Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If a pharmacist does not want to fill birth control prescriptions...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
battleknight24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:30 AM
Original message
If a pharmacist does not want to fill birth control prescriptions...
... I say fine, they shouldn't have to...

In fact, I think that if they have any personal objection towards the use of anti-depressants, they should be able to refuse those prescriptions too. All people suffering from depression just need to think happy thoughts.

If a patient needs a prescription for heart medication, I also think that pharmacist should refuse to fill that too if he does not believe medicine should be used treat the heart. I mean, exercise and eating right is all you need for a healthy heart, right?

If a pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions for cholesterol lowering drugs, I say, good for them... after all, people should just watch what they eat.

If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for medication that helps prevent seizures, that's okay too... because... well... uh...

After all, the rights of a pharmacist are of utmost importance... and he or she should be able to pick and choose which prescriptions he wants to fill...


Peace,


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcctatas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Nicely put...
maybe the christian coalition can start a pharmacy school at Bob Jones University, and open their own chain of bible based pharmacies, see if they get enough business to keep them open...prayer heals everything you know! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
mcctatas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Ummm....
as a fellow Christian Democrat, I don't count myself among the members of the christian coalition, Bob Jones University, or fundamentalists in general. Furthermore, in a small town your options may be limited or worse, your insurance carrier may only approve one pharmacy in your area. Be offended if you must, or just smile.....Peace. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihelpu2see Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
85. plain and simple, as a health care provider you can not hinder a patients
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 10:28 PM by ihelpu2see
access to "care". now "care" includes the patients right to reproductive health. a licensed health care provider can not be a barrier to the patients right to care. this is all medical ethics 101. I'm lucky, my wife is a pharmacist and a strong catholic, and BCPs don't upset her, the morning after pill, she is perturbed since some women have used it more than onc. But again she understands her role as a health care provider that is primary and ones own belief system HAS to take a back seat to patient care.

Dr. F
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mad_Dem_X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #85
91. Bingo!
"You cannot hinder a patient's right to care." Exactly. The patient's need trumps a pharmacist's personal opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. As a Christian and a Democrat, I say, go ahead, mock those using
religion as a means of manipulation. I find them disgusting, reprehensiable and sickening. I need to laugh to keep from screaming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. I will "mock Christianity" all I f***ing please
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 02:25 AM by Skittles
if said "Christianity" involves forcing their sanctimonious CRAP on ME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
47. Here we go...
:beer:

WHere the HELL is the popcorn?!
Oh ok..

:popcorn:

Proceed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rufus T. Firefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
87. I HATE seeing "deleted message."
I always wonder "What the hell did they say to get deleted?!"

Wish there was a trash can forum so you could see all the deleted posts...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #87
94. In a nutshell: let's not make fun of Christians.
I don't remember the entire post, just the basic jist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. five point plan
1. put pharmacist on blacklist
2. put chain allowing pharmacist to do the selective refusal on blacklist
3. boycott chain allowing pharmacist to do the selective refusal
4. protest chain allowing pharmacist to do selective refusal
5. protest workplaces of the pharmacist on the blacklist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. Absolutely, hit them in the pocketbook
Does anyone have a list of chains which allow individual pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GracieM Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
28. I agree
Let them sell or not sell whatever they want, then don't visit them. Let the market decide whether they can stay in business not selling birth control...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cry baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
50. What about those "one pharmacy/one pharmisist towns"? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
102. You mean like Walmart.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. what about all those dick stiffeners?
doubt they have a problem with them....but wonder if a woman decided not to fill that kind of script? i bet all hell would break loose!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcctatas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. "dick stiffeners"....
:spray: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. yes
where do chemically-induced boners rate on the morality scale?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
7. Natural selection, evolution. Oh, that's right, they don't believe that
exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
9. if they have issues about filling perfectly legal prescriptions
then they should find themselves another job.

It's exactly that simple.

I would certainly respect any pharmacist who made a sacrifice like that for his or her beliefs. But to force other people to compensate for one's own personal beliefs, when one is a licensed professional with an important job to do, is reprehensible and cowardly. I don't understand why there's even any debate about this.

What's so special about pharmacists? If a Hindu objected to making beef hamburgers at McDonald's, nobody would suggest that the management should make special arrangements--they just wouldn't get hired. If a Jew who kept kosher objected to people's ordering cheese and meat pizzas, they shouldn't work at Pizza Hut. If a Christian fundamentalist doesn't want to fill a legal prescription, they shouldn't work in a pharmacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying Dream Blues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
29. Exactly. Nail. On. Head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electron_blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
81. I love your analogies!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:28 AM
Response to Original message
12. What is the purpose of medicine?
If we accept the fact that medicines are meant to fix that which is broken, or to cure illness, then what is being 'cured' with birth control?

----------------

I swear by Apollo the physician, by sculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.


"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; to look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Do You Know What a Pessary Is?
Hint: Not birth control pills.

