religion and profession

[cellio]

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.

Comments

A particular about changing situations...

[akitrom.livejournal.com]

How would you analyze a pharmacist who:

• has been working in the field for perhaps a couple decades and encounters a new drug/treatment he finds morally objectionable...
  
• begins working and gradually realizes that a particular drug/treatment is against her ethics...
  
• informs customers that he cannot morally fill their prescription, but directs them to a pharmacist who can.
  

Re: A particular about changing situations...

[rob-of-unspace.livejournal.com]

Plan B is a variation on Birth Control pill. Any objection to Plan B should include BCP.

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...

[rob-of-unspace.livejournal.com]

Proofreading time again. I actually read it through twice, and only saw this after I posted it.

replace "Most pharmacists" with "Most objecting pharmacists."

Re: A particular about changing situations...

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Case #1 and Case #2 strike me as giving rise to a similar result. The pharmacist must decide if his or her job is ethical for him or her to perform. If not, the pharmacist must talk to his/her supervisor or superior and see if an accomodation can be reached. If not, the pharmacist may have to quit and seek other employment.

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.