Yes, I do think there are moral consequences. I do think in certain situations your actions might be morally just. In others, not so much.
Can you imagine a health care worker saying that their religion trumps your wishes?
What consequences do you think should come of an employees refusal to "participate" in end of life wishes?
In the case of pharmacists, I definitely agree. Their job is to fill prescriptions and not to decide whether a person should or should not be prescribed it. If they can't just fill the bottle, they should find another job, personal reasons or not.
There is a huge difference in the effect you have on another person's life between refusing to sell them pinot noir and refusing to sell them birth control pills.
Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
That's true, and if you own your own pharmacy, I can't argue with that. But you are also free to be something other than a pharmacist.
Your swinging fist just met my face.
What if I were to become convinced that gin killed my Uncle J. Uncle J drank gin every day until his liver gave out. I now work in a liquor store where I will happily sell anybody anything... except for gin, because gin will kill you.
[Not Thomas, not speaking for Thomas]
I doubt that it is hospital owners that are refusing to comply with a patients wishes but someone on the medical staff. In a case like dlowan cited, it was a Catholic hospital so that complicates things a bit, too.
What if the pills are for pain relief and the pharmacist won't fill it because they suspect suicide?
127.885 s.4.01. Immunities; basis for prohibiting health care provider from participation; notification; permissible sanctions.
Except as provided in ORS 127.890:
(1) No person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for participating in good faith compliance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897. This includes being present when a qualified patient takes the prescribed medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.
(2) No professional organization or association, or health care provider, may subject a person to censure, discipline, suspension, loss of license, loss of privileges, loss of membership or other penalty for participating or refusing to participate in good faith compliance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897.
(3) No request by a patient for or provision by an attending physician of medication in good faith compliance with the provisions of ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall constitute neglect for any purpose of law or provide the sole basis for the appointment of a guardian or conservator.
(4) No health care provider shall be under any duty, whether by contract, by statute or by any other legal requirement to participate in the provision to a qualified patient of medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner. If a health care provider is unable or unwilling to carry out a patient's request under ORS 127.800 to 127.897, and the patient transfers his or her care to a new health care provider, the prior health care provider shall transfer, upon request, a copy of the patient's relevant medical records to the new health care provider.
J_B wrote:[Not Thomas, not speaking for Thomas]
You're doing a very good job ad it though.
boomerang wrote:I doubt that it is hospital owners that are refusing to comply with a patients wishes but someone on the medical staff. In a case like dlowan cited, it was a Catholic hospital so that complicates things a bit, too.
Indeed. Unless I grossly misunderstood dlowan, the decision to disobey the will came from the hospital, not some individual on the medical staff. A hospital owner, such as the Catholic church, can set policies about end-of-life decisions, and when they conflict with the patient's will, the patient ought to go to a different hospital. (If he is capable to, as dlowan's friend was at the beginning.)
As to focussing on the behavior of employees, I already said the employer has a right to enforce his policy, and fire the employees who disobey it. But if the employee feels more strongly about the case than about remaining employed, he can disobey -- and be fired.
boomerant wrote:What if the pills are for pain relief and the pharmacist won't fill it because they suspect suicide?
If he is employed he may get fired, if it's his own shop he loses some business. I'm fine with either scenario.