
18 provided for in section 18612,
Idaho Code, to the extent that those rights
19 are broader in scope than those provided for in this section.
20 SECTION 2. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be
21 severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such
22 provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason,
23 such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
24 this act.
Sixtieth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010
IN THE SENATE
SENATE BILL NO. 1353
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
1 AN ACT
2 RELATING TO ABORTION AND END OF LIFE CARE; AMENDING CHAPTER 6, TITLE
3 18, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 18611,
IDAHO
4 CODE, TO DEFINE TERMS, TO PROVIDE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FOR HEALTH
5 CARE PROFESSIONALS, TO PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY, TO PROVIDE
6 AN EXCEPTION FOR EMERGENCIES AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION; AND
7 PROVIDING SEVERABILITY.
8 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
9 SECTION 1. That Chapter 6, Title 18, Idaho Code, be, and the same is
10 hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and
11 designated as Section 18611,
Idaho Code, and to read as follows:
12 18611.
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FOR HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS. (1) As
13 used in this section:
14 (a) "Abortifacient" means any drug that causes an abortion as defined
15 in 18604,
Idaho Code, emergency contraception or any drug the primary
16 purpose of which is to cause the destruction of an embryo or fetus.
17 (b) "Conscience" means the religious, moral or ethical principles
18 sincerely held by any person.
19 (c) "Embryo" means the developing human life from fertilization until
20 the end of the eighth week of gestation.
21 (d) "Fetus" means the developing human life from the start of the ninth
22 week of gestation until birth.
23 (e) "Health care professional" means any person licensed, certified or
24 registered by the state of Idaho to deliver health care.
25 (f) "Health care service" means an abortion, dispensation of an
26 abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment
27 regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or
28 end of life treatment and care.
29 (g) "Provide" means to counsel, advise, perform, dispense, assist in or
30 refer for any health care service.
31 (h) "Religious, moral or ethical principles," "sincerely held,"
32 "reasonably accommodate" and "undue hardship" shall be construed
33 consistently with Title VII of the federal civil rights act of 1964, as
34 amended.
35 (2) No health care professional shall be required to provide any health
36 care service that violates his or her conscience.
37 (3) Employers of health care professionals shall reasonably
38 accommodate the conscience rights of their employees as provided in this
39 section, upon advanced written notification by the employee. Such notice
40 shall suffice without specification of the reason therefor. It shall
41 be unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any health care
42 professional based upon his or her declining to provide a health care service
2
1 that violates his or her conscience, unless the employer can demonstrate
2 that such accommodation poses an undue hardship.
3 (4) No health care professional or employer of the health care
4 professional shall be civilly, criminally or administratively liable for
5 the health care professional declining to provide health care services that
6 violate his or her conscience, except for lifethreatening
situations as
7 provided for in subsection (6) of this section.
8 (5) The provisions of this section do not allow a health care
9 professional or employer of the health care professional to refuse to
10 provide health care services because of a patient’s race, color, religion,
11 sex, age, disability or national origin.
12 (6) If a health care professional invokes a conscience right in a
13 lifethreatening
situation where no other health care professional capable
14 of treating the emergency is available, such health care professional shall
15 provide treatment and care until an alternate health care professional
16 capable of treating the emergency is found.
17 (7) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of conscience
18 provided for in section 18612,
Idaho Code, to the extent that those rights
19 are broader in scope than those provided for in this section.
20 SECTION 2. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be
21 severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such
22 provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason,
23 such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
24 this act.
Ramuh.Dasva said:
A hospital can refuse treatment why can't you refuse to sell something.
This statement is far too blanketed to actually serve as an argument. Hospitals can refuse to treat under what I'm sure are only extremely specific conditions, and I wouldn't doubt that there are a few of those conditions that can even be contested in court if the patient believes that they were wrongfully refused.
There are hospitals all over the place that refuse to sterilize a woman after she's borne a child (or several) and has decided that she doesn't want any further pregnancies. As far as I'm concerned, that's her right, regardless of the hospital's established moral standing. The most they should be able to do is educate her on both health risks AND benefits, and make sure that she understands her decision would be a permanent one. Beyond that, they'd be no different telling a guy wearing glasses that he's not allowed to undergo Lasik surgery because by some twisted logic, they don't "believe in it".
But they aren't saying you can't do whatever or get whatever. They are just saying they refuse to take part in it.
And again this is about things necessary for life. Or even useful so all those examples completely fail. In fact they can only refuse to end a lives. What you are asking to force people to contribute to what to them is murder. There is always someone out there that wont think that way that will help you out.
And again this is about things necessary for life. Or even useful so all those examples completely fail. In fact they can only refuse to end a lives. What you are asking to force people to contribute to what to them is murder. There is always someone out there that wont think that way that will help you out.
It is entirely my fault that I did not note that the bill was only for abortion/emergency contraception stuff. The teacher who told us about it in class didn't mention that, and I did not research into the bill beyond the first little bit, so that is my fault and I apologize for any misunderstandings there.
BUT-- If I got pregnant tomorrow despite my husband's and my attempts to not have children, knowing full well that we do not want children at this time and maybe not ever, and I had the option for emergency contraception (I'm not talking about late-term abortion here, just the ability to stop the pregnancy at the earliest possible beginning stages) that is MY choice to do that. It is not my pharmacist's choice, and my pharmacist has no right to tell me that I have to have a child that I do not want because it would soothe his/her conscience for me to have it.
I guess we all need to take into consideration the pharmacist's rights, too, because me forcing them to do something they feel is morally wrong is just as bad as them refusing me my medicine because of those morals. At what point do their rights override mine and vice-versa? I just want to be assured that if something goes wrong, I can get the care of medicine I need to take care of it. Does a pharmacist's moral belief system override my desire to not have a child?
BUT-- If I got pregnant tomorrow despite my husband's and my attempts to not have children, knowing full well that we do not want children at this time and maybe not ever, and I had the option for emergency contraception (I'm not talking about late-term abortion here, just the ability to stop the pregnancy at the earliest possible beginning stages) that is MY choice to do that. It is not my pharmacist's choice, and my pharmacist has no right to tell me that I have to have a child that I do not want because it would soothe his/her conscience for me to have it.
I guess we all need to take into consideration the pharmacist's rights, too, because me forcing them to do something they feel is morally wrong is just as bad as them refusing me my medicine because of those morals. At what point do their rights override mine and vice-versa? I just want to be assured that if something goes wrong, I can get the care of medicine I need to take care of it. Does a pharmacist's moral belief system override my desire to not have a child?
(just read the bill) alright alright I got it.
I agree that someone can refuse to perform what they themselves believe to be murder. However, I also agree that it is completely fine for someone seeking that service to be able to go elsewhere to find it without being condemned.
While preventative (hormonal) birth control isn't "abortifacient" as far as I'm concerned, many health care professionals seem to still think it is, regardless of their professional training in the sciences. This is because their religious views overshadow their training. This point alone is what I believe is wrong.
I agree that someone can refuse to perform what they themselves believe to be murder. However, I also agree that it is completely fine for someone seeking that service to be able to go elsewhere to find it without being condemned.
While preventative (hormonal) birth control isn't "abortifacient" as far as I'm concerned, many health care professionals seem to still think it is, regardless of their professional training in the sciences. This is because their religious views overshadow their training. This point alone is what I believe is wrong.
[+]
Yeah reading up I beleive the bill had a rough time the first time because of what exactly they were defining as when life started. Which is why non emergency birth control isn't on there because even in Idaho that wouldn't pass.
Think it came down to you can't count stuff down before conception because hell then you'd have to call nature (or god) a murderer to for not letting the sperm get in there. Hell at that point you could call masturbation mass murder. Which is rather silly.
I find it odd that the whole assisted suicide was kinda thrown in at the end in a rather vague fashion lol.
From the way the bill reads it makes it seem like you could techinically just ask for another pharmicist at wherever you are if that wont do it and just makes it so you can't pwn that one for saying no. Unless of course the employer can prove undue hardship... so like probably say if you were the only pharmacy within a couple hours drive and none of the pharmacist there would want to. Though I suspect proving that wont be easy and there will be a bit of dispute and/or lot of cases battling over it.
Think it came down to you can't count stuff down before conception because hell then you'd have to call nature (or god) a murderer to for not letting the sperm get in there. Hell at that point you could call masturbation mass murder. Which is rather silly.
I find it odd that the whole assisted suicide was kinda thrown in at the end in a rather vague fashion lol.
From the way the bill reads it makes it seem like you could techinically just ask for another pharmicist at wherever you are if that wont do it and just makes it so you can't pwn that one for saying no. Unless of course the employer can prove undue hardship... so like probably say if you were the only pharmacy within a couple hours drive and none of the pharmacist there would want to. Though I suspect proving that wont be easy and there will be a bit of dispute and/or lot of cases battling over it.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.