Which Rights Take Priority?

[mattj]

Just thought I'd share this true story:

So my newborn son has been fussy lately and we've had a terrible time getting him to finish his bottle. My wife took him to his pediatrician today, who diagnosed him with acid reflux (a common problem for newborns). His pediatrician sent the prescription to our pharmacist and the pharmacist accepted the script. But when my wife showed up to pick up the prescription

they

told

her

it

would

take

four

days

to

fill

the

prescription

...

I cannot BELIEVE the incompetence of THAT PHARMACY MANAGER to not stock a COMMON prescription for a COMMON childhood ailment!! I also CANNOT BELIEVE that they would ACCEPT OUR PRESCRIPTION WITHOUT NOTIFYING US THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM until my wife showed up HOURS LATER WITH TWO WHINY KIDS IN TOW just to be USHERED ASIDE to have some part time pharmacist MAKE UP some STUPID PROBABLY FAKE EXCUSE as to why my SICK CHILD'S prescription couldn't be filled RIGHT NOW when we need it!! I don't CARE what that particular pharmacy's policy on stocking prescriptions is, hundreds of thousands of newborns suffer from acid reflux every year and there is a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that that pharmacy should STOCK MORE THAN ENOUGH TO PROVIDE FOR MY NEED RIGHT NOW WHEN I NEED IT!! Beyond that, the fact that they ACCEPTED OUR PRESCRIPTION and didn't notify us that there was a problem until hours later when my wife showed up with the kids is unforgivable!! There is NO excuse for such unprofessional behavior!! They SERIOUSLY TOLD US that if we wanted it to be filled faster we COULD GO ELSEWHERE, otherwise we would JUST HAVE TO WAIT FOUR DAYS while my POOR SICK CHILD HAS TO SUFFER ALL BECAUSE SOME INCOMPETENT PHARMACY MANAGER THOUGHT HE DIDN'T NEED TO STOCK THAT MUCH of a COMMON PRESCRIPTION!!

As you can expect, my wife stood there STUNNED at the BOLD INCOMPETENCE of the pharmacy manager. She COULDN'T BELIEVE that ANYONE would SO FLIPPANTLY DENY A POOR SICK CHILD IN NEED!! She CUSSED at the pharmacist and STORMED OUT OF THE PHARMACY.


And JUST TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY when I emailed this story to our local TV stations and Newspapers they told me THERE WASN'T ANYTHING NEWSWORTHY ABOUT THE STORY!! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?? As if JUST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T INVOLVE A MEAN OLD RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE IT DOESN'T WARRANT THE SAME MEDIA ATTENTION!!

lol no

But in all reality my son was diagnosed with infant acid reflux this morning, which really is a very common problem for newborns. The pharmacy really did accept our prescription, and then really did tell my wife they were out of the compound needed to create the medicine and that it really would take four days to get the necessary ingredients. Unfortunately, because of a ridiculous insurance dispute here in the Midwest, that Schnucks Pharmacy is literally the only one in the area that we won't have to pay a ridiculously high copay for that prescription, so we really are stuck having to wait four days to get the medicine my son needs.

The main difference between our case and the case of the birth control bandit is that my wife (and I) understood that sometimes stuff happens and managers do make mistakes and we'll just have to deal with it till they get the compound in and neither of us are upset. Before today I had to keep my mouth shut because I hadn't experienced an equivalent situation, but now I'm happy to say that that woman who got so upset about having to either go down the street or wait till the next morning to get her birth control prescription filled definitely should have been more understanding. She only had to go down the street or wait a matter of hours. I cannot go to another pharmacy and I have to wait four days. I understand that she may notice negligible effects of missing one pill, but my wife and I have to deal with four days of a screaming baby who is quite obviously in pain. I also understand exactly what it means to have a prescription accepted only to show up and be turned away. Its seriously not a big enough deal to call the media about.

People seriously need to be more calm and understanding these days. Nobody owes anybody anything. Many people have personal convictions that seriously mean something to them. Many businesses make mistakes and don't stock enough even common goods all the time. That's just part of being human. Everybody has to deal with something similar almost every day. There's no reason to get upset and play the victim.

 

[Sadib]

The main difference between our case and the case of the birth control bandit is that my wife (and I) understood that sometimes stuff happens and managers do make mistakes and we'll just have to deal with it till they get the compound in and neither of us are upset. Before today I had to keep my mouth shut because I hadn't experienced an equivalent situation, but now I'm happy to say that that woman who got so upset about having to either go down the street or wait till the next morning to get her birth control prescription filled definitely should have been more understanding. She only had to go down the street or wait a matter of hours. I cannot go to another pharmacy and I have to wait four days. I understand that she may notice negligible effects of missing one pill, but my wife and I have to deal with four days of a screaming baby who is quite obviously in pain. I also understand exactly what it means to have a prescription accepted only to show up and be turned away. Its seriously not a big enough deal to call the media about.

Actually... The difference is that your pharmacist was not intentionally withholding the prescription due to a conflict in morals. How would you react if the the pharmacist instead said, "We have the medicine in stock, but I'm not going to sell it to you. I believe faith healing is more effective than any medicine. Just keep on praying, and your son's acid reflex will simply disappear if God wants it to. If you still want to purchase the medication, you can wait for a week. I should be fired by then."

 

[CSolarstorm]

*yawn/sigh* Sorry to hear you experienced your first postponed prescription today, and worse, for your children.

I've waited for important antibiotics before, and waited longer to get TAR authorizations for my after-surgery medication for my hips. Like, two weeks. It's true that the problems she faced by having to wait for another pharmacist were situationally the same as if her medication was postponed for any other reason, which is a relatively common occurence.

I think it's the principle of the matter for the others. It's one thing to know that the pharmacy is doing everything it possibly can. It's another to start helping and then voluntarily obstruct the medication process. It comes off as offensive and infuriating because the person who is being denied knows that it WAS intended to be that way.

 

[ChedWick]

Story

Cool story bro. Too bad it once again does not compare. It's a shame you took so much time to type that waste of space up to try and validate your point.

 

[mattj]

I think it's the principle of the matter for the others. It's one thing to know that the pharmacy is doing everything it possibly can. It's another to start helping and then voluntarily obstruct the medication process. It comes off as offensive and infuriating because the person who is being denied knows that it WAS intended to be that way.

Really now. In the OP's case the manager didn't make sure that there was a pharmacist on hand that was willing to handle a given prescription. In my case the manager didn't make sure that there was enough stock. Both are directly the responsibility of the manager. If one isn't rage-worthy, why is the other? Why should the one involving the conscience of a religious woman be so offensive, when the one involving a stock oversight is so clearly not (i.e. my point the whole time)?

 

[Sadib]

Really now. In the OP's case the manager didn't make sure that there was a pharmacist on hand that was willing to handle a given prescription. In my case the manager didn't make sure that there was enough stock. Both are directly the responsibility of the manager. If one isn't rage-worthy, why is the other? Why should the one involving the conscience of a religious woman be so offensive, when the one involving a stock oversight is so clearly not (i.e. my point the whole time)?

Which one is intentional?

 

[Profesco]

Woah, wait. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're talking about two different things. I'm talking about not doing something because my conscience tells me I should not get involved. You seem to be talking about a situation where you know you should get involved but you don't. Both of those situations involve inaction, but I don't think they are comparable because in one, the inaction was a result of that tug of conscience, while in the other the inaction was in spite of that tug of conscience. Those seem like polar opposite situations to me.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Forgive me, it's been a while.

Yes, somehow TFP and I got into that cat/mom/bully discussion. For my critique of your argument, however, we needn't worry about bullied cats or moms. You and I can have a much clearer discussion, which will carry on with the following questions:

I'm talking about not doing something because my conscience tells me I should not get involved.

Is this kind of inaction ethically positive, and if so, why?

However, your point invoked examples that are truly bad comparisons. Committed Nazis hold views that are approximately the same as, if not identical to, Hitler's view. While holding such views, why on earth would they speak out against Hitler?

Bad comparisons to the pharmacist example, is that what you mean? Let me reappropriate your phrases here.

"Committed Catholics hold views that are approximately the same as, if not identical to, the Catholic Church's view. While holding such views, why on earth would the pharmacist fill a prescription for contraception?"

Though I should not have, I may have let some other people's posts color my view of your other two examples: Some have been saying people who don't act to stop evil might as well have done the evil themselves. This is obviously fallacious, and your latter two examples just add evidence of that.

