Well, conversationally, I’d say the whistleblower comparison isn't apt, because you can only blow the whistle against a company which is already breaking the law. So, in that case, the ethical obligation to uphold the law trumps the obligation to increase shareholder value.

Posted by: smartie at May 5, 2005 12:37 PM

Since corporate officers are usually the ones responsible for putting their companies on shaky ground in the first place, it would seem that they had failed their fiduciary duty to the their shareholders well before whistler blowers start blowing whistles. Unless you think cooking the books to cover their asses is tantamount to fulfilling fiduciary duties to shareholders, which would be a pretty though position to defend, though there are certainly those who try to do just that.

Posted by: Ryan at May 5, 2005 12:39 PM

Right. Like I said, the Conscientious Objector is the better example.

So...?

Posted by: mitch at May 5, 2005 12:40 PM

In other words, what Smartie said.

Sorry, Smartie. I didn't realize we were engaging in dueling comments there. Your timestamp trumps mine though, so you win.

Posted by: Ryan at May 5, 2005 12:41 PM

I'm sure there are pharmacists who've lost their jobs, refusing to fill prescriptions for morning-after pills. I suspect those pharmacists don't put up much of a fuss after getting fired either, being people that tend to respect institutional authority. Those pharmacists are the ones that we'll never hear about, because it's too hard for the press to make them look selfish or insensitive.

Posted by: RBMN at May 5, 2005 12:44 PM

You're working on apples and oranges, Mitch.

Whistle blowers recognize a destructive "illegal" corruption going on all around them, corruption that is going to doom a corporation whether they blow a whistle or not. So, by blowing their whistle, they are, in fact, doing more good than harm. Therefore, they're doing a perfectly legal thing by telling the world, and the shareholders, that the company is a sinking ship of corruption and fraud. The illegal thing would be for them to conspire and stay silent.

So, from there, your pharmacist analogy basically falls apart.

Posted by: Ryan at May 5, 2005 12:52 PM

Right. So how about the soldier analogy.

Posted by: mitch at May 5, 2005 12:57 PM

Well, since I typically don't consider military deserters to be heroes, except in very rare cases, I decline to answer that question.

Does that make me a bad person?

Posted by: Ryan at May 5, 2005 01:09 PM

Mitch,

If pharmacies are allowing individual pharmacists to set their own policies - I have a problem with that. A customer should not have to rely on the luck of the draw (which individual helps them) to get a prescription filled or not.

But I think the pharmacy as a whole should be able to carry or not carry any product they wish.

So what do you suppose the reaction would be to a clerk who refuses to sell cigarettes?

Posted by: mike at May 5, 2005 01:17 PM

Well, the Conscientious Objector question is, admittedly, a little hazier, but just one difference off the top of my head:
A CO could be objecting to the particular war he is being asked to fight, since that wouldn’t be known at the time he enlisted. Perhaps a CO enlisted believing he would be fighting to defend the US, but is instead being asked to fight a war he feels is being waged for other less honorable reasons. He would, thus, be objecting not to war itself, which as you stated is the soldier’s job, but to the particular war he is being asked to fight. A pharmacist, OTOH, knows pretty much the entire range of pills he is going to be dispensing when he chooses to become a pharmacist. Developing a crises of conscience after he’s already working in the field would be more akin to deserting than to being a CO.

Posted by: smartie at May 5, 2005 01:23 PM

Smartie,

Do you think that a pharmacist who has been in the profession 10 years (let alone 20-30) could have forseen the expectation to be required to dispense "morning after" pills?

Posted by: mike at May 5, 2005 01:32 PM

This is a little bit off. Check that...this is way off.

Are you saying that corporate officials who cheat to boost their bottom line in order to increase the revenue of their shareholders are somehow equivalent to pharmacists who object to birth control on moral grounds? Corporate crime is exactly that: crime. Pharmacists who refuse to hand out birth control are breaking the law...based on an opinion (something that is hardly enforceable by the friendly Richfield police.) You have it all backwards here. The people who like the whistleblowers are, in this case, the same people who are rightly castigating the idiot pharmacist for refusing to hand out birth control; in both cases, the "whistleblowers" are the ones clearly on the side of law. Your suggestion reeks of moral relativism; a law is a law is a law, no matter who breaks it and damned be the consequences.

