The W
Views: 98898964
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
14.9.14 2310
The W - Current Events & Politics - Pharmacists are allowed to refuse meds on moral or religious grounds
This thread has 29 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.78
Pages: 1 2 Next
(941 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








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

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
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.




The Catastrophic Annihilation War Room
And now, for a limited time only, it rhymes with "door hinge!"

Promote this thread!
Roy.
Pepperoni








Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2319 days
Last activity: 788 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.94
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








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3519 days
Last activity: 3519 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.32
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.



"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 29 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.04
    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








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2196 days
Last activity: 1063 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.45
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.



ITVR: In-Jokes like 90's De La Soul--come be entertained AND confused.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
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.



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2196 days
Last activity: 1063 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.45
    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?!?



ITVR: In-Jokes like 90's De La Soul--come be entertained AND confused.
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 29 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.04
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








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 295 days
Last activity: 289 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.60

    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.



"In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1231 days
Last activity: 1028 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    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...



The Left, the base of the Democratic Party, hail the virtues of tolerance and consider themselves to be the tolerant citizens of America. In their touting of tolerance they express their obvious disdain for those whose views run contrary to that of enlightened Liberalism.

Dare to make a statement of conviction of any kind, and one of these Leftists will set down his cheese and wine, pause his lecture on the virtues of plurality and the absurdity of the belief in absolute Truth, and tell you your convictions -- everything you believe and hold dear -- are absolutely wrong. Where does he get his understanding that what you claim is "right" is actually not? Against what standard is this wrongness measured? He can't say. All he knows is that you're a bigot, you're intolerant, you're not worthy of being an American. In fact, you're not smart enough to understand what it means to be an American.

And not only are you dumb, you're dangerous. Fanatics like you don't belong in a "tolerant" culture like ours. You and your beliefs and the people who share them should not be allowed in our civilized society . . . or, at the very least, you should be denied the right to vote. Because when you vote, when you're politically active, you screw everything up.
-Chris Field, Human Events, 11/5/04
Gugs
Bierwurst








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

Since last post: 479 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.22
    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.



"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -Dwight D. Eisenhower

1,000 (bushflash.com)
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 295 days
Last activity: 289 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.60

    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.






"In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."
NIKO
Chorizo








Since: 24.4.02
From: Amherst, Massachusetts

Since last post: 3523 days
Last activity: 3433 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on
    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.



Harmonica: So you found out you're not a businessman after all?
Frank: Just a Man.
Harmonica: An ancient race....
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 295 days
Last activity: 289 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.60

    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?



"In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."
rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3530 days
Last activity: 3408 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.56

    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








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.77
    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








Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3554 days
Last activity: 3503 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.46
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?




It's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone undershorts.
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3519 days
Last activity: 3519 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.29
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.



"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
tarnish
Frankfurter








Since: 13.2.02
From: Back in the Heart of Hali

Since last post: 462 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03

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.





/tarnish...

Firstly, the only cavassing of users you should be doing is with a heavy tarpaulin, a stack of bricks and a deep stretch of water"
-- BOFH speaks the truth about surveys
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
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



Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.78
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: More election problems?
Next thread: Thanks for speaking for us!
Previous thread: Attorney General Ashcroft resigns
(941 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
To Answer your question, Well you could say that the security sucks under the Obama admin. I mean how hard is it to check for an invite, look on a list, and when in doubt of the name check their id's like they do at airports.
- CajunMan, Party Crashers! (2009)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Pharmacists are allowed to refuse meds on moral or religious groundsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.14 seconds.