Reviewing it once more

[holzman_tweed]

The notion that pharmacists should be permitted to decide what drugs your Doctor may give you based on moral grounds is wholly without merit.  However, there is occasionally a valid reason to refuse a perscription that has nothing to do with morals:  drug interactions, for example, where the pharmacist has knowledge that the Doctor does not.

There is even less basis for an EMT deny transport to a patient on the basis of their morals.

That didn't stop Stephanie Adamson from refusing to transport a patient who needed to go to a clinic to get an abortion. Because this woman shirked her duty, a patient suffered pain and had to be transported by another ambulance to an Emergency Room.

Thank the Gods her supervisor shitcanned her on the spot.

She has the gall now to sue the ambulance company for religious discrimination. The company rightly maintains that she was fired not for her religion, but for endangering a patient. Not only should this woman not prevail in this lawsuit, I hope the woman to whom she denied transport sues her for the pain and suffering she causes, as well as any additional costs incurred because she had to go to a hospital ER instead of a clinic.

This, not anything that the GLBT community has asked for, is the expectation of special rights.

Comments

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

I saw that washpost set of articles too. One thing I coulnd't figure out is why someone would need an ambulance for an elective abortion. Something's been left out of the story. (Which gives the ambulance driver even less of a leg to stand on , but still.)

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I agree. I could see a driver who had previously informed the employer they they "won't transport non-emergency elective abortion patients" - but not otherwise. And if they refused in an emergency or medical-need abortion, then the driver hasn't a leg to stand on. It's the job. But note some private ambulance services are sometimes used as medical service taxis, and not as emergency service vehicles. Though why they would use one in that case, I don't know. I agree a lot seems to be missing from the story.

[salsuginous.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I thought there was something strange about the story as well, but I had completley forgotten that some private ambulance companies are also medical service taxis.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

here's the full set of articles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500846.html

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Thanks, but looking through, there still doesn't seem to be any detail about why the woman needed an ambulance for an "elective" procedure. Quality reporting at its finest.

[jamie-miller.livejournal.com]

Of course, I agree 100%. Funny how they bandy about that phrase, "special rights."

[unclevlad.livejournal.com]

The EMT failed in her primary duty: to transport a patient in need of medical service to a location where it could be provided. Would she refuse to transport an attempted suicide for the same religious reasons?

I am surprised there are not criminal charges (reckless endangerment is still a crime, right?) brewing somewhere.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

There is an obligation on a religious person to refuse to take a job he or she finds violates his or her religion. Certainly reasonable accomodations should be made where possible. For example, I take off for religious holidays and think it unreasonable if my employer will not accomodate me on the Friday's in the year when Sundown comes early. But if they can't or won't, then I won't take the job.

It is dishonest and immoral to get a job under false pretenses, in which I include failing to say in advance that you will or won't do certain tasks that one reasonably expects (or, indeed, are mission critical) go with the job. If you don't want to transport women to a clinic to get an abortion, be up front about it. If the company says "I can still use you, I just won't put you in a situation where it might happen" or refuses to hire you as a result, then you take your lumps. But springing this on your employer when the employer CAN'T do jack about it is a firing offense, IMO.

BTW, on a related note, a pharmacist and a dr. can have differences of opinion wrt to safe use of meds, and a pharmacist can refuse to dispense where it violates his or her professional judgment. My wife had one memorable case where it was clear to her the doctor was recklessly prescribing a powerful and potentially dangerous antifungal because of a conflict of interest on the part of the dr (he owned the lab that did the tests and monitoring) rather than for sound medical reasons. After considerable discussion with the Dr., she dispensed subject to the notation "against advice of pharmacist" and could, in her opinion, have decided not to dispense at all if she had disliked certain lab results from the patient more.