Even if your first example did make any sense, are you then saying that public law is the legal equivalent to religious belief? This is insane. It is also lawless.

Your "better" example is a bunch of non-sequitur nonsense. Summary: "Soldiers have a duty to serve. Some don't do this well. The media loves this. People who castigate 'moral' pharmacists are the same people who love these bad soldiers." Substantiate that. Please, I'd love to see you bring that web together.

How many COs have happened since the beginning of OEF/OIF? Are they mostly active duty? Guard? Reserve? How have they been welcomed by the media? Who is calling them a hero? How are they taking their benefits with them? Are you aware that the VA suspends benefits for people that are on the run from the law? What do the COs do instead of serving in a war zone? What are their MOS's? What are their AFSC's? Would they have been in harms way in the first place? Are they contributing to the war effort without firing a gun? Perhaps the people making these wild claims are as consequential as you and I; making their opinions known in the comments sections of political blogs or on a t-shirt at some obscure CafePress store (your friend Michelle Malkin is also a big fan of making grand generalizations from these types of seldom-viewed reputable sources.)

Seriously, are you able to compartmentalize the slightest bit of information concerning two separate subjects? I know you don't like liberalism, but come on! You go from pharmacists to corporate officials to conscientious objectors to comments about "all leftists" in a matter of seconds. And (here's the real kicker), NONE of it actually addresses the "moral qualms" you may (or may not) have concerning the fact that someone broke the law. Heavens to Pete!! What will we tell the children!!

Instead, it all becomes about OTHER people. It all becomes about how the LEFT is somehow loopy for wanting the law to be followed. You search far and wide for evidence of any possible "liberal" inconsistency and you are led to the place where you already knew you would end up from the very beginning: the place where libruls are bad. In theology class we call this proof texting.

Here's an exercise for you: I'm going to provide you with several unrelated words/topics. It is your job to quickly spin these items into evidence of the liberal conspiracy.

Also, every response has to end with a reference to either DailyKos or Atrios. You also have to work in one of the following phrases:

"Every single liberal..."
"All the damn lefties..."
"Why are all leftists..."

Ready...go!!

1- Green Tea
2- Kirby Puckett
3- 148th Fighter Wing
4- Pavement
5- Steroids in baseball
6- the LRT
7- Aluminum foil

Good luck. I eagerly await your results.

Posted by: cleversponge at May 5, 2005 01:56 PM

"This is a little bit off. Check that...this is way off."

If you're looking at the analogy completely cockeyed, I suppose it is.

And, as I'll demonstrate - you are.

"Are you saying that corporate officials who cheat to boost their bottom line in order to increase the revenue of their shareholders are somehow equivalent to pharmacists who object to birth control on moral grounds?"

Um no. While I admitted some time ago that the whistleblower example was less than perfectly apt, it's the whistleblower that is the equivalent of the pharmacist - doing something counter-intuitive and counter-organization on ethical grounds.

"Your suggestion reeks of moral relativism; a law is a law is a law, no matter who breaks it and damned be the consequences."

Ah. So if the law tells you to go out and kill Jewish children, you'll do it? Because a law is a law is a law.

No? Why not? Because whatever sense of morals and ethics you follow tells you so? Baloney, you relativist! A law is a law is a...

...what? You say that sometimes it's a moral person's obligation to resist what they see as immoral, and accept - as opposed to "Damn" - the consequences?

"Your "better" example is a bunch of non-sequitur nonsense. Summary: "Soldiers have a duty to serve. Some don't do this well. The media loves this. People who castigate 'moral' pharmacists are the same people who love these bad soldiers. Substantiate that. Please, I'd love to see you bring that web together."

I already did.

