religion and profession
Jul. 18th, 2006 08:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellio![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
osewalrus posted an excellent essay on conflicts between religion and one's profession. He and I agree: you are completely free to practice your religion, but if doing so causes complications in your life, you -- not the rest of society -- need to deal with that.
Re: How do you avoid...
Date: 2006-07-19 03:47 pm (UTC)My wife is a pharmacist. If she decides in her professional judgment that giving a patient Plan B is contra-indicated because the patient has a history of cardiac problems and Plan B has potentially bad side effects for cardiac patients, and overrides a doctor's judgment because she believes after consultation with the doctor that the doctor simply does not understand the drug issues, that's one thing. It is an exercise of professional judgment coupled with moral judgment on where her responsibility as a professional lies.
OTOH, if my wife decided that, as an Orthodox JEw, she could never give Plan B under any circumstances, that is something that should be disclosed to an employer. If the employer maintains that dispensing Plan B is part of the job, and cannot be refused simply because my wife doesn't want to give it, then the employer should not hire her. (Please note, my wife has no such issue. I use it as an example.)
The argument that a requirement for a person to disclose their inability to perform job tasks under all circumstances, and to suffer the consequences for this refusal, is unrelated to the more substantive question of when specific circumstances require the exercise of moral and professional judgment.
To return to your case for a moment. Both you and the Medical Command Physician agree that, as a general principle, it is the duty of treating medical professionals to save life. under the moral and ethical standards of your profession, as you yourself maintain in the story, this general obligation required you to give aid. The order given was inappropriate. You refused to obey. This is similar to any case where an illegal order is given. Covered by UNSMC and most other military codes since WWII.
The "conscience objectors" in the article do not fall into this catagory. The standards of the profession call for them to act one way. They refuse, siting their moral objections. This is, to me at least, rather like joining the army and then declaring you can't be sent into combat because you refuse to kill.
We call such "consciencious objectors" "deserters". They new when they joined the army they could be asked to participate in killing. They have no right to refuse a legal order to enter combat.
Why is the case of the "conscious pharmacist" who refuses to dispense Plan B in all circumstances, not simply as an exercise of moral/professional judgment applied to unique circumstances, different?
A particular about changing situations...
Date: 2006-07-19 08:02 pm (UTC)Re: A particular about changing situations...
Date: 2006-07-19 11:14 pm (UTC)Most pharmacists realize it is not an abortificient in any way, but to them, contraception is the moral equivalent of abortion.
The goal is to start with a confusing subject, get the public on their side, and then start moving the goalposts.
It's the same thing with embryonic stem cell research. Why ban that and not IVF, where (unless you are rich and willing to pay to take the precautions) a lot of embryos will probably be destroyed after you're done? Simple. IVF is currently accepted. Ban stem cells first; go after IVF down the road, after you've changed society sufficiently.
South Dakota, BTW, is a terrible disruption of this gradual process. If the pro-Choice side wins, it will be because of the legilators of Sout Dakota.
Now the person whose morals change over the years...what happens to a trauma surgeon who becomes a Jehovah's Witness? Does he (or she) have the right to refuse to give trauma victims blood?
Re: A particular about changing situations...
Date: 2006-07-19 11:15 pm (UTC)replace "Most pharmacists" with "Most objecting pharmacists."
Re: A particular about changing situations...
Date: 2006-07-20 01:45 pm (UTC)Case 3 varies a great deal depending on the local situation. If the other pharmacist is standing next to me ("Fred, can you fill this order?"), then no problem. Other than that, I think it is morally wrong for the pharmacist to hold him or herself out as capable of performing all the duties of his or her profession when this is not the case.
The exceptional case is the Pharamcist proprietor (or one who works for someone with similar moral qualms) who puts a big sign up saying "We Do Not Carry Any Contraceptives OR Fill Prescriptions for Abortificients" (I'm excluding drugs where this is a possible side effect but not the reason for the prescription -- a fact that will likely be evident to a professional pharmacist). Here, the pharmacist does not hold himself out to the public as carrying the medication, and those seeking the drug will need to go elsewhere.
It has been argued that all pharmacies should be required to carry such drugs and all pharmacists required to fill such prescriptions. But that is a different level of argument. It is one thing to say that a pharmacist must diclose any known moral objections that would interfere with performance of his or her duties. It is another to require a pharmacist to always perform an action he or she finds morally repugnant, even where disclosure is made. I'm not saying the argumnent cannot be made -- there are times when society choses to impose duties that create such choices -- but it is a different argument.