If a Muslim doesn't commit a suicide bombing nor teach someone to do so, why, they aren't responsible for anyone's suicide bombing! (Parents who are against it may always wonder "Could I have kept him from this by teaching against this more strongly?") If one fails to report a crime like child molestation, that can never make that person guilty of that crime. Even if the law finds the person guilty of obstructing justice (and I'm not sure at the moment if this applies in all cases or even if I've got the right term), the law doesn't hold that not telling is the same as, say, hiding evidence.

My point was not to suggest that the people who refuse to act in examples like the ones we're discussing are guilty of committing the crime or violation of rights in question; it was simply to demonstrate that those people's actions (or lackthereof, for goodness' sake) are ethically condemnable on their own. My seeing a child molested and not intervening does not make me a child molester, but nor are my actions (or inactions, sheesh) morally commendable.

I realize I rushed my post too much. I intended that as a refutation of the view that not acting is just as bad as doing the wrong. I believe that my cat needs the help, therefore, under most circumstances, I do help.

To make my example better, let's assume that I believe my cat needs to stand up to some other cat. Even better, let's use a school bully as an example. Is a parent wrong to not sue the other kid's parent if he believes the principle must take notice of things happening in his school?

I caution that what I have presented is still not a perfect example, but I think it should remove a lot of the fuzziness in my previous example.

Apologies, TFP, but I'm afraid I understand less here than I did before. If you want to pursue this portion of the discussion (I could take it or leave it), would you mind rephrasing it? ^_^;

Edit:

Really now. In the OP's case the manager didn't make sure that there was a pharmacist on hand that was willing to handle a given prescription. In my case the manager didn't make sure that there was enough stock. Both are directly the responsibility of the manager. If one isn't rage-worthy, why is the other? Why should the one involving the conscience of a religious woman be so offensive, when the one involving a stock oversight is so clearly not (i.e. my point the whole time)?

Imagine that your newborn son was knocking at death's door, then.

1) You arrive at the pharmacy with mere minutes before your son is forever gone, and the pharmacist goes to retrieve the medicine that will save his life, but doesn't see it under the counter. High and low she searches, tearing boxes from the shelves, scouring the back supply closet, rending every coffer, calling the pharmacy across town to rush over the medicine in the hope against hope that it will arrive fast enough. Alas, the medicine was in high demand that week and sold out before the pharmaceutical company's delivery arrived. There was no medicine left, and the cross-town pharmacist didn't make it in time. Your baby son perishes in your hands despite every course of action being taken to save him.

2) You arrive at the pharmacy with mere minutes before your son is forever gone, and the pharmacist tells you she won't give you the medicine that will save his life. You see your prescription, packed and labeled with your son's name, right there beyond the counter, ready and waiting among an entire shelf of the medicine. But she won't let you have it. The pharmacist across town won't make it here in time, even if this pharmacist calls her right now. With the life-saving medicine just inches out of your reach and the pharmacist shaking her head "no," your baby son perishes in your hands.

These cases are perfectly identical in emotional impact?

 

[Malanu]

"Committed Catholics hold views that are approximately the same as, if not identical to, the Catholic Church's view. While holding such views, why on earth would the pharmacist fill a prescription for contraception?"

So maybe their commitment isn't as resolute as our Birth Control Bandit (nice one Mattj). That would be the only reason I can see Prof.

1) & 2) are not in fact emotionally identical. I can forgive the 1st Pharmacist. They tried! The second would land me in prison as I will kill the bastard and get the med for my child!

Don't mistake respecting someones morals with agreeing with it. I'll take it one step further, If the med would save the life of a stranger standing next to me in example #2, I would go behind the counter and give the meds to the person in need. The pharmacist gets to keep his/her morals intact and so do I!

 

[DarkSpectrum]

For most of those, the discrimination is based upon poorly translated texts. Noone agrees whether the bible says homosexuality is a sin or not so saying they have a right to discriminate based on religious reasons is a very poor excuse.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

Ramblings

I'm not a huge fan of people using sick children to try and prove their point. Especially when they're used as poorly as you used them.

Unless the pharmacist was purposefully acting in order to prevent you obtaining the drugs, there is no real moral issue here (if we consider that this child is not at death's door).

