The New York Times> Op-Ed: What's Going On?
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: What's Going On?: "Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.
And it won't stop there. There is a nationwide trend toward 'conscience' or 'refusal' legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any patient. Again, think of how such laws expose doctors to pressure and intimidation."
Paul Krugman has an excellent op-ed on the theocratic tendencies of the present Republican majority. This section (not news to me) led me to comment however. It amazes me that states are actively supporting the ability of pharmacists and other medical professionals to deny treatment not for medical but for their own personal, moral reasons. I guess it can seem radical, but my feeling is that any doctor or pharmacist who allows their own personal sense of morality to impair their medical decision making should have their license to practice revoked for the egregious violation of medical ethics they have committed.
Some on the other side might say, well, the person can just go to a pharmacy that will fill that prescription. This is a problematic defense. Small towns may not have multiple medical options thus to find someone who would provide the care that is needed, the individual would have to go an unacceptable distance. Secondly, as the article points out, there is the threat of intimidation against those who do not give into the religious bias, slowly narrowing the selection of ethical doctors.
It is horrifying to me. I feel I can do only very little to stop this theo-fascist tide in the United States. I want to see millions of people across the country taking up protest against this action, but the Democratic leadership is lacking and the people are too indifferent it seems. Apathy is the best friend of extremism.
posted by Erik Bondurant @ 7:54 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
When my grandfather was in his seventies he broke his collarbone. One of the nurses expressed the opinion that people of that age who break bones usually die of pneumonia anyway, but my grandfather, being a rather unusual man, recovered completely in a few weeks and lived to 96. The point is, what if a pharmacist decided that people in their 70s or 80s should not receive medications to keep them alive despite mutiplying medical conditions, because it's a waste of resources that could be given to younger but less-able-to-pay people? As with the nurse's opinion, it's a supportable point of view, although she was wrong about that one old man -- there's a "conscience-driven" decision that would never be tolerated by the people who are all for the same sorts of decisions being made by pharmacists who will not be around to raise the baby they are forcing some young woman (or older woman!) to have.
I completely agree. For any physician to make a decision to withhold healthcare based on their personal beliefs should be grounds for possibly loosing thier licsence.
It is not enough to agree, we need to take action. The dem party has enough on its plate right now. We the women of this country need to take this issue to heart and organize a resistance. Identify the chains which allow this sort of thing and petition them. Boycott them if they refuse to cooperate. It needs to be a nationwide effort. Big chains like Walgreen's are the most susceptible to economic pressure- they could be boycotted nationwide. Come on girls! Write letters to the editor, write to the pharmaceutical chains, get petitions out there and organize resistance!
Post a Comment
<< Home