Also, nice strawman argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Drugs and medicines are not the same thing
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 06:10 AM by aion
It is not a strawman argument. What do you define as the proper function of 'medicine'? Notice I didn't say 'drug'.

Primum non nocere?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Answer My Question: What Is a Pessary?
The Oath prohibits a certain kind of abortion hat at the time was performed by inserting a fairly toxic was into the woman.

What you overlooked, rather conveniently, is that the Hippocratic Oath has no legal standing. Here's the whole thing:

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician and Aesculapius, and Hygiea, and Panacea, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation.

To consider him who taught me this Art as dear to me as my parent, to share my substance with him, and to relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring as equivalent to my own brothers, and to teach them this Art, if they wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation.

And that by precept, lecture, and every other form of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others.

I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients and abstain from whatever is harmful and mischievous.

I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such advice; likewise, I will not give a pessary to a woman to induce abortion.

I will live my life and practice my art with purity and holiness.

I will not cut persons suffering from 'the stone', but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this skill.

Whatever houses I enter, I will enter for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption, and especially from the seduction of females or males, of free persons or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in connection with my professional practice or not in the life of men, which should not be made public, I will not divulge, considering that all such knowledge should remain secret.

As long as I continue to keep this Oath inviolate, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the Art, respected by all men, at all times. But if I should trespass and violate this Oath, may the opposite be my lot.


Do you expect doctors to swear to Roman gods? To keep their knowledge secret? To not practice surgery?

That is your strawman, by the way - pretending that the oath is binding. Nice try, though!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. You need to learn your terms
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 07:18 AM by aion
I majored in philosophy, and you simply are not using your terms properly. You are arguing against the oath, and not my question. My question was regarding drugs and medicines.

Medicines, I contend, are for diseases/illnesses.

The oath is binding on those who take it. But I suppose if you don't believe in keeping to your words, you can't begin to appreciate the value of such.

Of course, not all pharmacists will have taken such an oath. And, likewise, they would not necessarilly be held in any conflict. However, that non-oath taking pharmacist will still be bound by the society's distinctions between medicines and drugs. And until you can address that particular dichotomy, you are the one who is attacking the straw man.

I have predicted the GOPs attack on contraceptive means for years now. I also have theories about credit money, and how it absolutely requires a growing population of working age. Our money is now based on credit (work promised) as opposed to work already delivered. Because of this, large hordes of money, held by a significantly aging citizenry, will place pressure on women to produce more children.

At least, with a gold-backed money system, we could all become celibate and simply dole out our money (gold) to foreign nations, in exchange for their manufactured goods and services. But with a credit-based system, this is quite impossible en masse. The only reason that foreign nations accept our currency, as it is now, is because of the promise for work which is contained therein. With a diminishing working-age population, that promise (and therefore the worth of the money) is diminished.

Try to imagine the chaos we'd be in if we had absolutely no working-age population (via wars, abortion, etc.), and yet there was still just as much credit-money in circulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
57. Slight correction..
"Do you expect doctors to swear to Roman gods?"

Apollo, Aesculapius, and Hygiea, and Panacea are Greek not Roman gods and goddesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #57
99. They can swear to santa claus if they wish
If they saw fit to make the oath, what right do you have to coerce them into violating it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
56. I was prescribed Birth control pills to regulate very heavy periods
many women take them for reasons other than birth control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #56
67. It's no one's business WHY you take birth control pills!
Stiffy pills can be taken for other reasons, and no one ever asks the guys coming in with their prescriptions if it's for their asthma or if they are unable to get an erection on their own. And, really, can you see some big old guy saying that, yeah, he just can't get it up anymore, but thanks for asking? Men would spit in your face if you asked a question like that. Women should do the same.

It's between you and your doctor. It's no one's business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. exactly
I was replying to post #12 in which the poster asked what was being "cured" by birth control pills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
23. "what is being 'cured' with birth control"
Depends on why you're taking them.


I was given a prescription as a teenage to help regulate heavy and painful menstrual cycles. When I decided to use birth control, I ask my doctor if I needed to change prescriptions and I was told no.

So, when I go to a pharmacist, do I need to give them full details of why I have been prescribed a medication? Unless I have a specific question in regards to how to properly take the medication, the general conversation I have with the pharmacist is "here is my perscriptsion... when will it be ready... isn't the weather beautiful/terrible/strange today?"




"If we accept the fact that medicines are meant to fix that which is broken, or to cure illness, then what is being 'cured' with birth control?"

What about taking medication to stabilize? Wellbutrin is meant to stabilize those who suffer from Depression. It won't fix anything and it won't cure anything, but it stabilizes the synapses that flicker across the top of the brain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #23
31. Good questions -- intentional vs. accidental/incidental
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 11:30 AM by aion
I believe that the argument is that the brain is faulty in its serotonin/dopamine uptake. Either it produces too much, or too little. And as the brain's natural function is to produce this seratonin/dopamine at sufficient and adequate levels, anything which seeks to maintain that balance will therefore be 'curative'.

