Should pharmacists be forced to be pro-vaccine?

[TV and credit cards]

Considering that proper procedures and regulations are in place as to the emergency use authorization and full approval of drugs by the FDA as I’m sure every pharmacist is fully aware of, to say this individual was overstepping his authority is a gross understatement. The larger concern is this individual’s cognitive function that would bring him, internally to such an authoritative state. Like police with aggressive type personalities who have no business being police, is there no screening process to weed such individuals out? Or are we all just so fucking crazy that it would be futile to do so? We can’t all be basket weavers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Former Grafton pharmacist convicted of attempted tampering with 500 COVID-19 vaccines gets three years in prison

What should be the fundamental principles here? Suppose it's that you have freedom to have your beliefs but once you put your beliefs into action as a company employee and those actions harm another person in some way, then the government should stop you? But that can't be the principle because we're told in other contexts that that doesn't work because it's "force." We're also told if you tell them they have to get a different job, that's force. So what's the fundamental principle(s) at play?

What I don't want as an answer is "you have to follow the law" because what I am talking about is what are the principles that we OUGHT to use to DERIVE the laws in this case when one person's irrational (religious) beliefs impact another person.

The title is clearly a jab at my own thread, but I'll bite anyway.

The pharmacist was employed by the hospital, and what he did was utterly despicable and criminal.

If he was anti-vax, he should have approached his employer and said "I do not believe in the vaccine and I will not dispense or administer it on my shift". The employer ought then be able to decide if he should be let go, as fundamentally incapable of doing the duties assigned to him, or if he can continue to work in some capacity as a pharmacist with his duties amended.

What if he owns the pharmacy and he's the only pharmacist?

What is he doing with the vaccine if he isn't going to distribute at his pharmacy? Kind of like a Christian Right Pharmacy stocking up birth control, but not putting it out for sale.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What if he owns the pharmacy and he's the only pharmacist?

What is he doing with the vaccine if he isn't going to distribute at his pharmacy? Kind of like a Christian Right Pharmacy stocking up birth control, but not putting it out for sale.

I guess the pharmacist could be in a back room with it exposing it to ultra-violet light, diluting it, and demagnitizing the microchip in it. Or the pharmacist could be replacing it with water. Or, like you said, stocking up on it. The guy in the op was leaving the vaccine out intentionally to ruin its strength.

On the other hand, this is a world emergency and the question is whether pharmacists should be forced to be pro-vaccine. So suppose there were an emergency order to use all pharmacies as vaccination clinics. Do your fundamental principles lead to protecting the pharmacist's freedom to be a Qaren or would you support the emergency policy? You said before that pharmacists have to be competent, but now the law is "forcing" someone to do something.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What if he owns the pharmacy and he's the only pharmacist?

What is he doing with the vaccine if he isn't going to distribute at his pharmacy? Kind of like a Christian Right Pharmacy stocking up birth control, but not putting it out for sale.

I guess the pharmacist could be in a back room with it exposing it to ultra-violet light, diluting it, and demagnitizing the microchip in it. Or the pharmacist could be replacing it with water. Or, like you said, stocking up on it. The guy in the op was leaving the vaccine out intentionally to ruin its strength.

The hypothetical makes no sense, because that wouldn't just be destroying government property, but also conspiracy to destroy said property, as the only reason to obtain it at their own pharmacy would be destruction.

On the other hand, this is a world emergency and the question is whether pharmacists should be forced to be pro-vaccine. So suppose there were an emergency order to use all pharmacies as vaccination clinics. Do your fundamental principles lead to protecting the pharmacist's freedom to be a Qaren or would you support the emergency policy? You said before that pharmacists have to be competent, but now the law is "forcing" someone to do something.

As I noted, unless they had reason to believe there was a threat to the patient, they have no business in the business to say no. I don't believe the Pharmacist has "freedom" to arbitrarily supercede in a patient's care at all, forget about in an emergency!

If they have religious objections or personal objections, they are in the wrong field. I'm tiring of people arguing that they have a right to do anything they want, regardless of their responsibilities.

 

[TomC]

but now the law is "forcing" someone to do something.

The law isn't forcing him to anything.

It's preventing him from practicing medicine without a license and committing fraud.

This guy isn't just baking pretty concoctions of starch, sugar, and fat.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

but now the law is "forcing" someone to do something.

The law isn't forcing him to anything.

It's preventing him from practicing medicine without a license and committing fraud.

This guy isn't just baking pretty concoctions of starch, sugar, and fat.
Tom

Just another Great American Patriot being canceled by the 'libs.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I guess the pharmacist could be in a back room with it exposing it to ultra-violet light, diluting it, and demagnitizing the microchip in it. Or the pharmacist could be replacing it with water. Or, like you said, stocking up on it. The guy in the op was leaving the vaccine out intentionally to ruin its strength.

The hypothetical makes no sense, because that wouldn't just be destroying government property, but also conspiracy to destroy said property, as the only reason to obtain it at their own pharmacy would be destruction.

Have you read the op article linked? The guy is completely out of his mind...

On the other hand, this is a world emergency and the question is whether pharmacists should be forced to be pro-vaccine. So suppose there were an emergency order to use all pharmacies as vaccination clinics. Do your fundamental principles lead to protecting the pharmacist's freedom to be a Qaren or would you support the emergency policy? You said before that pharmacists have to be competent, but now the law is "forcing" someone to do something.

As I noted, unless they had reason to believe there was a threat to the patient, they have no business in the business to say no. I don't believe the Pharmacist has "freedom" to arbitrarily supercede in a patient's care at all, forget about in an emergency!

If they have religious objections or personal objections, they are in the wrong field. I'm tiring of people arguing that they have a right to do anything they want, regardless of their responsibilities.

That's what I am getting at. As a society we show way too much deference to ideology, especially religion. I am willing to say in certain situations it's okay to force these idiots to do something...where by "force" I mean, don't go into business in the first place as the business's only employee if you are irrational/lunatic/bigoted based on ideology/religion. On the other hand, people should be free to have opinions, even wrong opinions. The principles at play IMO in this case are related to survival which is the highest order principle. Their freedom to be an idiot shouldn't supersede your right to be alive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Have you read the op article linked? The guy is completely out of his mind...

That much seems to be clear. Kind of insane he was a pharmacist at all with those issues.

That's what I am getting at. As a society we show way too much deference to ideology, especially religion. I am willing to say in certain situations it's okay to force these idiots to do something...where by "force" I mean, don't go into business in the first place as the business's only employee if you are irrational/lunatic/bigoted based on ideology/religion. On the other hand, people should be free to have opinions, even wrong opinions. The principles at play IMO in this case are related to survival which is the highest order principle. Their freedom to be an idiot shouldn't supersede your right to be alive.

Agreed. Though, there is being an idiot, being a licensed idiot, and being an idiot about something you are licensed for.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Former Grafton pharmacist convicted of attempted tampering with 500 COVID-19 vaccines gets three years in prison

What should be the fundamental principles here? Suppose it's that you have freedom to have your beliefs but once you put your beliefs into action as a company employee and those actions harm another person in some way, then the government should stop you? But that can't be the principle because we're told in other contexts that that doesn't work because it's "force." We're also told if you tell them they have to get a different job, that's force. So what's the fundamental principle(s) at play?

What I don't want as an answer is "you have to follow the law" because what I am talking about is what are the principles that we OUGHT to use to DERIVE the laws in this case when one person's irrational (religious) beliefs impact another person.

Who is telling you in other contexts that doesn't work because it's 'force'? I do not know what the fundamental principle is. I have a human monkey brain that can tell what a person should do in a specific case, and coming up with a theory of fundamental principles, testing them, etc., is exceedingly difficult. But I can tell that he was behaving unethically - and so can you - and that's it's okay (all other things equal, as always) to stop him by force, as a means of protecting others. By the way, if there were no law and he had done that in a failed state, it would still have been okay to stop him from destroying the vaccines by force.

Whether the beliefs are usually call "religious" or not (e.g., he might as well have been a conspiracy theorist minus the devil part, blaming the CIA or whatever) is not central here - though of course, that one of those is called "religious" and the other isn't is a matter of traditional terminology; psychologically, they may well be (and often are) pretty similar.

 

[untermensche]

Considering that proper procedures and regulations are in place as to the emergency use authorization and full approval of drugs by the FDA as I’m sure every pharmacist is fully aware of, to say this individual was overstepping his authority is a gross understatement. The larger concern is this individual’s cognitive function that would bring him, internally to such an authoritative state. Like police with aggressive type personalities who have no business being police, is there no screening process to weed such individuals out? Or are we all just so fucking crazy that it would be futile to do so? We can’t all be basket weavers.

I am a pharmacist.

I can only speak about my training.

There was no psychological screen but pharmacy school is 4 years of very difficult work. It is a massive test of short term memory skills. And motivation to participate.

If a person is at the edge of a disorder the stress alone may bring it out.

You do a year (11 months) of clinical training under the eye of an experienced pharmacist.

You are taught about vaccines over and over. You get an intensive education about them.

But this guy could be like a religious convert. It is not insanity. It is the absolute certainty some belief spread by others is true.

That can happen at any age.

And it changes a person.

Although this guy may be psychotic.