Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Should pharmacists be forced to be pro-vaccine?

  1. Top | #1
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,906
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,647
    Rep Power
    80

    Should pharmacists be forced to be pro-vaccine?

    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.

  2. Top | #2
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,738
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    74,211
    Rep Power
    100
    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'.

  3. Top | #3
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,873
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    4,102
    Rep Power
    71
    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.

  4. Top | #4
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,776
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,329
    Rep Power
    81
    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.

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,906
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,647
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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?

  6. Top | #6
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,776
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,329
    Rep Power
    81
    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.

  7. Top | #7
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,738
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    74,211
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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.

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,509
    Rep Power
    13
    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?

  9. Top | #9
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    17,121
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    17,828
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    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.

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Midwestern USA
    Posts
    1,856
    Rep Power
    4
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •