Kevin, M.D. - Medical Weblog

I'm sorry, but I believe the moral integrity of a physician is integral to trust in the doctor-patient relationship.

Do you want your family to be cared for by a doctor with moral integrity?
 

The idea that a pharmacist has any provider patient relationship akin to that of doctors, nurses and the many others who directly care for patients is absurd. The lack of direct relationship is underscored by my ability to have drive through pharmacy care at any of a hundred shops around town, all staffed by a pharmacist.

Pharmacists are technicians. They have a technical role to provide and cannot interject their own personal religious or political feelings into the patient's purchase of a legal and properly prescribed drug. If they cannot do their job, then they need to find a line of work compatible with their world view. Since there really are no new issues (oral contraceptives being in existance more than 40 years now) during the practice lifetime of any pharmacist, they cannot protest that any of this is new since they entered the pharmacy trade.
 

All that the physicians are responsible for is making sure that the patient knows exactly what the medicine and treatment is for.

They can give the positives and the negative side effects and let the patient decide for him/herself if they want to go through with it.
 

I think that the skill and diagnostic ability of my doctor matters more than moral integrity. After all, the pope can't diagnose SLE.
 

Everyone is entitled to a conscience. Yes, even those you seem to dismiss as technicians. They are human beings first and foremost, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities.

One should be very cautious in insisting that any one moral code be followed. That imposition is tyranny, no matter how you try to frame it. Allow people their freedom, already.
 

If the state assists you by placing requirements on others who wish to sell your product or market your skill, then you should be subject to some requirements by the state for what you have to do in the context of performing that job.
 

Every one is entitled to a conscience, and should be allowed to follow their own moral code. Not everyone is entitled to make their place of employment conform to their personal moral code. A single pharmacist refusing to fill certain prescriptions can inconvenience and even harm tens of thousands of women in his career. The idea that tens of thousands of people have to suffer for the convenience of one is absurd. If your moral code prohibits your from doing what the job requires, you may need to find another field.

I have to wonder about all these pharmacists grandstanding about their "morality" by refusing to do their jobs, but they are more than willing to profit from working for a company that sells products they literally believe are used to murder kids. It is stunning hypocrisy.
 

Perhaps if their moral code does not enable them to practice their chosen profession fully, they should choose another profession.
 

The problem for Payne Hertz and Jen seems to be that they think that a pharmacist should dispense contraceptives on demand, moral code or no. If the pharmacist cannot reconcile that with their conscience, they should leave the profession. A fair enough capsule? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this boil down to morality testing for a profession by Payne Hertz and Jen? I don't think you want to go there.

From this principle, it is a small step from forcing an OB/Gyn to perform abortions on demand, or leave the profession. The law tends to support the right to a conscience; I would expect most citizens, regardless of their beleif system, to do the same. You know, freedom of religion, and all that antiquated nonsense...
 

Pharmacists in the USA, after 6 years of college ( post high school) now start at an average salary of $110,000/year.

They know more pharmacology than any or most MDs and thank the good Lord, they're more than technicians.

By the way, aren't MDs thought to be technicians with high loan debts?
 

"Do you want your family to be cared for by a doctor with moral integrity?"

If the MD in question is a certified half-wit, why should I care about his/her morals?
 

They know more pharmacology than any or most MDs and thank the good Lord, they're more than technicians.

By the way, aren't MDs thought to be technicians with high loan debts?

Following that reasoning we are ALL some sort of technicians. Maybe I guess I never considered a "technician" a dirty word.
 

"Maybe I guess I never considered a "technician" a dirty word."

I like the term "Factoid" better. Fact-up, spit-out...
 

Why didn't the person just get her meds somewhere else?


If I were this pharmacist I can't say I would have acted much different.
 

i feel the pope has no right to step into the medical world and attempt to encroach his ideals on anyone.
that in my eyes, is as bad as terrorism, terrorists try to force their ideals on people everyday and now the pope is doing the same.
i personnally am not a cotholic and fervantly disagree with it i disapprove of organised religion for this exact reason, a single person telling me i should believe in something he thinks is rightious, and he is trying to preach outside his church, that is wrong he should only preach within his own confines (the catholic church) nowhere else.
he should be ashamed.
 

"i feel the pope has no right to step into the medical world and attempt to encroach his ideals on anyone.
that in my eyes, is as bad as terrorism, terrorists try to force their ideals on people everyday and now the pope is doing the same."

The Pope DOES, in fact, have a right to express his ideals to Catholics. That is, in fact, a primary responsibility in his job description. The Pope is the Minister of all Catholics. The reference given is him doing his job... ministering to Catholics... The religious world is not divorced from all others. If someone calls themselves Catholic, and then says that the Pope has no right to minister to them, they aren't really Catholic then. And if you are a Pharmacist, and you're NOT Catholic, nobody's making you obey the Pope. Therefore, he's not "imposing" his viewpoint on unwilling victims. Calling oneself Catholic is, by definition, calling ones self a student of The Catholic Church, of which the Holy Father is head. Nothing is "imposed" here. Catholics are under the Pope's authority, but he has no real Temporal Power... Therefore, if they don't want to do what he says, or don't agree with his interpretation of Christ's teachings, they are totally free to do something else, and cease to be truly Catholic.