Should pharmacists be forced to be pro-vaccine?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any person in medicine should be allowed to object based on a reasonable sense of care. If a pharmacist has a legitimate concern something might harm a patient, then they shouldn't be forced to provide that something, but they need to be able to back it up. And this isn't carte blanche, and it sure the heck isn't legitimate to destroy anything, they destroyed a precious and valuable (at the time) commodity. Also, being a Pharmacist and an anti-Vaxxer really isn't very compatible. I don't know if they didn't trust vaccines as a whole or just this one.

Of course, in America "legitimate concern" will be required to include anything from Jenny McCarthy, the Bible, and Twitter, because otherwise it'll be another 'liberal control scheme'.

 

[Patooka]

Pharmacists should not tamper with medication. When your doctor prescribes you something. they should be safe in the knowledge that the medication you're being supplied isn't fucked with. This is no different than cafeteria staff putting rat poison in lunches that have high sugar content.

 

[untermensche]

As a pharmacist you have to have reasonable beliefs.

Your beliefs have to be supported by a study that can stand the scrutiny of peer review.

You can't just dislike vaccines.

You have to support the belief.

It's pretty clear as we see rising vaccination rates we see the problem getting smaller.

It might be coincidence but the science says it was predictable.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Any person in medicine should be allowed to object based on a reasonable sense of care.

IMO, this is way too narrow for a principle because it lacks an explanation of why and how that "why" applies outside of medicine. For example, is the fundamental principle you are invoking actually related to a person's survival? Are you prioritizing one person's survival and so the fact we are talking about a pharmacist a subset of that thing which is larger? but then what is that thing? Are you willing to go a level higher to say "Any person in any survival-related industry should be allowed to object based on a reasonable sense of their caring about the consumer?" People seem to have way more objections and so are you discounting all of those related to personal beliefs because they do not rise to the level of survival?

 

[untermensche]

The actions of pharmacists are governed by their state boards of pharmacy.

Pharmacists don't get to decide for themselves what are the proper drugs for a patient.

If the pharmacist thinks a drug is wrong or a better drug is available they can make their case with the prescribing physician.

But they can't make the change themselves.

Pharmacists can't use the fact that rumors exist to not look at the science.

These vaccines were tested.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any person in medicine should be allowed to object based on a reasonable sense of care.

IMO, this is way too narrow for a principle because it lacks an explanation of why and how that "why" applies outside of medicine.

Competency.

For example, is the fundamental principle you are invoking actually related to a person's survival? Are you prioritizing one person's survival and so the fact we are talking about a pharmacist a subset of that thing which is larger? but then what is that thing?

No, I'm saying a pharamcist should be allowed object in the case where they think someone may be harmed. I don't think they should be allowed to arbitrarily override the advice of a patient's doctor.

 

[Gun Nut]

Pharmacists should not need to be forced to accept medical science. The better statement, I think, is that anti-vaccers should be "forced" to seek employment in a field for which they are capable of performing, which would consequently not be associated with medical science.

I don't believe in god. It makes more sense to ask why I would want to become a priest and consider that I should probably not be allowed to become a priest, rather than ask if I should be forced to believe in god as a priest.

I can't jump. Should I be forced to the sidelines as a professional basketball player?
I don't understand the French language. Should I be forced to teach Spanish instead?

 

[Elixir]

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.

What are, or what should be?
I won't venture into the swampy, subjective waters of what should drive laws. As it is, the likelihood that a jury can be convinced that harm can be demonstrated and culpability can be assigned, that is what drives the law IRL. In a civil matter, that likelihood is based on the preponderance of evidence. But as it applies to someone destroying vaccines and thereby denying someone a chance to save their own life, I don't know if that is or should be criminal. But I'd sure like to punch them in the face.

 

[TomC]

But as it applies to someone destroying vaccines and thereby denying someone a chance to save their own life, I don't know if that is or should be criminal.

I don't have much problem with this.

Pharmacists are human and entitled to opinions. They are also trusted professionals, the go between a patient relies on to follow doctors recommended treatments.

It's one thing if a pharmicist sees a problem with the course of treatment. Fine, tell the patient and consult the doctor. But be honest about it.

Unilaterally deciding that the medicine is wrong, and giving a patient a placebo(or worse) is a total abrogation of the trust. There must be huge consequences for that behavior.

Under most circumstances, losing your job and license(making your diploma toilet paper) might be sufficient response. But the USA is under unusually bad circumstances. Making an example of this pharmacist seems like a really good idea.

Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

What are, or what should be?
I won't venture into the swampy, subjective waters of what should drive laws. As it is, the likelihood that a jury can be convinced that harm can be demonstrated and culpability can be assigned, that is what drives the law IRL. In a civil matter, that likelihood is based on the preponderance of evidence. But as it applies to someone destroying vaccines and thereby denying someone a chance to save their own life, I don't know if that is or should be criminal. But I'd sure like to punch them in the face.

Let me provide an analogy to Nazis to help make this more clear.

It is destruction of effectively Government property during a medical emergency. Worse yet, these were actually administered to patients! If that isn't a crime, it should very well be one (several).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pharmacists should not tamper with medication. When your doctor prescribes you something. they should be safe in the knowledge that the medication you're being supplied isn't fucked with. This is no different than cafeteria staff putting rat poison in lunches that have high sugar content.

Not quite that bad--his actions simply rendered the vaccine useless, not harmful.

On the other hand, providing a fake potentially lifesaving drug is attempted murder in my book.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

 

[Elixir]

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.

What are, or what should be?
I won't venture into the swampy, subjective waters of what should drive laws. As it is, the likelihood that a jury can be convinced that harm can be demonstrated and culpability can be assigned, that is what drives the law IRL. In a civil matter, that likelihood is based on the preponderance of evidence. But as it applies to someone destroying vaccines and thereby denying someone a chance to save their own life, I don't know if that is or should be criminal. But I'd sure like to punch them in the face.

Let me provide an analogy to Nazis to help make this more clear.

It is destruction of effectively Government property during a medical emergency. Worse yet, these were actually administered to patients! If that isn't a crime, it should very well be one (several).

That's clear and concise. But religiously bigoted people who wish to force their superstitions on other people, even risking other people's lives in the process, are people too. We shouldn't force them to do things that violate their supersti ... uh ... faith. As Meta so aptly points out: 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".
But that's not what happened. Instead he did as Jimmy indicates - destroyed government property and endangered innocent people's lives in the process. So again, to Don's question about what should drive the laws governing such behavior... I decline to make specific recommendations on those terms, even though I'd still like to punch him in the face.
We could make it a capital crime if anyone died following being administered bad doses. But in general it's impossible to legislate rationality. It would make sense to prohibit this joker from ever holding any position of responsibility that could enable him to harm others, but that would be cold comfort to anyone who lost a loved one because he was a superstitious, self entitled twat. It's just sad.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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?

 

[untermensche]

Pharmacists are not free agents.

Pharmacists have a license.

A license gives pharmacists a monopoly.

To gain that monopoly you must adhere to accepted medical practice.

The state grants a license so it can protect people by controlling what clinicians do.

It can take away the license if the pharmacist is seen to be endangering patients.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

Presumably if he owned the pharmacy he simply would not have stocked the COVID vaccine in the first place. Are pharmacies required to stock the COVID vaccine and administer it?

But if he did own it, got the vaccines anyway (by lying to the government that he wanted to set up a vaccine clinic), then purposely defrauded and endangered people's health by lying to them about what he was injecting into them, why would any of that be excusable?

I simply cannot understand what you think the analogous situation is with the Colorado baker. Did the Colorado baker endanger somebody's life and health by not creating a gender transition celebration cake? Did he defraud customers by selling them things that were not cakes but pretending they were cakes?

 

[Gospel]

Am I stupid for thinking a pharmacist's job is to fulfill prescriptions and that's that? If you wanted to prescribe drugs wouldn't you like NOT BE A PHARMACIST?

 

[untermensche]

Pharmacists are trained to be able to prescribe drugs.

That way they understand why people are prescribed drugs.

Pharmacists are a check on the physician to lower the likelihood of errors.

They are now giving vaccines.

In the hospital they oversea the administration of some drugs, like Vancomycin, but don't prescribe.

In the VA pharmacists can prescribe for a few conditions, like hypertension and diabetes.

 

[Terrell]

If it's a legitimate prescription and there isn't a medical reason to do otherwise the position should be. "Fill the prescription or you're fired". Don't tamper with meds, you're damaging someone else's property, and possibly harming someone.