Pharmacist Denies Anti-Bleeding Medication Because Woman Might Have Had an Abortion

[geauxtohell]

i cant see not hiring them, but have them never be the only pharmacist on duty

That most likely won't be deemed as practical to a corporation like Wall Greens, which will simply opt to not allow for the potential to create a problem.

I respect that people feel compelled to act on conscious. However, the truth is, this can become absurd. I disagree, but can see how someone would opt out of dispensing RU-486 (the "morning after" pill) - though it has indications outside of abortion.

However, where does it end? Can a Scientologist refuse to dispense psych meds because it violates their "conscious"? Can an anti-narcotic fiend (like our friend, one of the moderators over at the old country) refuse to hand out pain pills? Can a Christian Scientist refuse to hand out anti-biotics?

This is heading towards a conflict between the people that right the scripts and the people that dispense them.

 

[MikeK]

The pharmacist's license should be revoked. Walgreen's should be fined for allowing this.

As referenced in the opening message, the "conscience clause" in that state's law protects the pharmacist. The most effective way to deal with this situation is a boycott of Walgreen's but it's likely that a significant percentage of Idaho's population are Bible-bangers who approve of the pharmacist's action.

It appears that the law won't protect the pharmacist in this case.

The entity that has the biggest problem right now is Wall Greens. Physicians don't like it when someone else decides to screw with their plan of care.

Our hospital is now set up to automatically send scripts to pharmacies. We just punch in the name, and off they go. If physicians start to get the notion that Wall Greens is going to tolerate pharmacists screwing up their patient care, the scripts will go else where.

In the true spirit of conservatism "big business should have the final say", I can see pharmacies starting to screen phramacists over whether they have moral objections to filling scripts and simply not hiring those that do.

Problem solved.

Good.

Either way, this is a silly law that complicates patient care and is going to run into a wall eventually.

I agree and I hope you're right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A 2 minute research into this reveals all of the Idaho papers and other media had numerous articles of this incident and all of the information matches everything fact by fact.

True story.

Back to the facts as this is something THAT HAPPENED.

Funny, everything I have seen lists all the information as coming from one side, and no name of any accused. If that is all it takes to make a story true I guess all those stories about Oswald not killing Kennedy are also true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Walgreens ADMITTED THEIR PHARMACIST did this.
If it is all made up why would they admit and state that the pharmacist made his statement as to the event to the state pharmaceutical board?

When did they do that? The only official comment by Walgreen's was "No comment."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What happened?

PP alleged that an unnamed pharmacist refused to fill a scrip to an unnamed person, via an unnamed nurse practioner?

Beautiful. Those are some mighty heavy duty facts.

The pharmacist that was involved made his statement to the State of Idano Pharmacists Board.

If it never happened then why did this male pharmacist give his side?

WAKE UP DUMBASS AMERICANS.

And the pharmacist could have told an entirely different story.

 

[geauxtohell]

A 2 minute research into this reveals all of the Idaho papers and other media had numerous articles of this incident and all of the information matches everything fact by fact.

True story.

Back to the facts as this is something THAT HAPPENED.

Funny, everything I have seen lists all the information as coming from one side, and no name of any accused. If that is all it takes to make a story true I guess all those stories about Oswald not killing Kennedy are also true.

As a complaint was filed, why would the "accused" be named? Why is it important to know their name? Do you think someone on here is going to vouch for them? This just seems like stonewalling.

When did they do that? The only official comment by Walgreen's was "No comment."

Which was, no doubt, made on the advice of their corporate legal counsel.

By your rational, if the story was false, Wall Green's would deny it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So? The truth is, you have only one source, and one-source information is questionable at best.

It's idiotic to determine guilt based on the allegation or complaint only. There's a process to determine the validity, and you idiots are completely bypassing that and pretending the complaint itself is factual, since there's nobody else talking at this time.

Morons.

Oh. So now we have decided that this message board is going to function like a court of law and we have to wait for all the facts to come in before we start commenting?

That should go over like a lead fucking balloon.

However, did Allie want this message board to function like a court of law when it came to the legality of the NYC Muslim Center or the culpability of NYC muslims with 9/11?

I don't remeber Allie trying to say that the Mosque was illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As a complaint was filed, why would the "accused" be named? Why is it important to know their name? Do you think someone on here is going to vouch for them? This just seems like stonewalling.

The complaint had no name of a pharmacist. If pointing that out that the person who is tossing around accusations doesn't even know who they were talking to is stonewalling, so be it.

Which was, no doubt, made on the advice of their corporate legal counsel.

By your rational, if the story was false, Wall Green's would deny it.

No doubt, but what does that have to do with the assertion that Walgreen's admitted the event took place? MAybe you should look at what I am typing, and the post i am responding to, before you start trying to act like you are intelligent and well informed.

Not that I expect you to actually care about facts, but it would be nice.

 

[geauxtohell]

The complaint had no name of a pharmacist. If pointing that out that the person who is tossing around accusations doesn't even know who they were talking to is stonewalling, so be it.

Is the complaint public record? Where did you get the information that the name of the pharmacist wasn't in the complaint?

No doubt, but what does that have to do with the assertion that Walgreen's admitted the event took place? MAybe you should look at what I am typing, and the post i am responding to, before you start trying to act like you are intelligent and well informed.

Not that I expect you to actually care about facts, but it would be nice.

