The facts of the case:
There was recently a case in Idaho where a woman had an abortion, then tried to fill a prescription for a medicine that is a common after abortion treatment. The drug in question was methergine, and is most commonly prescribed as a several day course of pills, which contracts the uterus to help prevent residual bleeding post procedure.
The pharmacist, called the clinic, and in the conversation, asked if the drug was being used as post abortion treatment. The nurse practioner refused to answer the question, and so the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. Health professionals are allowed (perhaps even obligated) to share private and confidential information about their patients with each other, if they are directly involved in treatment.
The reason the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription was because of conscience laws in Idaho which allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medicine causing or directly related to abortion.
Planned Parent filed a complaint against the pharmacist and against Walgreens, which was the pharmacy in question.
The Board of Pharmacy's response was basically that the pharmacist did nothing wrong.
Austin Cline wrote an article about this incident, titled, "Idaho Pharmacists not Obliged to Prevent Women from Dying"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/12/idaho-pharmacists-not-obliged-to-prevent-women-from-dying.htm
End of the facts of the case.
Holy cats, where to start on this one.
First, the woman's life was not in danger. Methergine is not an emergency treatment. If she was bleeding internally from a botched abortion, that is a post operative concern and a pill isn't going to fix that one. If the uterus is perforated by a surgical instrument, to the point where life is threatened, the emergency procedure is not, "well drive down to the Walgreen's on 77th, then wait in line at the pharmacy for few minutes..."
Second, this kind of thing is expressively why a conscience clause exists in the first place. If someone has a moral objection to abortion, then they may not be forced to participate in the procedure, treatment, or aftercare of that procedure.
We don't know for sure, but it seems likely that the reason the nurse practioner refused to answer the question, was because she knew this and was attempting to skirt the issue entirely. By refusing to answer germaine questions about the context of the case, the pharmacist has an arguable reason to be concerned or suspicious about the nature of the prescription. This is a drug, with effects and side effects and if the pharmacist has questions about the issuing of a prescription relative to the person in front of them, these should be addressed, not ignored.
Third, the title and treatment of this argument is the logical fallacy called the Appeal to Fear.
By implying that inaction on the part of the pharmacist caused someone to die (when it didn't), or that the conscience clause allowing pharmacists to not participate in abortions someone results in people dying is simply not accurate.
It is a lie.
It is inaccurate, unethical, and immoral to talk about this case in this way. Austin characterizes this as a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription because, "punishing her for a possible abortion was all that mattered." (emphasis in bold mine, original was italics)
It isn't speculative or punishing to refuse to participate in something that you morally believe is tantamount to infanticide. This isn't someone who killed an abortion doctor. This isn't even someone peacefully picketing outside an abortion clinic. This is someone who is refusing to participate in the process, which she is specifically, and legally allowed to do.
She made a "choice" to not participate in this process. Related to whether or not she wants to participate in an abortion, her own, or someone else's, should she be allowed to choose? Isn't that the hallmark of the so-called, "pro-choice" agenda? Or is she only allowed to choose when she agrees with you?
Austin doesn't stop there, he goes on to hysterically attack ALL pharmacists.
He writes, "Yeah, right. I say that if pharmacists want a right to invoke their "conscience" to refuse to dispense legally prescribe medication to people in need, then we the people should invoke the power to deny pharmacists a monopoly over dispensing medication in the first place. Let the pharmacists follow their "conscience" to refuse to do their jobs while the rest of us seek medication elsewhere. Sooner or later, we won't have any pharmacists left to endanger our lives and we'll all be better off.
Here we have fine instances of the logical fallacies of Hasty Generalization, Generalization and the Slippery Slope.
For Hasty Generalization, Austin is clamoring for removing the stringent and detailed education and licensing practices for pharmacists. There are reasons, and excellent ones, for allowing someone with a PhD level of education to regulate the dispensing of potentially life-threatening drugs in society. He wants to do this, based on an isolated example that he disagrees with, instead of a rational and reasoned review of the entire pharmacy process as a whole.
For Generalization, he is lumping all pharmacists in with the Walgreen's pharmacist in Idaho, many of whom would disagree with her actions. If Austin is unhappy with the pharmacist's actions, or the peer review of the board of inquiry's finding, well that is unfortunate. But his statements don't apply to pharmacy in general.
The Slippery Slope here is that because one pharmacist somewhere followed an appropriate and legal action for a conscience clause, then no pharmacists anywhere will help us obtain life saving medicine. What a hysterical and incoherent rant!
Austin just leaves out critical information related to this occurence, and in doing so, does a disservice to every critical thinking person who took the time to read it.
The thing is, he knows better, especially regarding rhetoric or logical fallacy. He has even written about these things specifically. At that point, I don't know what to say. Is Austin deliberating misrepresenting the facts to strengthen a desperately weak argument?
Is he deliberately using rhetoric to further an anti-religious position, even if in doing so, he is leaving the truth and logic behind?
I don't know his motives, but I can't think of a reasonable alternative in this case. I hope he doesn't need any medicine in the near future. For my part I think pharmacists are a valued and conscientious part of our society, they are doing great work for the most part in doing their jobs well and preventing more problems than you would believe.
I don't think they need to be attacked unfairly, for adhering to moral belief, and following their protections under the law.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but the only one who died in this case, was the unborn child.
No comments:
Post a Comment