The Vegetarian Steakhouse, The Slippery Slope, and Wisconsin SB 155

[eyesroll]

(cross-posted from FightingBob.com)

YouÕve had a long day at work, so why donÕt you and your partner head on over to your favorite neighborhood restaurant for a casual dinner out? HowÕs a burger, fries, and a bottle of MilwaukeeÕs finest sound?

Oh, but hold on Ð the line cook has a personal moral objection to preparing animal products, the waiter says he canÕt ethically serve someone who appears to be packing a few extra pounds a fatty meal like that, and the bartender reports he has a religious objection to dispensing alcohol. You resign yourself to a salad and water.

On your way out of the restaurant, you see a woman who has suddenly and unexpectedly gone into labor. You whip out your cell phone and call 911. "Is the woman married?" asks the dispatcher. "I have a personal moral objection to out-of-wedlock pregnancy, so I canÕt send paramedics unless she can prove sheÕs married."

That night, the condom breaks. The next morning, you and your partner head to the doctor, and she writes a prescription for emergency contraception, which the doctor says will only prevent conception, and wonÕt terminate an established pregnancy. You bring it to the local pharmacy.

"I canÕt fill that, and IÕm not going to point you to somebody who can" says the pharmacist. "IÕm not a baby killer. This is a chemical abortion, and IÕll have blood on my hands."

In Wisconsin, we have the right to not engage in practices we find morally unacceptable. If you have a religious objection to a work task, your employer must try to accommodate you. However, if that task is a bona fide occupational requirement, so central to the job at hand that the employer would experience undue hardship in accommodating you, they can tell you to look elsewhere for work. And, in general, it has worked Ð people with ethical objections to serving meat donÕt work at steakhouses. Medical students opposed to abortion choose a different specialty.

There is a delicate balance between respecting individual beliefs and getting the job done. Today, in Madison, the Senate is holding a public hearing on Senate Bill 155, which would upset that balance by elevating medical providers with moral objections to contraception, euthanasia or abortion to a status beyond that of any other protected class by allowing them to not only refuse to provide a service, but refuse to refer the patient to someone who would.

A waiter refusing to serve a burger Ð but keeping his job Ð is, of course, absurd, as is a 911 dispatcher refusing to send an ambulance. Why should it be any less absurd to legally protect a pharmacist who refuses to do his or her job?

[flvegan]

1. Absolutely, now imagine this:

Let's pretend I'm a pharmacist. From my screen name, you might have guessed I'm also a vegan. If I were a vegan pushing MY moral/ethical beliefs on my customers (as is the case with a pharmacist not filling morning after, birth control, etc) I will not:
1. Fill any prescription for any meds that were ever tested on animals;
2. Fill any prescription for any meds that are made by a company that tests their current meds on animals;
3. Fill any prescription for any meds in a gelatin capsule, or any meds made from animal products.

Now, this is just as absurd as a pharmacist not filling a script as aforementioned.

For the record, were I a pharmacist, I'd not do any of the above. I'd fill your 'scripts cuz that's my job.