 

[CSolarstorm]

Really now. In the OP's case the manager didn't make sure that there was a pharmacist on hand that was willing to handle a given prescription. In my case the manager didn't make sure that there was enough stock. Both are directly the responsibility of the manager.

Hang on. That's the point of the argument, whether or not the pharmacist has any responsibility in the transaction. The pharmacist is there and handling the medicine, and they are the agent keeping it from the customer, and so it is not unreasonable to simply observe that they had a part in stopping the prescription from getting to the customer, that it was something they intentionally did. You may consider the pharmacist's reasons important and non-negotiable and that's fine, but it's dishonest to suggest that it's no different whatsoever to being physically unable to get the medication to the customer. There are legitimate reasons to be unwilling to do something and be excused from it that make being unwilling different from just having the whim, but those instances are not the same as not being able to do them at all.

It is the presence of that choice to obstruct the path of the medication that troubles debaters. I'm going to rely on Profesco's scenario for a second because it is excellent. In the first scenario, you'd probably find yourself devastated by the hand of fate. In the second scenario, you have someone who chose to make it happen, even if that was not their intention, and would probably be devastated by them personally, regardless of whether it's anger or sadness or just fixation, and regardless of how you'd forgive them or come to terms with it in the long run. It's a completely different situation because now there is a subject to attribute the action to. That is the difference we're talking about.

 

[02939]

In the case of withholding lifesaving drugs, I do not see why religion would stop you from giving the drug to the person. "Thou shalt not kill." Withholding lifesaving drugs is killing. "Thou shalt not steal." If I bought something from you or your manager and you won't give it to me, that could be considered stealing.

In the case of contraceptives, I can totally understand the moral issues with not wanting to give them over. Aren't many Catholic hospitals in trouble because they are not allowed to receive government money if they will not perform abortions? If there is a fairly convenient alternative (i.e. another drugstore down the street) it is okay to withhold contraceptives. If there is no other alternative, the pharmacy should have someone who is willing to give contraceptives to women who is on shift regularly and predictably. @ above poster, well, when the medicine is on hand and the pharmacist is refusing to give it to you, then they must take the blame for not giving it to you, although I think the result is for the pharmacist to allow the customer to step behind the counter and get it, since they paid for it and it is theirs. But when the pharmacy is out of stock, that's not really the pharmacist's fault now, is it?

In the case of the airport security person, well, if they represent the government they really should not wear a cross openly (the establishment clause, separation of church and state), however, I acknowledge that the law is different in Britan. For other buisnesses in America, I believe that there is some ammendment that one cannot be discriminated against based on religion.

So basically, religious rights come first unless another person will be hurt or seriously and unreasonably inconvenenced. (i.e. they have to go half an hour away to get the pill.)

 

[7 tyranitars]

In the case of withholding lifesaving drugs, I do not see why religion would stop you from giving the drug to the person. "Thou shalt not kill." Withholding lifesaving drugs is killing. "Thou shalt not steal." If I bought something from you or your manager and you won't give it to me, that could be considered stealing.

In the case of contraceptives, I can totally understand the moral issues with not wanting to give them over. Aren't many Catholic hospitals in trouble because they are not allowed to receive government money if they will not perform abortions? If there is a fairly convenient alternative (i.e. another drugstore down the street) it is okay to withhold contraceptives. If there is no other alternative, the pharmacy should have someone who is willing to give contraceptives to women who is on shift regularly and predictably. @ above poster, well, when the medicine is on hand and the pharmacist is refusing to give it to you, then they must take the blame for not giving it to you, although I think the result is for the pharmacist to allow the customer to step behind the counter and get it, since they paid for it and it is theirs. But when the pharmacy is out of stock, that's not really the pharmacist's fault now, is it?

In the case of the airport security person, well, if they represent the government they really should not wear a cross openly (the establishment clause, separation of church and state), however, I acknowledge that the law is different in Britan. For other buisnesses in America, I believe that there is some ammendment that one cannot be discriminated against based on religion.

So basically, religious rights come first unless another person will be hurt or seriously and unreasonably inconvenenced. (i.e. they have to go half an hour away to get the pill.)

Certain cults (and christian cults) think it is playing god when you are using medicines.