Culture wars in the corner drugstore

[no1tovote4]

I'm not disputing any of that.. What I'm disputing is the fact that she did what she was supposed to do.. She went to the doctor.. She was given a prescription, told the meds must be taken within 72 hours, went to HER pharmacy, and was confronted by someone telling her that he would not fill said prescription, not because it was harmfull mixed with something else, not because it was a falsified prescription, not because it would harm her, internally, mentally, or anything else, but because it was against his beliefs.

He would not dispense it because it would kill a patient. This Pharmacist saw the embryo as a patient, regardless of the girl's view on that. Forcing him to give medication that will kill a patient is simply morally wrong and directly against the tenets of this country where tolerance of other's beliefs is paramount.

 

[no1tovote4]

Drat.. I gotta get to work. Later.

Bummer, you will be missed Red.

 

[ReillyT]

It is estimated that only 12% of rapes are even reported at all.

In your scenario the girl was actively seeking what she believed to be prevention, what the Pharmacist believed to be abortion. I don't see how forcing a Pharmacist to provide an abortion against their beliefs is a way to improve our society regardless of the girls circumstance. Other options were open to the girl in question and could have been persued.

Women often suffer Post-traumatic Stress Disorder after they have been raped. On top of this, you have embarassment, shame, fear, grief, anger, and a ton of other emotions that go through their heads. It is also important to remember that most rapists know their victims, so many victims are afraid to go to the police. Some rapists are relatives, so you have a whole other layer of complexity.

A girl in such a circumstance may have a hard time rationally considering all of her options, or making what is probably the most basic non-medical decision - going to the police. You also have to consider whether a woman who has just been raped, and is in a fragile psychological state, would be willing to go to a second or third pharmacist after she had been refused at the first.

 

[Mr. P]

Existing law does allow them to refuse a Doctor's prescription and in fact makes them responsible for the safety of the drug for the patient. Often a Pharmacist will have information that the patient failed to provide to the Doctor and the Pharmacist will know that the drug is unsafe. At that point if the Pharmacist simply gives the drug because of the prescription they are liable for any harmful effect the drug will have.

....

And that is why they verify with a Doc...They are not licenced to practice medicine.

 

[no1tovote4]

Women often suffer Post-traumatic Stress Disorder after they have been raped. On top of this, you have embarassment, shame, fear, grief, anger, and a ton of other emotions that go through their heads. It is also important to remember that most rapists know their victims, so many victims are afraid to go to the police. Some rapists are relatives, so you have a whole other layer of complexity.

A girl in such a circumstance may have a hard time rationally considering all of her opitions, or making what is probably the best decision - going to the police. You also have to consider whether a woman who has just been raped, and is in a fragile psychological state, would be willing to go to a second or third pharmacist after she had been refused at the first.

You still have to consider the fact that it doesn't make it right to force somebody to perform abortions against their beliefs and that many believe this to be as abortive as if it happened in the third trimester. Those people would believe that they, possibly, were killing a child and should not be forced to provide such a service against their moral values or religion.

As I have stated repeatedly, tolerance is paramount in our society and sometimes it will necessarily be inconvenient but it is ultimately worth it. We can have compassion for the girl, and work toward a better solution (such as having specific Pharmacists that prescribe this medication and direct the women to go to them) but forcing people to provide services against their religion is simply not based in any form of tolerance, it is based on Governmental Control and is clearly not beneficial to our society.

 

[no1tovote4]

And that is why they verify with a Doc...They are not licenced to practice medicine.

They do not verify with a Doc, often they are forced by law to overrule the Doc and send the patient back for a different prescription. They are as responsible to the health of their patient as the Doctor is.

 

[ReillyT]

You still have to consider the fact that it doesn't make it right to force somebody to perform abortions against their beliefs and that many believe this to be as abortive as if it happened in the third trimester. Those people would believe that they, possibly, were killing a child and should not be forced to provide such a service against their moral values or religion.

As I have stated repeatedly, tolerance is paramount in our society and sometimes it will necessarily be inconvenient but it is ultimately worth it. We can have compassion for the girl, and work toward a better solution (such as having specific Pharmacists that prescribe this medication and direct the women to go to them) but forcing people to provide services against their religion is simply not based in any form of tolerance, it is based on Governmental Control and is clearly not beneficial to our society.

That post was just to present things from the view of a rape victim.

I have no problem with a pharmacy deciding not to carry these medications. You can't prescribe what you don't carry and I don't think the government should force a pharmacy to carry products. However, if a pharmacy carries the medication, I think there should always be a pharmacist on staff that is willing to dispense it. This is a licensed profession. It shouldn't be a situation where a rape victim is told they can't get the medication at 10am because the pharmacist disagrees with it, but they can come back again at 4pm when their is a different pharmacist. Either carry it and dispense it or don't carry it at all.

 

[no1tovote4]

That post was just to present things from the view of a rape victim.

I have no problem with a pharmacy deciding not to carry these medications. You can't prescribe what you don't carry and I don't think the government should force a pharmacy to carry products. However, if a pharmacy carries the medication, I think there should always be a pharmacist on staff that is willing to dispense it. This is a licensed profession. It shouldn't be a situation where a rape victim is told they can't get the medication at 10am because the pharmacist disagrees with it, but they can come back again at 4pm when their is a different pharmacist. Either carry it and dispense it or don't carry it at all.

This denies the individual of the right of religious belief. To assume that because the owner may dispense it that their employees must as well is simply wrong. Just as in hospitals where only one doctor performs abortions, the patient either waits for that doctor to be on duty or goes to another doctor.