The solution you have hinted at is one which will probably become status quo. But I don't believe it will last. You can almost certainly find a doctor who will prescribe a medicine for your cramps -- and the resultant abortion/contraception will be, therefore, 'accidental' rather than 'intentional'. You should be careful, however, not to confuse that with 'incidental'.

However, it won't be long before the pressure will then shift onto the drug manufacturers to find a drug coctail which will help you with your cramps, but not have the undesired side effect of killing your fetus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #31
72. Actually, I wasn't asking questions.
I take Wellbutrin. It's referred to as a stabelizer. It won't fix or cure anything.

I have hinted at no solution. There is no solution, except for doctors to be doctors and pharacists to be pharmacists. That's a fairly basic concept that everyone had accepted until this administration declared war on women (along with everyone else they've declared war on.)

------------

So, am I to understand that you think it is quite ok for a pharmacist to withhold perscriptions from women because they wouldn't take the medication? I guess, since I don't like conservative opinions,when I'm teaching, I will just skip all mention of ronald reagan because I disagree with his policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
58. Answer: One problem is in your "if" statement.
We DON'T all accept the restrictive limitations on what "medicines" are supposed to do, or--some might argue--that "medicines" are the only things sold by pharmacists.

But the far more important question is whose business is it to determine what prescriptions are appropriate for a given client/patient. That is his/her physician's job, and one that a pharmacist canNOT do even if that were desirable, because the pharmacist does not have the training or expertise to examine the patient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
78. I do not accept your "fact"
If we accept the fact that medicines are meant to fix that which is broken, or to cure illness, then what is being 'cured' with birth control?

You've listed several categories of medicine - fixing broken things, curing illnesses, but those are not all encompassing. Red's a color, Blue's a color. I don't accept the fact that colors are either red or blue.


What broken thing does laughing gas fix? What illness does it cure?

You'll need to learn your terms better. Medicine is also used to prevent a wide variety of conditions, including diseases, pain, lots of undesirable conditions. A doctor might suggest giving benadryl to an infant before a plane flight, because having ear aches is an undesirable condition. Likewise a doctor might suggest birth control because having a 10 pound object forced through your cervix against your will is an undesirable condition.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #78
98. Nitrous Oxide is a drug, not a medicine
As undesirable as that condition is, it is natural and likely unavoidable if human beings are to survive. Someone passed you through their cervix, did they not? Surely you can have drugs for pain, but to argue against the 'condition' is really absurd...unless you know of some other way to harvest humans.

When you analyze the procedural protocols involved at the FDA, you will realize that medicines which have been scientifically determined to be more efficacious and/or cause fewer unintended side-effects are going to replace medicines which are less efficacious or which cause more side-effects.

The argument that seemed to be popular in this thread was "Well, we can find us a quack who will prescribe the same medication to us for cramps. There's always a way around this." That sort of burrying your head in the sand is not helpful. The doctor will not be able to prescribe that medicine to you for cramps if the republicans get their way. You only need to look at the medical marijuana issue to see that sort of justification. They will insist on your taking marinol, which they claim to be more efficacious and less damaging. You will be more than entitled to your cramp medication, but it won't have the side effects that you are hoping for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
13. What about cigarettes, booze, and food?
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 05:31 AM by loyalsister
If we're going to start monitoring of our neighbors consumption relevant to their health, shouldn't we be consistant?
Shouldn't the next bill allow all fast food employees, and store clerks to tell people they should not be eating junk, smoking, or drinking if obviously obese coughing or frequent customers in the liquor department approach with their purchases?
This is a very slippery slope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
19. Nope
"If a pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions for cholesterol lowering drugs, I say, good for them... after all, people should just watch what they eat."


Often high cholesterol can't be controlled through diet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
20. Tell 'em to quit being a pharmaceutical activist
and legislating from behind the counter.

Nothing pisses me more than an activist pharmacist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
21. Interesting responses here...but the bottom line is that a pharmacist,
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 07:46 AM by rasputin1952
physician or nurse, does not have the moral authority to make moral decisions based on their religious philosophy. They can, refuse to do certain acts, or refuse to prescribe certain medications based on the notion/fact that harm can be done to an individual. However, unless contraindicated for a specific individual or barring a recall of the product, Birth Control pills do no harm that we know of to the general population.

Since BC prevents pregnancy there is no moral basis for not dispensing said medication. The only moral basis, which proves to be in the eye of the particular pharmacist, is that this individual(s) does not think that sex is moral, except for procreation. To take this a step further, does this pharmacist sell prophylactics or cervical sponges/spermicides?

If taken to the extreme, does this pharmacist sell items that enhance the sexuality of individuals, ie makeup...thereby enlisting in the procurement of 'immoral' sexual acts?

This person, and those that think like him/her need to get a grip and realize they are professionals in the medical arts. I have had to work with patients that have had diseases/repercussions from practices I deem sorrowful: hepatitis from infected needles, overdoses, drunk driving accidents, domestic violence, suicide attempts...the list can be voluminous. In every case, I look at the individual and treat the disease within my scope of knowledge and as directed by a physician. I look at the individual as a human being that has a disease/problem that needs to be dealt with, and my moral apprehensions do not come into play. It is not for me to judge, it for me to apply healing, and in some instances mere comfort measures, so that individuals can either get the aid they need to survive, or to make their transition to death a little easier. No one should be treated as a second class citizen, and every professional in the Arts should understand that they have a higher moral obligation to the patient than to whatever they deem 'moral'. If a patient is prescribed a CII narcotic for pain relief, the patient may become addicted, or worse yet overdose on purpose. Would this pharmacist feel better if he/she dispensed one 4 mg tab of Dilaudid every 4-6 hours, so as to prevent an intentional/accidental OD, and thereby, by some moral standards being complicit in a suicide or death? That is an absurdity. The job of the pharmacist is to dispense said Rx, and it is the responsibility of the recipient to use the medication/product responsibly.

"First, do no harm". Where is the "harm" in prescribing/dispensing BC pills? The people who dispense morality should be behind a pulpit and not behind a pharmacy counter.

This is a complex issue, it involves several people and a conflict on moral terms. However, like I said previously, if there are no contraindications, the pharmacist should have filled the Rx and kept personal moral issues to him/herself.

Just my buck and a quarter... :)







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pseudostar Donating Member (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
22. dead on
All due respect to the pharmacists out there, but if you want to have any input into what medications I am prescribed, go to medical school.

Else, put the correct amount of pills in the little bottle and take my copayment. Leave your medical/spiritual/political opinions at the door.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #22
39. Thank you and welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
24. i told my catholic friend who justifies fellow catholic rights to deny
another because of their religion, imposing their religion on another that is not a part of that faith, the christian act would be to no longer be the pharmacist. if they could not morally hand out a perscription, then as a christian they have the responsibility to walk away from that job. as a christian it is not our job to infict and demand our relgion on another. if someone asks us to do something against our religion, then it is our pain we must accept not demand another to own that pain. a catholic doesnt believe in birth control, then because of the price of being a catholic the catholic must walk away, showing the strength and conviction in his/her religion. not demand that another live by those rules that dont believe in or are part of the cult
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGonzoLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
25. Exactly
After all, people can just find another pharmacy. Especially those hicks who live out in the middle of nowhere where there's only one pharmacy serving half the county.

Hey, it's a free market, right?

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
26. and firemen ought to be allowed to choose which fire they put out too!
after all, we can't go and deny a fireman's religious rights, now can we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. Your analogy is improper
The fireman finds himself in no conflict. If your analogy were to include something like the following, it would be better.

Suppose that a fireman has been told by his superiors that the decision has been made to set fire to the forest, in order to save the nearby city. However, this forest does contain a number of residents who cannot, for whatever reason, be contacted.

Assuming that the fireman has taken an oath to preserve and protect, this fireman could find himself in a serious conflict. Shall some be sacrificed, in order that others may live? That's the Xtian motto, is it not?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #32
41. Many of the Fire Dept's of yore...did not put out the fires that were
not 'covered' by political machines. It took quite some time to ensure that Firefighters would actually combat all fires.

As to the 'oath' you speak of...any oath is only as good as the person who made it. bush is a prime example; he took an oath tho "protect and defend the Constitution", and yet he is trying to shred it as we speak. I have refused to take two oaths, as they would have been seriously conflicting to what i adhere to. I would NEVER take an oath to someone, but I would take an oath for an ideal I found worth defending. An oath is an honor bound statement, and should never be taken lightly. But that is just me, I understand that others have conflicting views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. "Let your 'Yes,' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.'?
Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord. But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, Yes, yes or No, no; and anything beyond these is of evil (Matthew 5:33-37).


...on earth, as it is in heaven?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
71. less so than your logic. each would be refusing to do routine work
each of the persons would know beforehand the job requirements and their capability of performing any duty. if for "religious purposes" anyone can not perform their assigned duties they should make such claims before agreeing to the contract of employment. in fact, not to disclose any moral or religious objection prior accepting employment one should expect to be terminated. that is the point. once you walk into the marketplace you should expect to make compromises. apparently you don't.

if you don't want to hand out birth control pills, don't be a phamicist. but don't just expect others to show some sort of tolerance of you for not living up to your contractual obligations simply because you blame God for your actions.

the natural extension of your logic would have jesus bringing a lawsuit against the romans for crucifying him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
27. You all have good arguments here. I would think there is a simple
solution to this problem. Any pharmacy must fill any prescription legally issued by a licensed physician. If a pharmacist employed there will no fill a particular medication, the pharmacy MUST have another individual IN THAT FACILITY to serve the customer.

If the pharmacy is too small to provide an alternative pharmacist, then the one serving at the time MUST fill the prescription.

I think it's pretty stupid for someone to choose a career that they know they won't be able to properly perform the duties. But if they choose to do so, part of the consequence is having to find a job in a pharmacy that is very large and can support having multiple pharmacists on duty at the samae time!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. What if your doctor refused to give you an abortion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #30
75. That is part of the problem.
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 06:34 PM by Kerrytravelers
Doctors who are willing to perform abortions have been run out of most counties by rw nut jobs. Now that they are managing to eliminate most women's access to abortion, they are taking on women's access to birth control.

If they don't want abortions, you think they'd want birth control. But, sonce they want to outlaw abortions and eventually end access to birth control, it's time we stood up now and said "no way!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SillyGoose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. Any pharmacy must fill any prescription...
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 11:31 AM by ac8916
"Any pharmacy must fill any prescription legally issued by a licensed physician." PERIOD. No qualifiers about pharmacists personal beliefs.

I used to own a restaurant. If one of my employees wouldn't have served a hamburger due to his or her personal beliefs I would have shown him/her the door pronto.


(edited for spelling)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
35. i agree with this ...
i believe this is the position taken by Planned Parenthood on this issue ...

the essence of the position is that the customer has every right to have a legally issued prescription filled by any pharmacy they choose ... a pharmacy; not an individual pharmacist ...

if the pharmacy wants to remain in business, it, not any particular individual they employ, must provide all legal pharmaceutical services to the public ... in that way, the customer is not inconvenienced in any way ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. and when the FDA says that certain medicines are no longer legal
What will Planned Parenthood say to this?

Imagine this: A woman finds herself on medicine for 'cramps.' This medicine, unbeknownst to the woman, causes miscarriages. This woman sues the pharmacy for the emotional loss of her child. Due to the month-long story on FOX, the FDA decides to rule against the availability of this so-called 'medicine', citing the efficacy of other cramp-relievers.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
33. Right on..
Actually any pharmacist who doesn;t feel they can dispense drugs legally prescribed needs to find another line of work!!

And it should be illegal to refuse to fill a prescription...and should someone get pregnant or ill because a pharmacist refused to do his job...he should be personally liable!!! As well as the company he works for
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Short-sighted
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 11:50 AM by aion
'Legally prescribed' will undoubtedly also imply that the medication so-prescribed is most-appropriate to the case of the woman. If she has cramps, and the doctor has prescribed a miscarriage-inducing drug for that pain, then the question logically becomes "Isn't another medicine which doesn't have the side-effects of miscarriage more appropriate here?"

This boils down to the proper definition of medicines vs. drugs, and their effects on the body. We don't call alcohol a medicine -- it dulls the senses, slows you down, and otherwise incapacitates you. It's arguable that all medicines are drugs. Is ginko biloba a drug? Ginseng?

If you try to find a short-term solution to this problem, you are likely to find your solutions becoming scarcer and scarcer. The GOP is quite pro at dividing and ruling -- their vulgar roman ancestors must be proud.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Well not really my point...
My point is if a pharmacist refuses to dispense a medication prescribed by a Doctor because he does not approve of it personally, he should be personally liable for any harm that befalls the person because of that action. If a women comes in with a prescription for high doeses of birth control, prescribed by a doctor to prevent the possibility of pregnancy, because she was just raped, and that pharmacist refuses to fill it becuase he/she is anti-choice, and that women becomes pregnant as a result, that pharmacist should be personally financially liable, as should the company he works for.

Obviously if a Pharmacist believs a prescription of prescribed in error, or there is some reason that he believes the medication will be harmful to the person he needs to check it out...a completely different scenario!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. All it takes is one stooge to claim that her innocent child was ripped ...
It is not unthinkable that an entire line of cramp-relieving drugs could be pulled from the market, or made unavailable for all women. All it takes is one stooge to claim that her innocent child was ripped from her body by these cramp-stoppers, and the FDA will jump on it...at least this one.

Who would be liable in this case? The pharmacist who knowingly gave this drug to a woman -- who by her very nature can become pregnant? The pharmacy? The doctor?

They'll attack it via the FDA, and point to more efficacious medicines for cramps. You'll see...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #40
80. Every prescription I've ever had came with an informational page
On that page, it tells me everything that this medication can possibly cause. On my birth control pills, the informational page also tells me if I'm pregnant when I take these pills, I may induce a miscarriage. It tells me if I'm eanting to be pregnant, these pills can prevent that from happening. Any woman attempting to sue over birth control pills making her miscarry doesn't have strong legal legs to stand on.

Aion, I have to ask again, what is your opinion? We know the rw nut-job arguments and their "points" in regards to denying women health care. Are you just playing devil's advocate for the sake of conversation in this thread, or do you really believe that a pharascist can legislate from behind their pharmacy counter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aion Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #80
97. I studied philosophy as a major not for the answers, but for the questions
My opinion shouldn't be held in any regard by you, unless it is justified true belief.

As for the strong legal legs -- I disagree with you. You are making a decent set of arguments, but they fall apart, rathermuch in order, when the republican machine starts whacking.

You can try to play legalistic games to avoid the unavoidable. If someone wants a vial of arsenic, he/she isn't likely to be able to buy that from a pharmacist. There are many reasons for this, but prime among them is the fact that some people are able to take such chemical coctails and use them in malevolent ways. You might decide to poison your neighbor using the drugs you received for your 'cramps'.

Medicine is different from drugs. I have made this statement before, and it deserves repeating. There are plenty of medicines which have been pulled from the marketplace because more efficacious medicines have been found/discovered. If more recent discoveries provide a medicine for cramps, yet does not induce abortion/miscarriage, that medicine will typically replace the former medicine which did.

I don't believe I said anything about a pharmacist legislating. I normally associate 'diaboli' with death and destruction. If you believe I am advocating such death and destruction, please show me where.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #97
101. Of course you didn't say "pharmacist legislating,,." it's tone, not quotes
Aion, please read the entire post before responding.

You seem to be making a philosophical argument, but the rest of the posts on this thread are making the simple to understand argument. Doctors do their jobs, pharmacists do theirs. Perhaps framing your responses such as "The Republican spin machine will say x, y and z" would come across better. I may have been misreading your tone. I would dare say, though, by reading your exchanges with other posters, I perhaps am not the only one who doesn't seem to know where you are going with this.

The fundamental question isn't some grand philosophical concept, but rather an ideological debate: Do women have control over their bodies and reproductive health. We, the left, feel that medical issues should be left between the doctor (one who attended and successfully completed medical school) and the patient (and who ever else the patient chooses to include in their medical decisions) and the right feels that every medical decision must be legislated and open to public scrutiny. I think it is fair to say that the ideological wars often take away from the pressing issues... thanks to ronald reagan and his declaration that all political discussions will be ideological, an idea that invigorated the right, as this is the only way they can possibly drum up support and take over the country.

It has been argued that we, on the left, need to take back our portion of the conversation. If we continue to engage these people in an ideological debate, they will only scream louder. We must stick to the issues in a straightforward manner.

Quite frankly, taking a philosophical approach, to me, and this is just my simple opinion, is akin to the ideological debate in that it doesn't answer the core question in a simple way. I like the nuances and gray areas that the left acknowledges, and I don't want us to move into the three-bullet-point argument (a la the rw nut jobs in the corporate media), but at the same time, we need to keep it to a level that your basic, average voter can look at and say "I understand what they are saying. I can make an informed decision."

I think being philosophical is fine, and it certainly has it's place, but I have never come across you on this board before. I had no idea you were a philosophy major in school. I don't know exactly where you are coming from unless you present that information up front. I read your posts as possibly playing devil's advocate, as being fine with pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions (I got this vibe from your tone, not an exact quote), or possibly worse... (I'm going to whisper now so this post doesn't get deleted because I'm not openly accusing you at all of being a f^%*$#r :P )

Since you're relatively new here, I would say it's helpful to say where you're coming from right up front. When remarking to a thread or post regarding Christianity, I try to state that I'm a Catholic so my opinion will be read with that in mind. When responding to threads on education, I try to remember to state that I'm a teacher, so my post will be read with that information in mind. When remarking about issues of war, I state that I have the perspective of a daughter of a Vietnam veteran (a 20 year military career guy who is PROUDLY against this invasion!)

Perspective is important because now, as I read through this thread, I will have where you are coming from in mind, which not only makes your posts more interesting in that you have studied philosophy in college (I only took one class--- The Meaning of Life--- so.... what is it anyway? :shrug: :P ), but, in my mind, completely changes the tone which I found to be slightly argumentative, condescending and belligerent to a tone that instead simply pulls the conversation into an area different from the boiled down, right or wrong, conversation.

I hope that I have explained myself throughly in an attempt to not lecture you or address you in a condescending fashion, but rather explain the way I have been reading your posts (and again, I may be so bold here but to guess that, per their responses to you, others may have been reading it the same as I.) I also clicked the link in your sig line and looked at your blog. As your blog appeared (sorry, I just skimmed quickly, didn't spend too long there for reasons simply of time) to be "on our team," I felt a bit more inclined to respond to you here.

And, because I haven't said it yet--- Welcome to DU! :hi:







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
43. I once had a part-time job
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 12:50 PM by Totally Committed
where one of my jobs was to interview people when they came in for a job, and refer them up to management if I felt they were "hireable". One night, I came in to find that a new responsibility had been added: to administer a drug test to everyone who came in and applied. I was to cut a hair sample even before they sat down for their first question. I refused to do it on ethical grounds. I felt that having a drug test before you could even apply for a job, in a job where it couldn't possibly matter if you were high or not, was wrong. Ethically and morally, wrong. I was told it was part of my job and I had a decision to make. (Actually, I disagreed with the test altogether, but...)

I decided that if that was part of my job, and I was morally and ethically oppsed to this aspect of it, I needed to compromise my principles and just do it, or I could be true to my beliefs and leave. I told my supervisor I was leaving. I quit my job on principle.

That's what these Pharmacists need to do. They need to do their jobs, jobs they knew involved dispensing drugs they may or may not agree with morally or ethically (if they had the intelligence to become Pharmacists, they had the intelligence to comprehend the scope of that position) or they need to leave. They need to go and do something else for a living. No employer should have to pay someone to do half their job. And we, as consumers, should be able to walk into any "full-service" pharmacy, and get a prescription written out by a liscenced physician filled without question. And, on the spot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
44. Pharmacists who play doctor are going to get screwed by Medical Boards
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 01:06 PM by McCamy Taylor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
45. Which Will Turn Around and Allow DOCTORS to Fill Prescriptions HA!
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 01:04 PM by McCamy Taylor
And it is this--the possibility that physicians will win the right to sell drugs directly to their own patients on the grounds that the patienst may have difficulty obtaining them from mean old pharmacists---that will force that Pharmaceutical Boards to clamp down on pharmacists who decide to play God.

The dollar is all powerful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. I think that this is the route in which they should go
eliminate the pharmacist altogether, since they want to now practice medicine in a vacuum and without a license.

A pharmacist, without having intimate knowledge of the patient's medical history, is precluded from practicing medicine on that patient by using their religious ideology as the reason for not filling a prescription.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurgherHoldtheLies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
46. YOU'RE FIRED....Oh wait, I 'm a proactive employer
Prescreen the wingnuts and avoid the problem. Easy questionnaires for applicants can weed them out beforehand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
48. I like the letter to NPR i heard this morning from the vegetarian ...
... working in a sandwich shop. He said he thinks it is perfectly understandable if his boss fires him for not making sandwiches for them. IOW, it's his damn job to fill their orders for what they want if it is on the menu. He doesn't have the right to not take a sandwich order just because it includes meat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
51. no birth control, no viagra
Viagra is far more unnatural than birth control pills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mad_Dem_X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #51
93. Agreed!
When are we going to start hearing from pharmacists who won't dispense stiffy pills??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GracieM Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
52. I take it everyone thinks that pharmacists are different
than other sellers of goods. At least people calling for legislation...

Does a woman's right to birth control include the obligation of someone else to sell it?

Does Walmart have to sell Playbody because Hugh has the right to publish it and I have the right to "read" it?

These "pharmacists" should be dealt with. Boycotts will soon have them out of jobs.

The pharmacy will either go under or will fire the pharmacist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions. If they won't they should find..
...another profession.

In many towns there is only one pharmacy and women won't have the choice to go elsewhere for their birth control.

and remember...birth control is often prescribed for medical reasons (for instance heavy or irregular periods) and the pharmacist would be denying that treatment to his customer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GracieM Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Not saying
that it's not sick what these "pharmacists" are doing, but they won't have jobs long if sales plummet. I'm just suggesting that boycotts are a better solution than laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. how can you boycott your pharmacy if its the only one in town?
For instance in many towns in the US, Walmart is the only pharmacy. Their policy is to NOT carry emergency contraception.

What is a woman to do if either her regular birth control fails or she is raped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GracieM Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. I understand
but if we mandate that pharmacies must carry certain items, who's next on the list?

I realize reproductive rights are more important than others I'm about to list but....

should people who sell magazines be forced to sell Playboy?
should people who sell sandwiches be forced to sell ones with meat and vegetarian ones?
should lawyers not be allowed to turn down clients?
should casinos be forced to allow known cheaters to gamble?

I dont' like the idea of passing laws to force someone to sell something they don't want to sell.
That simply leads to votes on which freedoms are more important.

Economic sanctions allow the seller to keep their rights, but only at economic loss. My job is to convince them to sell the product in order to make a profit (or simply to stay in business) despite their right not to sell it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sonicx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #60
68. "should people who sell magazines be forced to sell Playboy?"
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 04:58 PM by sonicx
If a store carries it, yes.

In the cases of pharmacists who refuse to give someone the MAP, the store had it in stock. They just wouldn't give it to the person who needed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GracieM Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. Then I'm with you...
guess I thought a pharmacist just chose not to carry and sell a certain item. If you take a job, you gotta be willing to do the job
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. I'm not concerned about people being able to buy Playboy
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 04:46 PM by Beaverhausen
A magazine doesn't have any effect on a persons health.

I'm concerned about women unable to fulfull legal medical prescriptions because some pharmacist feels it is his/her right to decide what medications his/her customer can take.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
59. You know, this applies for all lines of service work
The police should be allowed to selectively enforce laws.

Oh, wait. They already do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
61. Tony?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. LOL
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. HAHAHAHAHA!
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. LMFAO!
:spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Hehehe
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 03:55 PM by Misunderestimator
I'm assuming the OP is sarcasm... (Though I wonder where he went? :shrug: :D)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #61
76. Not the response he was hoping for, it appears--
OP is nowhere to be found.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
66. Why is this now an issue?
Where have all these anti-contraception pharmacists been for the past 40 years??? Were they just holding their noses and filling the perscriptions?

I never heard a fuss about this before. Now all these pharmacists are coming out of the woodwork acting all morally outraged at having to do their jobs.

Mz Pip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cookiebird Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
74. Follow the $$$
If this nonsense becomes widespread, the corporations will pay attention to their flow of cash. You complain, LOUDLY but
Civilly to the management, your insurance provider, your physician,
write a LTTE if the shop doesn't provide you with your legally provided prescription. In other words, Raise a Ruckus. Report the offending pharmacy and pharmacist to the state regulatory agency that covers pharmacies (slightly different names in each state).
Perhaps the state's attorney general may be involved since the pharmacist is interfering in legal and legitimate business.
What is important is not to "sit" on our collective hands and whine about the problem. Make it damned uncomfortable for the corporation to tolerate these kinds of people. Yes, they can find another job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electron_blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #74
83. exactly - great advice
Do you know if any pharmacies in your town refuse to fill bcp's? I have no idea about my town. But now I'm curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
77. They should withhold Viagra perscriptions too, if Gawd had wanted
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 06:48 PM by bunny planet
old men to have a four hour raging hard-on he would have made that happen naturally too n'est pas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electron_blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. sooner or later, some pharmacist is going to refuse Viagra on
moral grounds and I'm going to love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livinginphotographs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
79. I should get a job at a steakhouse.
I find meat digusting and morally reprehensible. Therefore, in good conscience, I cannot serve it though.

Who wants to take bets on how many job offers I get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
84. hit-and-run-knight
oh well, it would be kinda pointless for you to defend your opinion on this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. I took the op as being sarcastic and ironic in tone.
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 11:54 PM by Kerrytravelers
Was I totally wrong in my interpertation?

EDITED TO ADD:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

Here is a link to another post by the op on pharamists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #86
89. you're right
my bad, i was having an off day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #86
92. Sarcastic but inflammatory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qanisqineq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 05:34 AM
Response to Original message
88. What if you don't take BCP for birth control?
I have to take birth control pills, but not for birth control. My ovaries are all screwed up and spitting out too much of this hormone and too few of that hormone. I suffered with feeling like absolute shit for 2-3 years before they did blood tests. Put me on BCP's and I felt like a new person within a couple months!

Are they going to refuse to fill my Rx and make my cholesterol skyrocket? Make my body grow big and fat again? Make my metabolism slow down to almost nothing? Let me become insulin resistant and get diabetes? Put me at risk of a heart attack or stroke in my 30's? Put me at greater risk of ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, and breast cancer?

That doesn't sound very "pro-life" to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
90. And what if they don't want to serve women at all?
Or other certain minorities---why they should have every right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baltimore Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
95. Birth control
As I pointed out on another thread (Nikki Stone 1), Governor Blagojevich of Illinois has made it against the law for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for either regular birth control pills or Plan B contraceptives. These prescriptions must be filled promptly with no moral lectures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
96. Have you been noticing though, all the news stories
about the danger of birth control recently?

Something is definitely afoot because the pharmeceuticals could lose major $$$$$$$ with exposure of publicized health risks and would get their lobbyests out there to shut it down. So, something is stinking with all this sudden attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
100. That's as dumb as
I'm in accounts payable, but I refuse to pay phone bills. Cause the telephone is THE DEVIL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1democracy Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #100
103. Judge not...
lest ye be judged" says the Bible. Such pharmacists are making moral choices for others. This country is founded on freedom (according to *, this is why the terrorists hate us), which means we have the freedom as individuals to make moral choices.
If the goal is salvation, those pharmacists must believe I can be "saved" by him making a judgment for me, i.e. taking away my personal freedom. To do that, I must be deemed incompetent, which I am not as a thinking individual. I have the right to make my own mistakes and learn from them, just as anyone else. In fact, my mistake (in the pharmacist's eyes) might not be a mistake in my own life. The point is, are we autonomous individuals, or are we going to allow someone else to dictate what is right for us?
Choice is what makes us human beings. Without choices, we cannot grow, and if you are religious, one can't be "saved" if one has never had to act based on personal character. You can't legislate morality or salvation for others. Salvation is a personal issue between an individual and her God.
In other word, If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you are against birth control, don't use it. But don't judge others for their own choices.
The Bible says take the mote out of your own eye before you judge others.
Christianity is in some ways at odds with freedom. It is based on a king-like hierarchy, where God is viewed as an angry old man that knows everything on a throne in the sky. Too often fundamentalist Christians neglect the model of Christ, the son who suffers with humanity and hung out with the dregs of society-- NOT JUDGING them, loving them.
What we are battling for here is freedom, and many religions teach that they have the one and only answer. That is dangerous to this country and to the principles upon which it was founded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. Well put.
As a Christian, I get SO TIRED of these santimonious pricks running aeound, screaming about being a "persecuted Christian" blah...blah...blah... Funny how those who feel they are the "best Christians" are the ones furthest from the teachings of Christ himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 17th 2017, 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC