Topic awaiting preservation: US pharmacists refusing to dispense prescriptions (Page 1 of 2)

Scary:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=633992

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/30/pharmacists_balk_at_filling_some_prescriptions_because_of_beliefs/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503300002

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

And it appears its not just US pharmacists - it also happened in the UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=328236&in_page_id=1799&in_a_source=

Did I not notice when the world went mad?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

WHAT!!!!

Trying to teach creationnism in school could be considered funny, but THAT is not. It's insane.
I hope the pharmacists in question will have to respond to the justice and their peers, and eventually see their authorization to sell drugs cancelled ( be it temporarilly ).

While it may be scary, they do have a right to refuse to do something which, to them, is immoral or unethical. First ammendment, free exercise of religion. If that free exercise inconveniences another temporailiy, it is unfortunate, but must be allowed without retibution, especially FROM THE STATE. Separation goes both ways.

On the flip side, one must consider a career change if their current employment, through societal changes over time, becomes compromising of their belief. Hmmm...

Guess it comes down to employer. If I OWN my own pharmacy, then I do as I please with my property and beliefs. If I work for another and cannot perform the job as they specify, I should be fired.

This one is a pickle, and either way it turns out, somebody is losing.

I'd just assume tell everyone to shut the fuck up and deal with our differences rather than rabbling on about shit all the time, calling big brother in to "fix" everything for us.

To the pharmicists: These are birth control pills, not morning after pills. Fill the damn prescriptions!

To the inconvenienced customer: Take your business elsewhere or ask for a different pharmicist.

Freedom takes tolerance and compromise. If we lose those traits, as it appears moreso everyday, there will be no freedom left.

Ramasax

Discussed here in part:
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/24103?&latestPost=true#latestPost

Ramasax: oddly enough, I am in total agreement with you...



{edit - though, just to be really nit-picky: the saying is "I'd just as soon..."

(Edited by DL-44 on 04-04-2005 04:13)

I guess there is a first for everything. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go look out my window to make sure there are no pigs in the sky.

Ramasax

Don't open your mouth while looking up Ram, I pretty much agree with you too.

Of course, I should as I said essentially trhe same thing elsewhere...so perhaps you are agreeing with me.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Yup. I also am in agreement with you Ram...damn flying pigs.

What about the Hippocratic Oath ?
Women going to a pharmacists to get their birth control ( or even morning after pill ) prescription go there because a doctor made that prescription for their well being. Pharmacists do not do diagnosis nor make prescriptions, they deliver them. And whatever their religious beliefs or moral, if they don't follow the rules of the order of the doctors, they should simply consider another career.

I don't see anyone saying anything to the contrary Poi....

Bottom line though is that a person going to get birth control pills is not someone in medical need, not someone in danger of sustaining injury or death for lack of these pills, and - while I agree the pharmacist(s) in question, if an employee of a company that does offer birth control drugs, needs to be dealt with accordingly by the company - the person needing the pills can very easily go somewhere else to get them.

No irreperable harm has been done by any means.

Sure but it's not the role of the pharmacists to determine if there is a medical need for birth control pills or any other drug. Their role is solely to dispense the prescriptions made by doctors. They can not, and are not competent to, discuss these prescriptions. They must fill them irregardless of their convictions. Yes the person needing pills can easily go somewhere else, but he/she do not have to.

On the other hand, I don't how it is abroad, but in France refusing to sell a good is not allowed. So the pharmacists refusing to sell a drug for which a patient has a prescription are breaking the law too.



(Edited by poi on 04-04-2005 18:18)

Generally the majority of these cases has ended in either a reprimand or outright firing of the pharmacist in question. It's generally a self policing issue.

quote:

---

First ammendment, free exercise of religion. If that free exercise inconveniences another temporailiy, it is unfortunate, but must be allowed without retibution, especially FROM THE STATE. Separation goes both ways.

---

Not really applicable here. Freedom of exercise of religion does not allow you to impinge the civil rights of others. Nor is there any protection for the employees making these decisions. However it doesn't seem there's been any real governemental involvement in these cases yet outisde of proposed legistation. Neither of which makes sense. I think they should have the right to refuse service and the employer should have the right to fire the people who do so.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

The problem I have with pharmacists refusing to fill legal prescriptions based on personal or religous beliefs... I'll try to explain in a no doubt, cumbersome, hypothetical..but you'll get the idea.

----------

The year is 2105. In Country 'X' Party 'Y' has just won an overwhelming majority. The 'Head' of Country X and all members of the now ruling party are Jehova Witnesses.

This party now sets about passing bullet proof legislation that outlaws blood transfusions.

Heart, lung, liver, kidney and virtually any major surgical intervention is now not simply, 'unlikely', there'll be no such surgery period.

The legislation also bans dispensation of 'any' blood related medication. People who've undergone heart transplants can no longer get the 'blood thinners'... etc.

Now, do I as the athiest pharmacist say, to hell with the laws governing my profession and the law of the land, and fill blood related prescriptions or do I, follow the 'law?'

Even tho' it is not legal to do so, my personal position is... 'fill it.'

Clearly my only option is to find a new profession.

----

So long as the drugs available are legal and legally prescribed it is not the place of a pharmacist nor anyone else to refuse dispensation.

And if you think my hypothetical is just tooo way out there... consider the laws that are still on the books from years ago... that when they surface we, today, just sit there and shake our heads....'man what were they thinking?

Fill'em up... or get out of the business. =)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Bottom line though is that a person going to get birth control pills is
not someone in medical need, not someone in danger of sustaining injury
or death for lack of these pills...

---

While I agree that there isn't much chance of death from not having a perscription for birth control pills filled, that's not to say that preventing pregnancy is the only reason for a woman to take them. In fact, the one and only time I was ever on birth control was at a time that I was not sexual active. I was a senior in HS and under enough stress that my cycles had shut down entirely, and I was put on birth control to regulate them. Stopping or restating a woman's cycles is the first reason I can think of, especially for a female that isn't regular. And those states can lead to longer term womans health issues down the line.

Pharmacists have no call to be judging why anyone, male or female, has been perscribed anything. What about perscriptions like Viagra or Cialis? Would a pharmacist refuse to fill those on moral grounds at all?

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

You never know Rhyssa. These religious freaks think it is pretty much OK to impose their narrow and often mindless beliefs on others will he nill he.

But, listen to them whine, snivil and scream when someone's civil rights are upheld to the denial of the religious right's ignorant views.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Ram, you nailed it. I agree.

The larger issue here is whether pharmacists are within their own rights to do this without government forcing them to act against their moral convictions. The government must not trample our rights because government abuse is far more dangerous than pharmacists acting in this way.

But if we were to take this question down to the personal level, we will probably get closer to the real issue. Would I, if I were a pharmacist, dispense "morning after pills" to customers? It's a tough call, but I think I would choose not to carry them in my pharmacy. Just as if I were a doctor, I would not perform abortions as a form of birth control.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Now, that is not unreasonable Bug.

Of course, you would have a sign advising all who enter that you do not carry certain products and so avoid any un-pleasant confrontations.

Would you sell cigarettes Bug?

As noted before though, if you carry a product you really have no right to refuse to sell it.

Hmm, the shelves might be a bit bare though Bug as certain cold medicines and other off-the-shelf medications can be used in certain combinations as abortificants. You would't want to carry any of those.

Come to think of it, there are so many things a pharmacy sells which could be used in a manner and for a purpose not found acceptable by persons of high moral suasion that I might encourage you instead to open a hardware store.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

But there are just a few products whose sole purpose is to terminate nacent human life. Those are the ones I would have a problem with.

Cigarettes? Sure, I would sell those, but not to minors. Would that be a problem to discriminate in that fashion?

I'm not opposed to people drinking or smoking as both of them are not necessarily harmful. It totally depends on who is using them and how. I would make the same argument for guns and probably a host of other products as you point out.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Cigarettes are not necessarily harmful? You must be a smoker.

Single biggest cause of heart disease and cancer.

Nictotine, in a test a number of years ago, was proven to be the most addictive drug known to man.

Far above and beyond mere psycholocial addictions, the study fond in some individuals as little as one puff could create a life-long addiction.

If you smoke, you are a drug addict, no different than the poorr raddled sod huddling under a piece of cardboard dreaming away his/her most recent fix.

I guess the way to get post legalized is for the pot growers to make huge political donations to various political parties as the cigarette companies do.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I'm not a smoker, I'm just heavily influenced by facts. If you believe the anti-smoking propoganda (yes that's what much of it is), then you would think that the overwhelming majority of smokers die from smoking. But this is not the case. 33% of smokers will die prematurely from tobacco use. Now that is a lot of people and it is horrible, but if you look at it objectively you will see that it supports my statement that smoking is not necessarily harmful. It is a fact that the majority of smokers do not die from smoking. Abortificants, on the other hand, are solely designed to be harmful to the fetus.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Ok, then I guess the millions of smokers who die from this 'not necessarily' harmful addiction just don't matter since they are in the minority. Using that approach, abortificants shouldn't bother you at all because they "don't necessarily work" in all cases.

Besides, the profit margin on smokes is so much higher than the other and so many more people are addicted, where-as there is no recorded instance of anyone becoming addicted to abortificants.

So lets keep killing 33% of the population and addicting the rest who smoke. The charnal houses are making a killing in another sense of the world.

At the same time, lets deny birth-control and morning-after pills to women who may have been victimized by a broken condom or other faulty device, by rape or other sexual abuse.

Lets make certain they are forced to have a child they don't want and probably can't either handle or afford.

Lets condemn that child to a miserable life because some people just don't feel comfortable with that bit of reality, but do feel it is their right to impose their own narrow, uninformed and outmoded attitudes on others all the while screaming like banshees if their own perceived world is intruded on by the bright light of reason.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

you have points, etheist, certainly. But you are missing the main point.

What bugs is talking about is something specifically designed to kill a fetus. It will kill each fetus it is used upon. That's what it does.

What you are talking is something that incidentally kills *some* of the people who *choose* to use it.

Regardless of your feelings on that, there is a very significant difference.

Your feelings on the quality of life a child may have if not aborted is also irrelevant, and still has nothing to do with an idnividual's right to choose whether or not to sell a particular product (since that's the route the conversation is now taking).

The 2nd main point: your opinion in the legitimacy of the person's choice to sell or not sell a particular product is completely irrelevant. That's the whole point of this "freedom" thing. You can choose, I can choose, bugimus can choose, every religious right wing nut freak can choose as well.

Bugs can choose not to sell a product.

I can choose not to frequent his establishment.

~shrug~

sounds good to me.

^Amen.

One ALSO has the freedom to open one's own Pharmacy (with the appropriate license, of course) and sell the drugs, if it is such a bothersome issue.

I have no basic disagreement with you DL and niggling the fine points is unproductive. I was being deliberatly and exhorbitantly sarcastic.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Sure there was some sarcasm there... just a bit But aren't you arguing in favor of forcing your views on the populace through your government? That seems to be the implication to me. And if that is the case and it's ok for you to do so, then on what basis can you say it is wrong for others to do the same when they garner more political sway than your side?

The key point about freedom is that it is supposed to be a built in right of the people to prevent government, or at least hinder it, from curtailing too many of the citizen's freedoms.

And no one is killing 33% of smokers when one of the rights we have as free citizens is to use legal products when and how we choose to do so. And if the local store doesn't carry the product I want, I'll just find one that does.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Forcing views on others is exactly what the xian right is trying to do. Through pressure on the elected, through electing similarly infected representives, through economic pressure, through threats and acts of vilolence.

The government and the courts are increasingly becoming the only resource realists and free-thinkers have.

As the rabid xian right get more elected reps, they may appoint or elect more "right-thinking" judges and people who dare to have open-minded views may become increasingly marginalized.

However, even in the US, where religion is a bigger factor/issue than in Canada, I believe there are more people who are either agnostic, aethist, or just don't give a damn.

In the long run this will, I sincerely hope, keep the fundamentalist zealots at bay and prevent the realtive few from imposing their antiquated and destructive views on the majority.

I must repeat: I don't care what one believes so long as they don't try to force me to believe the same.

"Force" may be defined more specifically if you wish, however a hint of that was included in the earlier part of this post

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Pharmacists are a bunch of whores.

What's next ?

Physicians will refuse to treat patients with STDs?
They will also refuse to treat pregnant single moms - the whores
They also will refuse to treat minorities - because God was white - at least from most pics we see.

That makes sense because they must be sinners right?


i'm drinking southern comfort and it tastes nice....

what are you guys drinking?

Barbadian Rum and classic Coke...the cola.

You make good points amd reflect my own.

If you have a "good" (thin-walled or crystal) glass "snifter"or similiar container. Fill it to the brim with finely crushed ice...pour the nectar of the godless (SC) over the ice untilit meets the surface of the ice. Swirl for abut 30 seconds. Let rest ( if you can stand the suspense) for a couple of minutes until a thin rime of frost forms on the exterior of your contaner.

Enjoy...if you have more than one, please remain seated after the the second one.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

~voice of Robert Newton.. best Long John Silver ever~

Ehthiest lad.. don't be payin' no mind what ya be hearin' from the lips of ol' ZDog there... that sweet corn likkers for fancy-boyz. Now why don't ya be comin' up on deck with yer ol' friend Silver here and we'll eye the moon on them quiet waters and I'll show ya that silver rivet I bin tellin ya 'bout.

I am grateful for the offer Nojive. Is that rivit on the deck and might I have to bend over to see it?

In which case, might you have to be positioned behind me (so as not to occlude the moonlight)?

Finally, if any or all of the above are requisite, may I see your "Certificate Of Divinity" from the Vatican in order that I may rest comfident in our lord christ, the mother mary and god almighty. that when you bugger me it will not mean I shall either be condemned to hell or languish for eternity in purgatory while you float with all serenity amongst the un-buggered boys in the cathloic heaven, adjacent the moslem buggerers?

Shall I expect an e-mai; response, or shall I anticipate a burning bush?

If I live in California, may I be forgiven if I do not find every burning bush a source of exstacy?

I await your loving response regardless of the form it takes.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Ehtheist: I was being deliberatly and exhorbitantly sarcastic.

---

Wow Ehtheist, that is so unlike you.

Concerning all the vague attacks on the alleged xian right and xians in general:
I think the main point of this topic, and many similar topics of our time, the bottom line, is freedom and the tolerance needed from people of all views to maintain such conditions. I think a lot of people forget what freedom truly is, or were never taught what it is out of complacency, and most importantly forget the very vital responsibility of free citizens to maintain it. Freedom to many in today's world seems to me just a buzzword that makes us fuzzy inside, but how many people truly give a moments thought to what it is, and equally as important for this current time, how easily it can be lost? It is more than a word, cheapened through political rhetoric, cheapened by those who routinely limit freedom through abuse of powers, cheapened by the leader of a nation with the highest prison population in the world, but a concept that all humanity must embrace and struggle for until all those who would usurp freedom have been removed from positions of power, or at least stifled and limited to a point where they can do no harm. If the power is there, the harm will be done.

You keep falling back into the pre-defined parameters of debate set forth for you by your masters without realizing it. Wake up man, there is no xian right, there is only a perception of such fed to you for the exact purpose and planned effect as it has on you. Contempt and division. You might find it telling that people writing and promoting this phony doctrine are having gay weddings and ODing on drugs. They are con-men, common criminals, nothing more, just as those on the false left are in the wares that they peddle.

You are being manipulated, just as many opposite you are, as I have been, used as a mouthpiece for an agenda which does not have your best interests, or the best interests of any common citizen, in mind. Manipulated into fighting with your brothers and sisters all the while there is a big pink elephant (no pun intended, could just as well be an ass) sitting in the middle of the room with his foot raised above all our heads. Break free!

The xian right, as you call it, is no different from any other corporatist lobbyists out there, left or right, with lots of monetary backing and ulterior motives one might add, who wish to impose their fake 'views' on the rest of their fellow citizens. The ultimate goal is control and manipulation of citizenry into a global consumerist society where culture is erased and replaced with logos, belief is stifled, the fruits of our labor raped from us, and where we think we are free, but fail to hear the chains rattling around our ankles. Regardless of what front is being used, or who they claim to represent, whether religious or otherwise, these people's minds are elsewhere, the results of their agendas all equal the same loss of freedom for one group or another, and the people under them are simply being taken for a ride; useful idiots.

There is no right-wing and there is no left-wing as it is portrayed to us through the vast media empires. There are simply people being fooled into a false paradigm who must be awakened to the larger reality. Which brings me to what I was getting at in your case: Would it not be easier to awaken people under the unfluence through education and serious conversation rather than through vague generalizations which serve no purpose but to incite division; thus harming the freedom of us all?

*shrugs*

Ramasax

quote:

---

NoJive said:

that sweet corn likkers for fancy-boyz

---

did i mention that i was chasing that SC with beer?, and not the swill you american's drink, i'm talking about potent canuck brew. yeah molson ex with some rubbing alcohol thrown in for good measure..now's that's a man combo.

quote:

---

not the swill you american's drink,

---

Not me said he from BC.

quote:

---

i'm talking about potent canuck brew.

---

Yes... your mother always thanked me for introducing her to that.

Beer? That crap ain't beer, a criminal chemical concoction rather.

Mini-brews, natural aging (no chemicals) no preservatives. Try it, has real flavour and the after effects are not nearly so violent.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Mini-brews, natural aging (no chemicals) no preservatives.

---

sorry but microbrewery shit?
no preservatives??

sounds gay or yuppie to me.
I'll stick to canadian mass produced brew....stick the glass in the freezer...add some radiator coolant....yummy

quote:

---

NoJive said:

your mother always thanked me for introducing her to that

---

Daddy?????

Neither gay (not that there is anything wrong with that) nor yuppie.

Beer they way is was meant to be brewed and in fact was until they started making additives and adding them.

The taste and flavour are so far and away better than the chemical sludge molsons and those criminals put out, you will think you have gone to beer heaven.

Besides, they way you drink beer you won't need to worry about shelf-life.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Daddy?????

---

~raising his glass high~

"Here's to the brothers of different mothers"

quote:

---

and not the swill you american's drink, i'm talking about potent canuck brew. yeah molson ex

---

piss is piss, down here or up there

If you're going to condemn swill, at least drink something that can be rightly called beer.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:
Neither gay (not that there is anything wrong with that) nor yuppie.

---

That's not what NoJive told me, after he exposed his silver rivet to your backside on the HMS CornBall.
He also said you were wearing a Polo Golf Shirt with Top Siders and held on tightly to a Gucci man-purse as the boat swayed back and forth, back and forth, faster..faster