Comments on: Your health vs. my conscience http://emonk.org/2009/05/your-health-vs-my-conscience/ a many-brained bioethics blog Sun, 17 May 2009 21:26:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Paul http://emonk.org/2009/05/your-health-vs-my-conscience/comment-page-1/#comment-555 Paul Sun, 17 May 2009 21:26:42 +0000 http://emonk.org/?p=226#comment-555 rnadler, are you OK then with situations in which the only pharmacy around is one that has employee and employer buy-in as an anti-contraception pharmacy? (The effectiveness of emergency contraception declines 50% in twelve hours; so a delay in access increases the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy.) If you are not OK with this, then your solution seems to fail. If you are OK with it, we still need to know why pharmacy policies will be allowed to be based upon some values (Catholic ones, say), but not others (White Pride ones, e.g.). This is not to say that these two perspectives are equally odious--they're obviously not. But that doesn't change the fact that we seem to need some criterion by which to rule some exclusionary policies as admissible and others as impermissible. rnadler, are you OK then with situations in which the only pharmacy around is one that has employee and employer buy-in as an anti-contraception pharmacy? (The effectiveness of emergency contraception declines 50% in twelve hours; so a delay in access increases the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy.)

If you are not OK with this, then your solution seems to fail. If you are OK with it, we still need to know why pharmacy policies will be allowed to be based upon some values (Catholic ones, say), but not others (White Pride ones, e.g.). This is not to say that these two perspectives are equally odious–they’re obviously not. But that doesn’t change the fact that we seem to need some criterion by which to rule some exclusionary policies as admissible and others as impermissible.

]]> By: rnadler http://emonk.org/2009/05/your-health-vs-my-conscience/comment-page-1/#comment-554 rnadler Sun, 17 May 2009 01:35:27 +0000 http://emonk.org/?p=226#comment-554 These cases look a lot to me like a mismatch between personal and institutional values. People go to a pharmacy expecting a consistent set of background moral assumptions; after all, it's not "The Roman Catholic Pharmacy." So, in the first place, pharmacies should be quite clear about what their employees are required and not required to be complicit in, and those who have objections can (presumably) find another place to work. (Or, if no such places spring up, such a pharmacist might consider that she's simply in the wrong line of work, i.e. that the whole field operates on a different moral system, and that her choice of career makes about as much sense as a Christian Scientist going to medical school.) Likewise, individuals can choose a pharmacy whose principles are consistent with their own moral beliefs - and ones that employ pharmacists who are on board with that. So basically, the problem goes away if you situate choice at the institutional level. These cases look a lot to me like a mismatch between personal and institutional values. People go to a pharmacy expecting a consistent set of background moral assumptions; after all, it’s not “The Roman Catholic Pharmacy.” So, in the first place, pharmacies should be quite clear about what their employees are required and not required to be complicit in, and those who have objections can (presumably) find another place to work. (Or, if no such places spring up, such a pharmacist might consider that she’s simply in the wrong line of work, i.e. that the whole field operates on a different moral system, and that her choice of career makes about as much sense as a Christian Scientist going to medical school.) Likewise, individuals can choose a pharmacy whose principles are consistent with their own moral beliefs – and ones that employ pharmacists who are on board with that.

So basically, the problem goes away if you situate choice at the institutional level.

]]>