As I said before, requiring people to do something against their beliefs is not the answer. To have a specific list of Pharmacies that will always provide the drug and when prescribing them send them to those Pharmacies is a much better fix and still provides for the tolerance of other's beliefs. Especially if they make it a standard for employment at those particular Pharmacies.

 

[no1tovote4]

Make it like a "do not call" list. Each Pharmacy that gaurantees that this drug will be dispensed from their Pharmacy calls and places their name on a list. The Patient can then get a copy of the list with the prescription and see where the nearest Pharmacy that gaurantees such dispensing is and which ones are compatible with their insurance.

This sounds like a better solution than simply forcing people to do things against their religion because you think it should be that way regardless of what they might believe. It seems to be an unnecessary intrusion into a person's right to religious expression so that you can feel good about making sure such a thing is provided to all and by all regardless of any sort of moral objection.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Why is everyone off to defend the rights of pharmacists everywhere to work within their beliefs yet deplore it from most other professions?

also, how many people are actually aware of the fact that conception can take anywhere from 12 to 72 hours from ejaculation, therefore a pharmacist is NOT assisting in an abortion or destroying an embryo but is preventing one from actually being created?

 

[dmp]

Why is everyone off to defend the rights of pharmacists everywhere to work within their beliefs yet deplore it from most other professions?

also, how many people are actually aware of the fact that conception can take anywhere from 12 to 72 hours from ejaculation, therefore a pharmacist is NOT assisting in an abortion or destroying an embryo but is preventing one from actually being created?

Research how the pill works.

It blocks the attachment of a FERTILIZED EGG onto the wall of the womb.

 

[nosarcasm]

so Muslims get a free check from the pigfarm because they
cant touch pigs due to their religion.

 

[no1tovote4]

Why is everyone off to defend the rights of pharmacists everywhere to work within their beliefs yet deplore it from most other professions?

also, how many people are actually aware of the fact that conception can take anywhere from 12 to 72 hours from ejaculation, therefore a pharmacist is NOT assisting in an abortion or destroying an embryo but is preventing one from actually being created?

First, exactly when have I ever stated that I deplored anybody working to their beliefs? Anybody here for that matter? I think one is putting emphasis on the imaginary here over the actual evidence.

The embryo forms then is not allowed to attach to the Uteris, to many this is an abortion as much as any later term abortion as well.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

so Muslims get a free check from the pigfarm because they
cant touch pigs due to their religion.

what kind of stupid horseshit was that? If a pharmacist cant dispense prescribed drugs (that is part of their job) then why be a friggin pharmacist?

 

[no1tovote4]

so Muslims get a free check from the pigfarm because they
cant touch pigs due to their religion.

The Muslim would not apply to the pigfarm nor be hired if the requirment is to not work with pigs.

However an equivalent law would require him to work with the pigs regardless of his belief, this is not right.

As I stated before, if you have a list of specific Pharmacies that gaurantee this particular drug will be provided and they made it a point to require that this pill be dispensed by their Pharmacists the pharmacist can have a choice to work there or not and others will not be forcing them to act against their religious belief.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

First, exactly when have I ever stated that I deplored anybody working to their beliefs? Anybody here for that matter? I think one is putting emphasis on the imaginary here over the actual evidence.

The embryo forms then is not allowed to attach to the Uteris, to many this is an abortion as much as any later term abortion as well.

odd, i thought this was about doing ones job, not whether a person is anti abortion or not.

 

[no1tovote4]

what kind of stupid horseshit was that? If a pharmacist cant dispense prescribed drugs (that is part of their job) then why be a friggin pharmacist?

Just because something is prescribed doesn't mean that they must dispense it and often are faced with determining if it is safe for the patient. As some pharmacists would perceive any embryo to be a patient as well they cannot be forced to provide drugs that will kill their patient and can be morally obligated not to. To simply say that you believe one way and therefore all pharmacists should act that way is forcing your religious view upon those pharmacists that may believe they have an obligation toward the fetus/zygote.

There are better ways to insure people will be provided such services than requiring they follow one set of moral values as proscribed by you.

 

[no1tovote4]

odd, i thought this was about doing ones job, not whether a person is anti abortion or not.

Then you are being deliberately disingenuous and ignoring moral implications to simplify a more complex issue in an attempt to make others look foolish. This will not work here.

You are also deliberately ignoring other ideas that would insure the right of both the pharmacists and the patient/patients in order to proscribe that they folllow your sense of moral values over those that they believe.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Just because something is prescribed doesn't mean that they must dispense it and often are faced with determining if it is safe for the patient. As some pharmacists would perceive any embryo to be a patient as well they cannot be forced to provide drugs that will kill their patient and can be morally obligated not to. To simply say that you believe one way and therefore all pharmacists should act that way is forcing your religious view upon those pharmacists that may believe they have an obligation toward the fetus/zygote.

There are better ways to insure people will be provided such services than requiring they follow one set of moral values as proscribed by you.

wasnt it just a few weeks ago, maybe longer, that there was a mildly stormy discussion about christian owned business's should be able to hire only christians? So if a drugstore business dispenses morning after pills, shouldnt they be allowed to only hire pharmacists who will dispense it? or does that not count since we're talking about abortion.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Then you are being deliberately disingenuous and ignoring moral implications to simplify a more complex issue in an attempt to make others look foolish. This will not work here.

Don't you love reading stuff like this when you click on a thread for the first
time. Damn, now I have to go back and read to catch up.