Walgreens says Idaho pharmacist responded to complaint over Idaho conscience law

 

[Gadawg73]

A 2 minute research into this reveals all of the Idaho papers and other media had numerous articles of this incident and all of the information matches everything fact by fact.

True story.

Back to the facts as this is something THAT HAPPENED.

Funny, everything I have seen lists all the information as coming from one side, and no name of any accused. If that is all it takes to make a story true I guess all those stories about Oswald not killing Kennedy are also true.

Walgreens acknowledges it happened and sent their pharmacist to the state board to give his side.
How is that "one side"?
Give it up.

 

[Gadawg73]

If it never happened the State Board WOULD NEVER make a license holder give their side.
How did they know the name of the pharmacist if "it never happened"?
It happened and they know it but their smoke screen and deception is:
DISHONESTY.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A 2 minute research into this reveals all of the Idaho papers and other media had numerous articles of this incident and all of the information matches everything fact by fact.

True story.

Back to the facts as this is something THAT HAPPENED.

Funny, everything I have seen lists all the information as coming from one side, and no name of any accused. If that is all it takes to make a story true I guess all those stories about Oswald not killing Kennedy are also true.

Walgreens acknowledges it happened and sent their pharmacist to the state board to give his side.
How is that "one side"?
Give it up.

Walgreen's sent its pharmacist to the state board? You make that sound like they had the option of investigating it themselves, and deciding not to send her if they thought she was right. I am not the one that has to give this one up, you are so far off on this you are not even in the same country, never mind the same ballpark.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If it never happened the State Board WOULD NEVER make a license holder give their side.
How did they know the name of the pharmacist if "it never happened"?
It happened and they know it but their smoke screen and deception is:
DISHONESTY.

So, the state board could just decide the complaint was without merit without any investigation at all. got it.

The strangest thing about this is you think I am crazy.

 

[Immanuel]

The irony of this is the anti abortion people seem so much more destructive than the people who are ok with abortions.

How so?

By the way, I am pro-life.

Immie

The pharmacist turned a lady away who was bleeding because she thought the medication was because of an abortion, so this pharmacist hates abortion but is willing to let someone suffer?

However, you state that the "anti-abortion people seem so much more destructive than the people who are ok with abortions." I suppose the way I read your remark was that those of us on this site who are pro-life are the ones that seem destructive. Maybe that was not what you meant.

My first reply to this thread was that the pharmacist was wrong and from what I remember reading other pro-lifers agreed with that statement. Both Allie and QW state that they don't trust the initial report, which when I think about it, coming from PP, they have very good reason to doubt it.

However, IF the facts presented in the OP are correct, then it appears to me that the pharmacist was wrong and should have been fired.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

There are no facts in the OP, other than the fact that allegations have been made.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How so?

By the way, I am pro-life.

Immie

The pharmacist turned a lady away who was bleeding because she thought the medication was because of an abortion, so this pharmacist hates abortion but is willing to let someone suffer?

However, you state that the "anti-abortion people seem so much more destructive than the people who are ok with abortions." I suppose the way I read your remark was that those of us on this site who are pro-life are the ones that seem destructive. Maybe that was not what you meant.

My first reply to this thread was that the pharmacist was wrong and from what I remember reading other pro-lifers agreed with that statement. Both Allie and QW state that they don't trust the initial report, which when I think about it, coming from PP, they have very good reason to doubt it.

However, IF the facts presented in the OP are correct, then it appears to me that the pharmacist was wrong and should have been fired.

Immie

Both Allie and I have said essentially the same thing.

 

[JFK_USA]

Woman should be fired.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't see as where it was life threatening.

Get used to health care professionals opting out of lots of things government demands they do, as a course of conscience.

"My conscience does not allow me to revive an 88 year old man that has trouble breathing"
Professional?
"My conscience tells me to advise customers to drink lots of fluids with their medication"
Professional?
A very bad UNPROFESSIONAL precedent.

On the point, he was right and it is going to spread. A pharmacist should have the right to not administer abortion medications. In this case though it is fairly clear that is not the case and that the pharmacist was denying medication not because of aiding a procedure that she was morally against but because she believed that person had received an abortion. To me, that speaks to the pharmacist thinking this individual was not due the same medical and moral equivalent of another that had not undergone that procedure. THAT is a gross negligence of duty and it is NOT the pharmacists place to morally judge another person. Assisting in an abortion, yes, but NOT the individual themselves. this is the exact same thing as denying the woman heart medication or some other medication. What would the pharmacist prefer? She die of complications? There IS something to be said about not forcing people to assist in things they are morally against but that cannot be spread to allowing them to make judgment calls on the value of a person themselves or their lives. SeaShadow's post makes the situation quite clear unless someone is blatantly lying and that I quite doubt.

On a side note, there is no reason that the pharmacist simply did not point her to the nearest pharmacy that could fill her order. That speaks of not just indifference but to hostility.

 

[AllieBaba]

If, in fact, any of that actually happened.

Of course, we know nothing about it.

 

[TossObama]

Uh excuse me -- the abortionists should have given the woman the meds she needed, not sent her out with a prescription. One step further, the Pharmacist is under no law to provide info on other pharmacies that might fill the prescription.

I too am opposed to abortion, and no I would not do one single thing that would have assisted in any way, the actions of an abortionist. If some bimbo or screwing monkey demands the murder of her baby, she ain't getting my help on anything. Period.

And if she bled out, you might want to consider what they did to her helpless innocent baby to kill it.

I'm on the side of the baby in this picture, not the screwing monkey.