"How many COs have happened since the beginning of OEF/OIF?"

If it were one, the example would still hold.

" Are they mostly active duty? Guard? Reserve? How have they been welcomed by the media?"

There are a few examples of deserters that have had their stories very sympathetically told; without going to look up names, I can recall a infantry guy that went to Canada, a sailor on the USS Lincoln who deserted to avoid going to Iraq (and missed out on Tsunami relief) and at least one other.

" Who is calling them a hero?"

Didn't say "Hero", I said they had their cases presented with great sympathy by the likes of NBC and NPR, as well as the CBC, several big leftyblogs, Pacifica News, and so on, that I'm personally aware of.

" How are they taking their benefits with them?"

If the Navy trains you to be an electronics technician, you can hardly leave that training in your seabag when you leave, now, can you?

"What do the COs do instead of serving in a war zone?"

That would tend to vary.

" What are their MOS's? What are their AFSC's? "

Now you're just being absurd.

"Would they have been in harms way in the first place?"

How is that material?

" Are they contributing to the war effort without firing a gun?"

In the case of the conscientious objector who takes a non-combat assignment, yes. But I'm talking about people who desert, or engage in litigation to avoid going overseas.

" Perhaps the people making these wild claims are as consequential as you and I; making their opinions known in the comments sections of political blogs or on a t-shirt at some obscure CafePress store (your friend Michelle Malkin is also a big fan of making grand generalizations from these types of seldom-viewed reputable sources.)"

There are a couple of big "maybes" in there, you gotta admit.

"Seriously, are you able to compartmentalize the slightest bit of information concerning two separate subjects? I know you don't like liberalism, but come on! You go from pharmacists to corporate officials to conscientious objectors to comments about "all leftists" in a matter of seconds."

There's no compartmentalization involved. I drew an analogy between three situations (and tossed one of them out), related to the ethics of refusing to do something that the law required you to do. I stated that a lot of people who condemn the pharmacists are likely to praise a deserter. You think I'm wrong how?

" And (here's the real kicker), NONE of it actually addresses the "moral qualms" you may (or may not) have concerning the fact that someone broke the law. Heavens to Pete!! What will we tell the children!!"

Neither does any of it address Formula 1 racing of the 1960's, home brewing or luthiery. The fact that people may or may not be breaking the law is understood in all cases.

"Instead, it all becomes about OTHER people. It all becomes about how the LEFT is somehow loopy for wanting the law to be followed."

Didn't say "loopy", I said that some people on the left might be just a tad selective in their ethics, given two similar situations. I'm tossing out a point for discussion. People get to do that.

" You search far and wide for evidence of any possible "liberal" inconsistency"

Bzzzt. I dug for an example of an inconsistency.

" and you are led to the place where you already knew you would end up from the very beginning: the place where libruls are bad. In theology class we call this proof texting. "

Sorry, you're wrong. I brought up a question which seems to me to illustrate an inconsistency.

You, on the other hand, seem to be marrying a shortfall in reading comprehension with a pre-ordained conclusion - "Conservatives are dumber than me!". Proof texting, as you say.

"Good luck. I eagerly await your results."

Good luck to you in return for the waiting!

Posted by: mitch at May 5, 2005 02:16 PM

Ooh, ooh, this looks like fun! Mind if I tweak the rules a little? Thanks!

I sat there, with all the damn lefties, including Atrios and DailyKos, drinking green tea and talking about the last election and how John Kerry totally hit the pavement. "Why are all leftists so into baking potatoes wrapped in aluminum foil?" I asked, but no one answered. Suddenly, like a Tomahawk missile fired from an F14 in the 148th Fighter Wing, Kirby Puckett yelled "I didn't do steroids in baseball, like every single liberal thinks I did!" No one said a word. We just sat there, sipping our green tea, and thinking about the election, and how John Kerry totally hit the pavement.

Posted by: Ryan at May 5, 2005 02:17 PM

Awww, CRAP! I forgot about LRT!

Wait, wait. . . we were all sitting on an LRT train, sipping green tea.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Posted by: Ryan at May 5, 2005 02:19 PM

Awww, CRAP! I forgot about LRT!

Wait, wait. . . we were all sitting on an LRT train, sipping green tea.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Posted by: Ryan at May 5, 2005 02:19 PM

Mike,
Now you're muddying the waters. Many of these cases are about pharmacists refusing to fill regular birth control prescriptions (read the original story Mitch cited). Can I assume from your response that you find that practice morally reprehensible? Or do you think they shouldn't have to fill either prescription? Also, the only time this is an issue is when the pharmacist not only refuses to fill the prescription, but also refuses to assist the woman in finding someone else who will do it for her. It's not, "I don't believe in this", like a CO, it's "I don't believe in this and I'm not going to let you do this", so I guess there's another difference for you, Mitch.

Posted by: smartie at May 5, 2005 02:24 PM

OK, the gauntlet is thrown:

"I took the LRT to Canterbury with my friend Kos. We set out - unaware that my trip would involve hoofing down many miles of pavement to get to the track, since the LRT stops nowhere near there. On the way, we discussed baseball, including the new pitcher, Rios, the left hander from Cuba. "Of all the damn lefties in the league", said Kos, his head wrapped in aluminum foil and speaking in a curious cockney accent, "...I 'ate Rios!"

"Why are all the leftists obsessed with steroids in baseball?" I thought silently as we trudged onward, a thought that occupied me until we reached the track.

I bet $50 on Green Tea to win - but was mortified to note the jockey, Kirby Puckett. On a good day, the horse moves out like the whole 148th Fighter Wing is chasing him, but today, with that weight on his back, he couldn't have moved if every single liberal in Minneapolis were after him for alms to pay for a new stadium.

Fortunately, I could buy birth control pills at the bar."

Posted by: Mitdch at May 5, 2005 02:25 PM

"Also, the only time this is an issue is when the pharmacist not only refuses to fill the prescription, but also refuses to assist the woman in finding someone else who will do it for her. It's not, "I don't believe in this", like a CO, it's "I don't believe in this and I'm not going to let you do this", so I guess there's another difference for you, Mitch."

I agree that refusing to transfer the scrip is wrong - and is in fact my biggest problem with the whole story.

Posted by: mitch at May 5, 2005 02:29 PM

You know, as I wrote my little contribution using cleversponge's rules, I came to a startling realization: this must be same same rough template Nick Coleman uses to write his columns.

Posted by: Ryan at May 5, 2005 02:35 PM

Smartie,

We may have some common ground here.

It's my opinion that if a drugstore, or for that matter an entire corporate chain, decides to not stock a particular drug, they should be allowed to do so. It's a horrible decision, given the business they're in, but it's not much different than, say Walmart deciding to not stock "NC17" rated movies, or K Mart putting a stop to gun sales.

Any individual pharmacist who flagrantly violates the store's policy should be fired. And any store that allows individual pharmacists to "follow their own conscience" to the detrement of the customer (my luck of the draw scenario)is out of their minds and will pay dearly in the marketplace.

Please keep in mind I am making no attempt at interpreting how existing law pertains to this matter.

Posted by: mike at May 5, 2005 02:48 PM

Ah-ha! Mitch cleverly turns the Pharmacist question into a question on legal Formalism, and the rats take the bait. I assume all the "you must follow the law" types in MN will not hesitate to make a citizen's arrest should they spot a woman wearing a Santa Claus suit.
http://foodstamp.aphsa.org/01wkshps/AllStatesHaveSillyLaws.pdf

Posted by: Terry at May 5, 2005 02:48 PM

You're awesome!!

1. Response:

"Um no. While I admitted some time ago that the whistleblower example was less than perfectly apt, it's the whistleblower that is the equivalent of the pharmacist - doing something counter-intuitive and counter-organization on ethical grounds."

Original:

"Many of the same people who castigate pharmacists for resisting a legal duty on moral grounds are the ones who lionize corporate whistleblowers whose ethics harm the shareholders they are legally bound to protect."

TRANSLATION: those bastards who castigate the pharmacists are the same people who lionize corporate whistleblowers.

Either way, the shareholder whistleblower is responding to someone breaking an actual law. Your made-up-after-the-fact-poorly-designed-analogy pharmacist whistleblower is just using a personal opinion to break a law. I'm glad that you're all for breaking the law based on things that are "counter intuitive" on ethical grounds.

2- "Ah. So if the law tells you to go out and kill Jewish children, you'll do it? Because a law is a law is a law."

I listened to your lovely post-Papal show a few weeks back. You guys went on and on about how cool Pope Benedict XVI was because of his stance towards relativism. In a nut shell Pope Benedict's stance on relativism says that there is a proper way to be a proper Catholic. I completely agree. If your system is a good one and your laws are based on solid principles and truth, there is a proper way to be a Catholic, a Boy Scout, and even an American. Once again, you fly way off the handle and bring up something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Of course I don't believe in killing Jewish children. Are you insane?

Do you believe in the American political system? Do you believe that following the law is a requirement of being a good citizen? If you disagree with a law, how do you change it? Do you break it or do you utilize the democratic process? As far as the question goes about this case...if you are willing to say that someone’s personal opinion of the way they think things should be trumps our democratic public law...then yes, you are a relativist.

3- "No? Why not? Because whatever sense of morals and ethics you follow tells you so? Baloney, you relativist! A law is a law is a...
...what? You say that sometimes it's a moral person's obligation to resist what they see as immoral, and accept - as opposed to "Damn" - the consequences?"

Alright, you got me here. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Were your hands shaking when you typed this one? Here's my guess on how to respond: A law is a law is a law. Every person has several allegiances in his/her life. For instance, I'm a Catholic and an American. Each of these systems has a set of beliefs that I am obliged to follow if I am to consider myself a member (granted, the American part is a bit more malleable.) There are times when my beliefs as a Catholic (let's say on abortion) come into conflict with what it currently means to be an American (abortion is legal.) Fortunately, I will never have to have an abortion. However, should I ever face a situation where I do have to make a choice...I will become either a relativist Catholic or a relativist American (disregarding the law because of my Catholic beliefs.) You can't really justify both at the same time...unless you completely avoid the problem...and never have an abortion, never take birth control, and so on and so forth. You are trying to cross streams on this problem; it can't be done. This is why people in my grandparent’s generation were afraid of us Catholics getting involved in politics...because we would put our Catholicism above our Americanism. Should we break secular law? That's up for each and every person to decide on their own...however, when they do, they become bad Americans. This is not meant in a bad way...it just is.

4- "If it were one, the example would still hold."

You are correct on this point. However, the question now becomes how many is enough to justify the "all liberals" tag that you like to fling around. I agree...if millions of people were getting behind 1 CO...that would be evidence. I just don't see it.

5- "There are a few examples of deserters that have had their stories very sympathetically told"

I served in the military for 7 years (stop loss is the reason for the odd number)...I would be pissed as hell if anyone deserted from my unit. That simply aint cool. However, was this a sympathetic story? Seriously, was it representative of the majority of COs? Also, the "there was at least one other" line was precious. Digging for more...right after saying that numbers don't matter.

6- REPLY:
"Didn't say "Hero", I said they had their cases presented with great sympathy by the likes of NBC and NPR, as well as the CBC, several big leftyblogs, Pacifica News, and so on, that I'm personally aware of. "

ORIGINAL:
"Many of the people who castigate the pharmacist for standing up for his/her ethics are the same ones that hold up "conscientious" deserters as heroes."

Why is this the same thing as calling someone a hero?

Example: "Many people who read Shot in the Dark.info are the same people who think that Mitch Berg is an idiot on his radio show."

Hey, I didn't call you an idiot, I was simply quoting things that may have never been said.

7- "If the Navy trains you to be an electronics technician, you can hardly leave that training in your seabag when you leave, now, can you?"

Yes, but as long as that skill is still being utilized in the overall military effort...maybe the Navy electrician can help out in the ROK. Not all COs get out of the military. And either way...good for them...pump up that economy.

8- "What do the COs do instead of serving in a war zone?"
"That would tend to vary."

YES!! That is the whole point.

9- " What are their MOS's? What are their AFSC's? "

"Now you're just being absurd."

No I'm not. Do Korean 1N3XX's have to serve in a current war zone? How about 1N1 Predator operators? 1N0 targeteers? This stuff matters. Some of these folks can CO and still be productive. The point is that the CO issue is far more varied than what you and your cartoonish conception of "leftists" have laid forward as a supposedly valid example.

10- "How is that material?"

Some folks have applied for CO status without being in danger of going to Iraq. Just another example of how this issue is vastly oversimplified.

11- "In the case of the conscientious objector who takes a non-combat assignment, yes. But I'm talking about people who desert, or engage in litigation to avoid going overseas."

I completely agree. Lock those bastards up. But don't lump those bastards in with people who have legitimate objections and who still serve.

12- "Neither does any of it address Formula 1 racing of the 1960's, home brewing or luthiery. The fact that people may or may not be breaking the law is understood in all cases."

I have heard your weekend radio show several times. I have heard the claim made on the show that people on the left never call out the idiots in their own ranks. I have heard the claim about how moderate Muslims don't call out the radicals in their ranks. The point here is that I think you are being a little soft on this issue by saying "Yep, she broke the law, but here's how liberals are stupid." What is the point of that? Not very consistent or constructive. (Here's your cue to make an ironic analogy about the non-constructive "liberals" on the issue of privatizing social security.)

If you had made a case for the religious integrity of the decision...fine...but you turned it all around to how...well, somehow liberals became the bad guys.

13- " You search far and wide for evidence of any possible "liberal" inconsistency"

"Bzzzt. I dug for an example of an inconsistency."

ORIGINAL:

"If I were Atrios or Oliver Willis, I'd entitle this post "Why Do All Leftists Hate The Truth And Love Hypocrisy". I'll be a tad less inflammatory and simply ask; is it just me, or is there an inconsistency here?"

OK, I'm now convinced you are insane. Example:

"If I were Mitch Berg, I'd entitle this post "Why Righties are Ignorant, Hyprocrite Bastards." I'll be a tad less inflammatory and simply ask; is it just me, or is there idiocy here?"

Remember, I have a problem with just idiocy...not conservative idiocy...just idiocy. I mean, I'm not trying to be rude but....

14- "You, on the other hand, seem to be marrying a shortfall in reading comprehension with a pre-ordained conclusion - "Conservatives are dumber than me!". Proof texting, as you say."

No Mitch, I think my response is pretty clear:

It's all about you. I made no statements about "conservatives" or "righties"....just about you...oh, and Michelle.

Posted by: cleversponge at May 5, 2005 03:36 PM

[sigh] Here I thought we could have a nice discussion…Actually, Terry, the law that corporations violate when they engage in fraudulent activity to make more money is "Thou shalt not steal". Familiar with that one?

Mike, there is a lot I agree with in your statement. It seems to me that when the pharmacy chose to stock birth control, they made their decision. If a pharmacist refuses to sell the pills his company stocks he should be fired for not doing his job. If a pharmacy chooses not to stock birth control entirely I could probably support that decision, as long as it was made clear up front and not done to humiliate the women asking for it. I also think they'd get killed in the free market. Just one other thing: For what that's worth, pharmacists, like lawyers or doctors or many other professions are bound not only by the law but also by professional ethics code. It is my understanding that refusing to fill a prescription (or at least passing it on to someone else to fill) is a clear violation of this code.

Posted by: smartie at May 5, 2005 03:38 PM

Cleverbob Spongepants: Oy. Too much to tackle this late in the day. Maybe later.

Smartie: " It is my understanding that refusing to fill a prescription (or at least passing it on to someone else to fill) is a clear violation of this code."

I only know so much about pharmacy - my great-grandfather was one, but he left the field in the forties - but as I understand it, there is an ethics clause of some sort; if a pharm things that a doctor is writing unethical prescriptions, it's the pharm's job to object. If you believe that prophylactic (as opposed to therapeutic) use of birth control pills is wrong...well, there y'go.

Posted by: mitch at May 5, 2005 03:46 PM

Smartie,

As I said, I think we share considerable common ground.

Now I think I'll go grab a Coke.

"Sorry sir, no Coke. Pepsi OK?"

Damn.

Posted by: mike at May 5, 2005 03:55 PM

Mitch,
That seems like an awfully big stretch to me. I assume the ethics clause you are referring to would be in place for a doctor who was writing out, say, painkiller prescriptions to an addict. In that case the problem is that by filling the prescription the pharmacist would be actively harming the life of his patient. If that were true, however, the pharmacist would also have an ethical duty to turn in the doctor. It doesn’t seem analogous to me.

Posted by: smartie at May 5, 2005 03:58 PM

Not perfectly analogous, because there's a temporal law involved.

Of course, to those for whom this is an ethical problem, the laws being broken are not temporal, ergo much more important. Which you might or might not understand and accept.

Posted by: mitch at May 5, 2005 04:03 PM

Yeesh, nice come back, Mitch. Next I suppose you're going to tell me how much I hate America. You made it almost four hours before the baseless insults started flying.

Posted by: smartie at May 5, 2005 04:25 PM

Er, Smartie? There was no offense intended. Simple statement of fact, or at least perception.

The "if you understand or accept" part refers to the fact - I think it's a fact - that there are a lot of people for whom religious faith is a foreign concept, certainly faith to the extent of putting religion-defined ethics before employment.

Posted by: mitch at May 5, 2005 04:59 PM

Sorry, long day at work. Guess I was a little touchy there. I apologize for misconstruing your comment. I'm home now with a beer in hand so I'm feeling a little better.Anyway, the problem is if the sole argument for refusing service is "I have a moral problem with it," then you've moved us back to square one. It's not enough just to have a moral problem with it or you remove the ability to enforce any sort of standard. Extreme animal rights activists are misguided in my opinion, but their beliefs can be quite sincerely held. If you're willing to make the argument that a pharmacist can refuse service based solely on moral objection, what is to stop an anmial rights activist pharmacist from refusing to dispense any medication that has been tested on animals?

Posted by: smartie at May 5, 2005 05:21 PM

Whew. Glad to see you still wrestling with this one, Mitch.

The second case is a decent analogy. Signing up for a job, and a system, that *might* require you to do something you find immoral. I think in both cases, if your own morals align with that person's and not the system's, you'll cheer. Yaay moral person!

But... you don't see anyone trying to pass laws making military desertion legal, do you?

In both cases, I think the person refusing to do their job, taking a moral stand, is doing what's right for them. Which results in losing that job, and maybe they're a symbolic martyr for others of similar moral fiber.

But you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone wanting that person's values to dictate the entire system. Soldiers can't just walk away without consequences, pharmacists can't refuse birth control without consequences.

The bigger problem is the push to make this behavior legal and force the system to allow it. The system is there for a reason (carry out national defense policy; carry out prescribed medical needs) and if you let each person in the system select how they want to carry it out, we'd have chaos.

Posted by: Chuck at May 5, 2005 06:28 PM

Mortgage Rates and Refinance
Mortgage Farmers Mortgage Rates
Refinance Mortgage Refinance Mortgage Rates
Refinance Online
Compare mortgage rates

Posted by: Mortgage Rates at December 29, 2005 06:27 AM

We recommend you to visit excellent george washington site. qY0ptan0x

Posted by: george washington at July 16, 2006 04:54 AM

We recommend you to visit excellent guitar tabs site. qY0ptan0x

Posted by: guitar tabs at July 16, 2006 07:36 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: