Objectors of Conscience

Hmmm, I feel like if a company does not want to make available certain items or services because of their religious beliefs I agree they have the right to do so. As an employee of a company refusing services or products because of their religious beliefs, no. If they do not want to partake in such activities they should look elsewhere for a job. I hope I don't sound to harsh but it is true. Just because we dispense of something we don't agree with doesn't make what we believe of it any different. You are paid to do a certain job so do it and if you won't do what the job description entails, leave, find another occupation taht better suits your beliefs period. We all feel strongly about something whether it be of religious concern or not. Like you said, if a vegan refuses to touch meat and is a chef at a predominantly meat serving restaurant, that is not their problem, that person should go work at a vegan or vegetarian restaurant if it repulses them that much! Ok, I can go on and on. Does it hurt society, I suppose in some ways it can and in others no.

Bert...this is very complicated and like many of today's issues, has no clear cut solutions....it's not a clear cut issue! You covered a lot of ground in your essay...I'll try to start where you did...the military conscientious objector. The decisions about the specifics associated with the CO have become less relevant because we no longer have a military draft. Don't want to fight? Don't join the armed forces. Allowances have been made for those who want to serve in the military, but don't want to be a part of actual combat. (The logic of helping the military achieve it's objective...which includes killing the enemy...and not considering that being a part of the military is the same as pointing an M16 at an enemy combatant and pulling the trigger escapes me...) But anyway...if a person's conscientious objection is important enough...that person can simply not join the military.

So...can you, as a business owner, really refuse service to anyone you wish? Nope. This is pretty much covered in the Civil Rights Act of 1964...but the act is categorical (race, color, religion or national origin...and later, those with disabilities became covered.."Americans with Disabilities Act). Individual exceptions can be made if certain criteria are present...unruly customer, a customer whose odor would drive other customers away and other non-discriminatory business concerns.

So is the pharmacist within his rights to NOT sell birth control pills to an UNMARRIED woman? NOT if he sells them to married women. Does the pharmacist have the right to not sell birth control pills at all. In my opinion..yes. Just as certain stores in my area have chosen to not sell state lottery tickets or beer or whatever. The reason is not the issue. It is a privately owned store and if the owner is willing to lose the portion of business that certain items represent...that should be his prerogative.

If a pharmacist DOES sell birth control pills however, no person in his employ should be allowed to refuse to sell the pills. It is the owners call. I don't think the argument for the distance factor makes any difference...quoting Bert.."rural areas with pharmacies separated by long distances, poor people without access to transportation, etc. In these cases, a pharmacy unwilling to carry birth control pills would make them virtually unavailable to some of their customers." Can we FORCE a doctor to open a clinic in a rural area, for example, just because there are no other medical facilities in that area?

In short...if you don't believe in eating meat...don't look for a job at a butcher shop and then refuse to work. If you object to war...don't join the military and if you don't want to sell condoms...why would you want to work in a drug store or a that does sell them? More over...who the hell has the right to decide any part, aspect or personal matter of another person's?

Thanks for your well-considered thoughts, Eileen.
I am pretty much in agreement with you, Michael. I do think that some provision has to be made in cases like the one you repeated, where some people might be deprived of access to prescribed medications or other products due to personal circumstances. But that is a solvable problem without infringing on the rights of the business owner to run his business as he see fit.

I think conscientious objector should only apply in situations where a person has been drafted. People who become pharmacists have a lifetime and eight years of school in which to know that they are making the wrong career choice. If they change religious beliefs along the way, they can and should also change careers.

No argument, Sandy. They obviously knew exactly what their duties would be, and until recently accepted it, with whatever personal misgivings they may have felt.
It is only in the past few years, that the fundamentalist rhetoric has escalated to the point where people would consider making a fuss about such a thing. You can blame that on the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons and their like, who constantly repeat their claim that this is a "Kristchun Nayshun," and that everyone should be forced to live by their narrow and intolerant creed.

It is only in the past few years, that the fundamentalist rhetoric has escalated to the point where people would consider making a fuss about such a thing.

Exactly. And this is why I will remain vigilant and vocal about this problem.

I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam war, and without boring you with details, I have paid a price for that choice. I have no regrets, and would (do) make the same decision again (and again, and again).

That said, I also faced a similar issue in my young professional life - not about dispensing a drug, but about whether I would refer patients for abortions. It is not the same issue, since conscientious objection primarily is an issue about oneself and primarioy affects oneself. Taking an ethical stance, which opposes accepted practice, doesn't primarily affect oneself, and that is really the point of such a decision anyway.

I don't oppose professionals making reasoned ethical decisions as long as they are transparent and adequately communicated. People have a right to know what you will and won't do. I also think that "accepted practice" has to allow for the ethical choices of individual practitioners - otherwise professional "codes of ethics" are themselves unethical.

Finally, conscientious objection CAN ONLY take place in the context of a draft, because otherwise there is no compelling demand that one should violate one's own ethical principles. Indeed, conscientious objection is spoken of (to my knowledge) only within the context of the selective service laws.

Thanks, Steve for your important additions to the discussion here. My comparison of pharmacists to noncombatants was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I recognize the very important distinction you make between a soldier who is drafted into a combat role, and a pharmacist who chooses that profession voluntarily. In fact, that is the core of my argument.
I DO object to the actions of any person who causes harm to others because of their personal moral or ethical beliefs, because at the core, it is an attempt to force those beliefs on others. If I oppose drinking, does it hurt me to drive a beer truck? No, my beliefs are still intact. It is the projection of my beliefs onto others that is the problem, and that is my problem, not the beer drinkers' problem.
If I can't deal with that, I shouldn't drive a beer truck.

I do not have an issue with conscientious objectors. Period. In my opinion, in the end, we will all have to reflect back on our lives and what we did (whether as a review from a higher power, or whether as a learning exercise to determined what we learned and what we still must learn in another life - different discussion there). In the end, what we do and what we don't do says the most about who we really are. We can say anything we want, but it's our actions that define us. Also, as part of my belief system, the only sin is hurting someone else "unnecessarily" - the "unnecessarily" being the gray area that depends on our own judgment. If our judgment is at fault, we fail. But pass or fail, we're ultimately responsible for our actions. I believe this absolutely, whether you're blindly following Bin Laden or President Bush, whether you make a decision not to join the military or, if you're already there, you make a decision not to fight a war you can't condone.

So, to answer (from my perspective)...

I disagree that "conscientious objector" only applies to draftees - let me explain. First, why you joined may not be what you got in life. That happens all the time outside of the military, but if you have a job you don't like, you can quit and get a different one. That's not an option in the military. They tell young impressionable kids a great deal to entice them into the military - they need to because it's all voluntary and it's tough work for minimal pay - but I think it's not unreasonable that someone sold on the job skills they'll learn and the exciting places they'll live might quickly decide that the other aspects were more than they were happy with. People have a tendency to say suck it up, but not everyone thrives in a regulated world where one has little to no control over any aspect. Secondly, let's say the military lifestyle, etc. suits you down to the ground. You love it. Except, when you get out in the field, perhaps even in exercises, you find that pulling the trigger on another person isn't what you thought, isn't something you can bring yourself to do, not even to save yourself or another soldier. Perhaps you think that's a lack in someone. I don't. Killing someone else is a big decision, it's hell and gone on that hurting someone scale and not everyone is capable of doing so whether they need to (think Hawkeye Pierce). Perhaps you can beat/drill/brainwash someone into it, but is that really a good thing? Perhaps you can make them strap on a gun and send them out anyway, but are you doing them or their fellow soldiers a favor? Thirdly, and our current war is an excellent example, let's say you're more than capable of doing a soldier's job, but don't believe in the war we're in. One needn't say you shouldn't have joined. Hundreds/thousands of patriotic youths joined the military after 9/11 or to wage war on Bin Laden without knowing Bush would attack Iraq. I could readily see a difference in many a soldier's eye from going into Europe and freeing it from Nazi Germany and going into an independent country and deposing its leader (however heinous)/occupying it under false pretenses. There is a difference between killing another soldier and bombing villages. In this kind of warfare, the bad guys don't wear convenient uniforms and protecting oneself effectively may entail killing a number of good guys, including children and women and other innocents. I can see not willing to be party to that if you felt your actions would do harm. Remember, if there is a maker or if one just reflects on one's own life, Bush won't be there to take the blame. In the end, we're all responsible for our actions.

Conscientious objector takes on a different flavor in the world of voluntary labor. I've felt ethically challenged in jobs. I switched jobs. I do not hold with people putting others at risk, though I'm less convinced that's likely than you are. I don't know even a podunk town that doesn't have access to multiple pharmacies (most grocery stores have them now, too) aside from mail order. I don't think people should be paid for a job they don't do, like refusing to serve alcohol in a bar or refusal to serve food in a barbecue place for a vegan, but I don't see any reason for people to avoid a job that challenges their belief systems.

Do I think doctors can refuse to perform abortions or prescribe birth control (I had a GP who wouldn't but referred me to an OB/GYN)? Yep. Do I think a pharmacy can refuse to carry them? Yep, but they'll lose business. And I'm not going to lose sleep over it. No one really can say what drugs a drugstore must have on their shelves. Most willingly cover the bases, but, if they choose not to, that's just business they will lose out on.

If I'm going to get myself worked up, I'll save it for the doctor/hospitals/pharmacies who won't treat someone because they don't have the right insurance. If something's going to get my dander up, that, to me, is a much bigger deal and far more heinous.

From a practical point of view, you have a point, Stephanie...and thanks, by the way, for your always perceptive comments.
I am "worked up" about the principle involved...doing harm to others by self righteously imposing one's beliefs on them is wrong. I view it as another facet in the escalating aggression by the Religious Right, and their attempt to impose their Bible-based views on everyone. Like many secular individuals, I feel we can no longer ignore this "creeping evangelism." We have to push back.

Bert: "I DO object to the actions of any person who causes harm to others because of their personal moral or ethical beliefs, because at the core, it is an attempt to force those beliefs on others."

That's why transperancy is so important. I don't think a pharmacist, who refuses to rx drugs on ethical grounds, is forcing his/her beliefs on others - IF those practices are fully and prominently disclosed. As Stephanie says, most places are going to have options and those disclosures will affect one's business.

Stephanie: "I disagree that "conscientious objector" only applies to draftees - let me explain."

You bring up some good points. No doubt that one cannot leave the military if they suddenly become aware that their values don't entail killing others. I wonder, though, that anyone seriously doesn't understand the military's primary function when enlisting - to fight wars. The military does understand that people are not "hard-wired" to kill (most, that is), and so there is great investment in training - or as I think of it, sociopathic education, from which individual soldiers must be rehabilitated upon returning to civilian life. But however valid your points are, I still maintain a draft is an entirely different phenomenon. Military coercion or conscription tries to take away one's choice even about joining the military. Fortunately, that's not an issue for young folks today (at least, not yet).

Stephanie: "If I'm going to get myself worked up, I'll save it for the doctor/hospitals/pharmacies who won't treat someone because they don't have the right insurance."

And the fact that so many don't even have insurance. Of course, I live in the state that is first in obesity and diabetes - so much could be said about improving "conscientious practice" with regard to one's own health, as well.

Steve,
Things have gotten a bit muddled here. Let me try to clarify. There are two issues: Pharmacy employees who refuse to fill certain prescriptions, and pharmacy owners who refuse to fill certain prescriptions or carry certain products. In the first case, the question is whether the employee can be "protected" from being fired for not doing his/her job. I maintain that no amount of "transparency" is sufficient to protect them if they fail to do their job. But that is probably a moot issue, because a pharmacy owner would not hire a person who "transparently" disclosed their views unless he agreed with them.
In the second case, the pharmacy owner...I agree with you.

One more thing, and I'll probably get blasted for this, but people's religious and other unscientifically based views put people at risk every damn day - religious views that force unhealthy diet or practices on children, that disallow medicines at all or blood transfusions. From a damage standpoint, there are probably thousands of children put at risk (forgoing vaccines, using chiropracty instead of actual treatment/forgoing necessary medical treatments like insulin)/taught destructive habits and attitudes that can get the children hurt or encourage them to hurt others.

Again, it seems silly to get worked into a lather for seven pharmacists nationwide and a handful of other extremists that welcome this kind of publicity to make up for the revenue loss from their unhealthy attitudes. Most of these folks, in my opinion, do little actual harm. I still prefer to focus on those that DO actual damage.

And by the way, I DON'T support employees who refuse to perform their job. If they won't do it, fire 'em. Shouldn't take a job unless you're willing to do the work.

Stephanie: "...people's religious and other unscientifically based views put people at risk every damn day...."

No doubt. Maybe the differentiation should be the one Jesus makes - and zen makes.... Take the speck out of one's own eye before attempting to remove it from others. I don't know that religion (or ethics, for that matter) should deal with "those other people," but should be a way for one to manage one's own life. I don't know what you would call trying to manage other people's lives - except, maybe, meddling.

Bert: "There are two issues...."

Sorry, I was just addressing the issue as it relates to pharmacists. Otherwise, I would agree with Stephanie. No one guarantees anyone a job, and people should know the terms of employment.

I did not read the whole thing yet, but if I were asked to kill people I think I would have refuse and take my chances as to the consequences ... CO laws were meant for people that truly felt that way, a spiritual morality, not a religious creed ... IMnsHO.

Bert:
Another interesting discussion. Perhaps this is another (although related) subject, but I find in interesting that we ascribe a right to a company (the pharmacy) to include its owners' religious in its business, but not the employee. Why is it OK for the store to refuse to carry a legal medication, but not OK for the employee to refuse to dispense it?
I'm on vacatiobn where internet isn't readily available, so I guess Stephanie won't get back to this, but hopefully Bert will check back in.

Well, if those not willing to fight in a war, for whatever reason, are "forced" into such situations . . . they WILL pose a danger to everyone in their vicinity. As they say, you can lead a horse to water . . .

The question of "all" those young eligible refusing to participate in war, is immaterial. If they did, and that endangered the others in their society, those others would simply have to face the war they wished fought, themselves. That's life, honest. The "mind police" can charge and condemn, but cannot hold their prisoners.

Gary,
You raise a good point, and I admit I do not know the answer...employee vs. employer.
I sorta feel that an employee who refuses to do his job should be fired, but a businessman should not be subject to moral (or other) restrictions on how he conducts his business. But, of course that's not quite correct. A business cannot refuse to serve a person on racial or ethnic grounds. Should that be extended to "moral" grounds? I honestly do not know.
John...so I guess you are saying...if they don't want to be in the military, fine. Let the others citizens who are "patriotic" pick up the rifle. I do not necessarily disagree with that...but the logical result is that some of the citizens who feel that military action is required to protect the nation will be the ones sacrificed, and others who want to "save their skins" can sit at home without any penalty. Is that fair? Is it right?
I am having a lot of trouble sorting it out.