An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Equal Moral Rights For All?

Around the country they’re debating the “moral right” of doctors to refuse certain kinds of care, and the same right of pharmacists to do the same thing when it comes to filling prescriptions. But the whole question here strikes me as kind of silly.

I mean, if you’re a pacifist, it’s obvious you shouldn’t join the Armed Forces where you might be called upon to kill somone. If you’ve set your heart on being a trapeze artist, it’s equally clear you shouldn’t be afraid of heights. So why should a doctor get into medicine if he/she doesn’t want to give all legal treatments? And why should a pharmacist think he/she should be in that profession if filling all legal prescriptions isn’t to their taste?

In thinking this matter over at greater length, I even began to wonder why this supposed right, if it actually exists, should only apply to a few professional categories. Why not give others the same rights if you give them to doctors and pharmacists? Are doctors and pharmacists more moral than other people? In a country such as ours, if some groups have moral rights, why not moral rights for all?

Take a drug store cashier, for example. A pharmacist gives you your morning after pills, but the person at the cash register doesn’t approve of you taking these meds. Or buying condoms either for that matter. Should these folks have the same moral-based veto rights as the pill filler? Or you go into a department store to buy a girly undergarment for Mr. Right, but Mr. Moral at the register doesn’t approve of such immodesty and tells you to buy something else.

And how about the bagger at the supermarket who doesn’t like your purchase of meat because he’s a vegan. Or the guy at the liquor store who might, just might, let you get away with a six pack of Millers if he’s in the right moral mood, but draws the moral line at selling Powerball tickets because of a moral objection to gambling.

Some might say that states can single out moral rights for doctors and pharmacists because these people are licensed by the state. By so are plumbers and scores of other professionals and tradespeople who might come forward with their own varied moral arguments against providing services to certain groups of people.

Gimme a break. I won’t shove my moral sensibilities down your throat if you don’t do the shoving down mine. Do the job you’re licensed to do, or simply hired to do. And if it goes against your moral grain, get a different job. I go to a medical facility, a drug store, and a great many other places to have my own wants and needs serviced, not to burnish someone else’s sense of moral superiority.

 

http://www.wallstreetpoet.com

  • Leonidas
    It all depends, if your an employee you have the right to refuse to sell someone a product but your boss has the right to fire you. If your an owner you have the right to conduct business anyway you see fit and only have to anwer to the customer, assuming no laws are broken. People are not slaves, you cannot require them to provide services they are not obligated by law to provide. If we start requiring people to do so, we have in effect made those people slaves.
  • casualobserver
    Not to mention the fact Silverstein could simply have walked to the pharmacy across the street and saved the bandwidth.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    Its kinda funny, in Europe they are making special exception laws for the muslim fundies and we here in the US look with horror as we mock them all while making special exception laws for our very own fundies and acting like they are two different animals. Ladies and gents, fundies are fundies and they are all batsh*t, if you can deny me birth control I should also be able to deny giving you meat if I ama vegan or a whole host of other things. No law is needed, if they want to refuse for moral reasons then their employer needs to figure out whether or not they wish to fire them because they cant serve their job function, its just that simple.
  • mikkel
    The majority of proposed (and enacted) laws don't force someone to do anything, merely shield them from being fired if they refuse.
  • DLS
    "Silverstein could simply have walked to the pharmacy across the street"

    Years ago, for the subject is years, decades old.
  • That becomes a problem if that's the only pharmacy in town. But with the Internet and The Borg, I mean Wal-Mart everywhere, it shouldn't be a problem to go somewhere else where someone WILL. In my experience, there's always someone that WILL. Even among doctors. You just got to weigh the pros and cons.
  • roro80
    I agree with the original post on every case brought up. It also reminds me of the lesbian couple in the San Diego area that were denied access to invetro treatments due the doctor's religious view that gay people shouldn't raise children. In this case, if I remember correctly, the next closest doctor who provided these treatments within the couple's insurance network was much further away.

    This brings up another point, of course. Most towns, even most small ones, have more than one pharmacy; those that don't are generally the ones that serve communities that would be least able to just drive on down to the next town. There are also many types of specialist doctors that are few and far between. What "moral" reasons are they allowed to use for refusal of treatment? Do those reasons have to be connected to the treatment? Also: what if your insurance is such that only one doctor in the area takes it?
  • kathykattenburg
    I agree with Michael that it's ridiculous to try to shove your personal morality down someone else's throat. It's really the nanny state gone wild. What right does a counter clerk have to tell me I can't buy a lottery ticket because he doesn't approve of gambling? I'm not a baby; I can run my own life, thank you very much.
  • jeff_pickens
    Michael, good points, all. Morality can't and shouldn't necessarily be legislated. This kind of "moral rights" terminology really can morph into all kinds of mischief.
  • JeffersonDavis
    It's dangerous to pin the word "moral" to anything that the government touches, much less businesses. It should be avoided until everyone is on the same page as to what "morality" is.

    You cannot have a successful civilization or society when everyone has a different morality.
    It just doesn't work.

    As far as article goes, it is correct that doctors and pharmacists should not get into that game if they don't want to play. However, when a pharmacist sees plainly that a doctor that is bought and paid for by a pharmaceutical company has prescribed a frivolous drug that doesn't cure or treat the illness, I wouldn't expect him to "play along", and he/she should say no.
  • Gegenschattenbild
    I have no idea what world some of you folks live in. Well, I guess it's obvious that some of you live in cities where you can get almost anything they need, and others live in suburbs or small towns. But let me assure you, there are counties in my state where there is neither a doctor nor a pharmacy. The folks in these impoverished counties have to travel to even visit a county health department. In situations like this, I see it as intolerable that a pharmacist would be unwilling to sell legal items that s/he has some "issue" with, or that a doctor would deny some treatment that his morality doesn't agree with.

    Plus, most "pharmacists" these days (those that I encounter, anyway) are basically pill dispensers!
  • Leonidas
    I agree with Michael that it's ridiculous to try to shove your personal morality down someone else's throat. It's really the nanny state gone wild. What right does a counter clerk have to tell me I can't buy a lottery ticket because he doesn't approve of gambling? I'm not a baby; I can run my own life, thank you very much


    Ummm....Haven't you been lobbying for public healthcare?

    Actually the counter clerk has every right not to sell it to you, and you have every right to tell that to his manager or the store owner and get them fired.
  • tidbits
    JD -

    You said "It's dangerous to pin the word 'moral' to anything the government touches...It should be avoided until everyone is on the same page as to what 'morality'is." I agree, and you got a "Like" from me as a result.

    My question is: how do you square that philosophy with your agrument yesterday that, based on religious/moral grounds, gay marriage should be outlawed (legislated morality), an issue where everyone is clearly not on the same page as to what "morality" is?



  • JeffersonDavis
    The common morality of the country is what I was talking about, as you agreed.
    Once upon a time, both democrat and republican adhered to the same set of moral truths - they just disagreed on how to govern. Would you agree with that?

    If so, then consider this concerning homosexuality and morality:

    Once the common morality was compromised (60's, free love, etc), it started a trend of downward spiral in the common morality in the nation. Sex was no longer an act that was private in your own bedroom. Divorce skyrocketed. Sexually transmitted diseases skyrocketed, teen pregnancy skyrocketed, etc. It degenerates further as liberals force the acceptance of homosexuality as a normal state of being.

    I do not hate homosexuals as some ultra right wingers do. They remain my brother and sisters. But I believe their lifestyle choice is a small part of the big picture, and it is taking our nation and culture down the wrong path morally. It is one of the reasons our nation is so divided today. Some of us still attempt to hold the "old" common morality as a good thing. I'm a conservative democrat, but the "new" morality democrats in DC do not represent me.

    Go figure.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC