The W
Views: 97662544
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.7.07 0404
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Pharmacists are allowed to refuse meds on moral or religious grounds
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(495 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 130

Posts: 2392/5183
EXP: 25270476
For next: 460170

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#1 Posted on 9.11.04 1531.35
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1533.59
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill

So, if the pharmacist thinks that my father getting his Lupron shot for cancer is "playing god" and morally objects, we could potentially be SOL.

I honestly thought that pharmacists had to dispense drugs to anyone with a valid prescription that would not interact with other drugs they were taking.

I'm also shocked that some states are protecting their pharmacists. If they are going to allow them to do this, they better at least post what drugs they're willing and not willing to fill.

Also, what happens if a pharmacist refuses to serve Asians, blacks, or whites on moral grounds? According to this article, the states will support their decision.

I doubt that would happen, but it something to keep in mind.
Promote this thread!
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 63

Posts: 531/1040
EXP: 2068116
For next: 29047

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2267 days
Last activity: 737 days
#2 Posted on 9.11.04 1601.11
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1605.14
This has been a struggle for a few years now. I'm troubled because of the very reasons that you list. "Moral Grounds" is a pretty big blanket. I do respect an individual's right to not fill a script that they object to, but there better be soembody else who can fill it. Law states that you have to give the prescription back and arrange for somebody else to fill it if you cannot.

    Originally posted by USAToday Article
    In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.


So this woman now has to go back to her doctor and get another prescription? Some doctors will bill another office session for something like that.

Religious people hate having their views mocked,ignored, and/or trampled on, but these people seem to have to problem piling their own beliefs onto others.
A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 955/1164
EXP: 2689181
For next: 39633

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3467 days
Last activity: 3467 days
#3 Posted on 9.11.04 1607.14
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1610.10
This is the one story I love from the article.

"Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim."

I absolutly hate these people and I could give two shits what the law is. Your job is to do what the doctors say, because you didn't have the grades to be a doctor, so shut up and fill the bottle.
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc
Level: 94

Posts: 1587/2466
EXP: 8284263
For next: 72425

Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 69 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#4 Posted on 9.11.04 1618.42
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1619.53
    Originally posted by A Fan
    Your job is to do what the doctors say, because you didn't have the grades to be a doctor, so shut up and fill the bottle.


Easy there, killer. Pharmacists go through a tremendous deal of schooling for their trade, and often know WAY MORE than your average doctor regarding the drugs you're prescribed and their interactions with other drugs you may be taking.

Here is some information for you. (and Pharmacists have to earn a Doctorate in Pharmacology...is that good enough for you?)

http://www.allalliedhealthschools.com/faqs/doctor_pharmacy.php

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos079.htm#training
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 726/859
EXP: 1705084
For next: 67704

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2144 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#5 Posted on 9.11.04 1851.01
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1857.46
I have zero issue with the pharmacist's refusal, really. It's the "not giving it to another pharmacist to be filled" that is disturning.Object to whatever you want, but fuflfill your job responsibilities.

I supposed we are moving toward healing and coming together as one and meeting in the middle. It's just that the middle seems to be way right or something. I'm not sure.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 138

Posts: 2909/5993
EXP: 31501935
For next: 161125

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 9.11.04 1851.59
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1858.08
This is exactly why people should not follow their own beliefs exclusively, but should abide the freedoms of others. This is exactly the kind of behavior that bothers me -- when religious people stop being cogs in society and start demanding that the entire world conform to them.

How can refusing to give back someone's property merit "possible disciplinary action"?


    In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.


Hey, we're all cogs. The machine isn't about you - it's about freedom.
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 727/859
EXP: 1705084
For next: 67704

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2144 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#7 Posted on 9.11.04 1902.51
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1907.51
    Originally posted by Guru
    How can refusing to give back someone's property merit "possible disciplinary action"?



Because God hates homsexuals, women who have sex and are unmarried are sluts, women who have abortions are going to hell (along with the doctors who perform them) and if we all just prayted a little bit harder all of this mess would just go away.

This past election was evidently about "Family values" and not about a war or jobs or the economy (all of which suck, btw). Who knew? I mean, I had no idea that liberals were "faithless, ababy-killing, free-spending, coastal weirdos" who can't see that the "correct" (er, conserative)way out of all problems is the Bible, 21st century colonialism and hard work. Who knew?!?
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc
Level: 94

Posts: 1588/2466
EXP: 8284263
For next: 72425

Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 69 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#8 Posted on 9.11.04 1904.32
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1909.41
I agree with Dr0p on this. Besides...no matter how big the Pharmacist shortage is, companies won't like these guys costing them money, especially given how much they make.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1126/2182
EXP: 6919084
For next: 269552

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 244 days
Last activity: 237 days
#9 Posted on 9.11.04 1926.20
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1929.03
    Originally posted by DrOp
    Because God hates homsexuals, women who have sex and are unmarried are sluts, women who have abortions are going to hell (along with the doctors who perform them) and if we all just prayted a little bit harder all of this mess would just go away.

    This past election was evidently about "Family values" and not about a war or jobs or the economy (all of which suck, btw). Who knew? I mean, I had no idea that liberals were "faithless, ababy-killing, free-spending, coastal weirdos" who can't see that the "correct" (er, conserative)way out of all problems is the Bible, 21st century colonialism and hard work. Who knew?!?


What the sam hell are you talking about?

The ONLY people spewing the "election was about family values" crap are the Democrats. Every nationwide poll I've seen says the main issue of the election was about security and the Iraq war.

BTW, do you know/care that the Democratic candidate in the election was AGAINST gay marriage?

Damn, we're going to have to hear this stupid garbage for four years?

Also, any pharmacist refusing to fill or transfer a legal prescription should have his license pulled.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4274/4700
EXP: 21365616
For next: 471046

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1179 days
Last activity: 976 days
#10 Posted on 9.11.04 1959.54
Reposted on: 9.11.11 1959.57
    Originally posted by A Fan
    I absolutly hate these people and I could give two shits what the law is. Your job is to do what the doctors say, because you didn't have the grades to be a doctor, so shut up and fill the bottle.
If that logic were applied to the Iraq war, then you would have nothing to complain about.

My biggest problem is this Clinton-era gem....
    Originally posted by A Fan
    I absolutly hate these people and I could give two shits what the law is.
Laws are in place for a reason, you know. You may disagree with what the law is, and the pharmacists may be in violation of the law but under you're "I hate them..." defense, you could justify the "They needed killin'" defense too...
Gugs
Bierwurst
Level: 83

Posts: 1264/1857
EXP: 5307658
For next: 124586

Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 427 days
Last activity: 19 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on 9.11.04 2209.27
Reposted on: 9.11.11 2209.50
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
    BTW, do you know/care that the Democratic candidate in the election was AGAINST gay marriage?


The Democratic candidate said that he would leave it as a matter for the states to decide.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1128/2182
EXP: 6919084
For next: 269552

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 244 days
Last activity: 237 days
#12 Posted on 9.11.04 2224.48
Reposted on: 9.11.11 2226.55
    Originally posted by gugs
      Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      BTW, do you know/care that the Democratic candidate in the election was AGAINST gay marriage?


    The Democratic candidate said that he would leave it as a matter for the states to decide.


Then he lied?

    Originally posted by AP article from ABC6 in R.I.
    (Boston-AP) -- Senator and presidential candidate John Kerry says he disagrees with the gay marriage ruling by the highest court in his home state.

    Kerry says he believes in protecting what he calls the "fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples" to such things as inheritance and health benefits. But he says he opposes same-sex marriages.

    Kerry says the "right answer" is civil unions.


NIKO
Chorizo
Level: 28

Posts: 148/152
EXP: 125353
For next: 5987

Since: 24.4.02
From: Amherst, Massachusetts

Since last post: 3471 days
Last activity: 3381 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 9.11.04 2332.59
Reposted on: 9.11.11 2333.58
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by gugs
        Originally posted by Eddie Famous
        BTW, do you know/care that the Democratic candidate in the election was AGAINST gay marriage?


      The Democratic candidate said that he would leave it as a matter for the states to decide.


    Then he lied?

      Originally posted by AP article from ABC6 in R.I.
      (Boston-AP) -- Senator and presidential candidate John Kerry says he disagrees with the gay marriage ruling by the highest court in his home state.

      Kerry says he believes in protecting what he calls the "fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples" to such things as inheritance and health benefits. But he says he opposes same-sex marriages.

      Kerry says the "right answer" is civil unions.





How did he lie? If the state decides something he disagrees with, he does not have to change his mind about the issue. I dont see anything here that says he is trying to take it to a federal level.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1129/2182
EXP: 6919084
For next: 269552

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 244 days
Last activity: 237 days
#14 Posted on 10.11.04 0133.42
Reposted on: 10.11.11 0138.41
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
    do you know/care that the Democratic candidate in the election was AGAINST gay marriage?


    Originally posted by AP story
    he says he opposes same-sex marriages


I think it is safe to say that he was against gay marriage, my original point. States votes notwithstanding.


    Originally posted by NIKO
    If the state decides something he disagrees with, he does not have to change his mind about the issue. I dont see anything here that says he is trying to take it to a federal level.


Fine. So if Kerry HAD been elected and all eleven or so states still voted against gay marriage, it wouldn't reflect on Kerry?

Then why do people insist it should reflect on the man who DID win the job?
rockstar
Salami
Level: 34

Posts: 181/229
EXP: 234701
For next: 18953

Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3478 days
Last activity: 3356 days
#15 Posted on 10.11.04 0506.55
Reposted on: 10.11.11 0513.09
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
    Fine. So if Kerry HAD been elected and all eleven or so states still voted against gay marriage, it wouldn't reflect on Kerry?

    Then why do people insist it should reflect on the man who DID win the job?


There's a difference between opposing something and supporting a constitutional ban against it, something Kerry refused to do when Bill Clinton suggested it as a possible way to pick up support during the election. Bush, however, does support the ban.

Most exit polls I saw put "morality" or "moral values" ahead of "Iraq," "terrorism," and "economy", including the CNN poll that has been linked in two threads at this point.
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst
Level: 66

Posts: 259/1134
EXP: 2429549
For next: 32315

Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#16 Posted on 10.11.04 0819.32
Reposted on: 10.11.11 0822.26
    Originally posted by rockstar
    There's a difference between opposing something and supporting a constitutional ban against it


Yes, there is - and apparently Kerry falls into BOTH categories.

    Originally posted by Boston.com
    TOLEDO, Ohio -- Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.


But I can see how following Kerry's stance on this issue might be confusing.

    Originally posted by WorldNetDaily.com
    Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry has declared opposition to same-sex marriage, but two years ago he signed a letter issued by homosexual Rep. Barney Frank urging Massachusetts state lawmakers to drop an amendment limiting nuptials to a man and a woman.


But since Bush hates gays and wants them to all burn in hell, we should just publicize his stance.



(edited by Reverend J Shaft on 10.11.04 0920)
SirBubNorm
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 172/219
EXP: 219482
For next: 9700

Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3502 days
Last activity: 3452 days
#17 Posted on 10.11.04 0928.03
Reposted on: 10.11.11 0929.02
Ever feel like you're stuck between a rock and a hard place? This isn't about "religious" beliefs, yet what would happen when a minister gets asked to perform a gay marriage?

Wouldn't this thread become "Ministers are allowed to refuse to marry x?" with outrage on both sides?
A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 958/1164
EXP: 2689181
For next: 39633

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3467 days
Last activity: 3467 days
#18 Posted on 10.11.04 1024.08
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1028.37
Well, to be fair to the ministry analogy people already know that the church and government won't recongnize it, so its an automatic no. The Pharmisct job is not to be the moral judge of the people. Actually, the government is not the moral judge of the country either. We have no moral judge in this country and as long as we don't kill, rape and harm others the government should stay out of this. It would also be nice if the government would recognize abortion and birth control are all legal.
tarnish
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 460/859
EXP: 1697250
For next: 75538

Since: 13.2.02
From: Back in the Heart of Hali

Since last post: 410 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on 10.11.04 1057.28
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1057.45

In this case, the pharmacist is refusing to dispense drugs based not on who wants them, but what the drugs are. So his argument is with the medication itself and it apparently doesn't matter who has the prescription. This is reasonable, I guess, because the pharmacist is refusing to have anything to do with something he or she doesn't believe in.

Not giving the prescription back, on the other hand, is not right. The pharmacist is saying here that not only will he or she not provide the medication, but that he or she will actively try to prevent the customer from getting the medication at all. That's just wrong, in my book.

In the case of a minister who won't marry a gay couple, it's different; the minister would, ostensibly, perform the service for others (namely traditional heterosexual couples). This is exclusionary and, therefore, wrong. The minister obviously has the church to contend with, but if the church recognizes the right to wed, the agent of the church should perform the ceremony.

AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 978/3336
EXP: 13012110
For next: 79243

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on 10.11.04 1102.35
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1103.31
Guys,,
Mrs AWA is a PharmD - and I am out taking care of my Mom and my Dad (both in the Hsopital and both sleeping right now, Thank God - but when I get back into town, I am going to quiz her on this one. She's pretty strickly pro-life and all the "family Values" stuff, but I cannot IMAGINE her refusing to fill a valid prescription UNLESS she felt like there was a drug inteaction issue. She a hospital clinitologist, so it may be different.

I know one thing, she reviews each patient's records (or someone on her staff does) for each new drug added to a patient's list for interactions, because she has told me many times that Drs are not as well informed on drug interactions as she and her collegues are.

Like I said, I will ask her. She'd kind of resent the "fill the bottle" line. She doesn't even do that, she has technicians for that. The only time she actually touches drugs these days is when she mixes Chemo or nuclear drugs. Otherwise, she checks interactions and confirms the woirk of the technicians.

I assume that's the same thing with most RPHs
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: More election problems?
Next thread: Thanks for speaking for us!
Previous thread: Attorney General Ashcroft resigns
(495 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Pharmacists are allowed to refuse meds on moral or religious groundsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.386 seconds.