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

[FA_Q2]

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.

Unfortunately for this position there are times and places where your profession does not allow for the complete freedom of denying someone your services. This is akin to a cop not stopping a crime because he does not like the color of your house, a doctor not saving your life because he does not believe in a specific type of medical treatment or a fireman not putting out a fire because his pagan beliefs does not allow him to stop a specific type of wood or object from burning. Fact is, there are times when a pharmacist should have the ability to not carry/dispense a medication and there are times when they should not be allowed that luxury. The times they cannot should pertain mostly to life/immediate harm instances. This instance seems to be one of those and is, therefore, morally reprehensible that the prescription was refused. Even with abortion, there are requirements placed on doctors requiring them to perform the procedure if there is imminent danger and no one else to accomplish it. These are part of entering the field to begin with.

 

[AllieBaba]

If the prescription was refused, and if it was refused for the reason you are assuming it was refused.

 

[HUGGY]

As I have stated many times on this forum...Some Christian Fundamentalists are a clear and present danger to the community.

 

[AllieBaba]

Thanks for that random insanity, Huggy.

I like macaroni.

 

[shintao]

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.

You are wrong, maybe. Whoever the women reported the crime to, is who is responsible for reporting it to the state board. The state board does investigate, but the chances that they would rule against one of their own is mighty slim. A death might have to occur to get honest action from these unethically charged assholes.

 

[AllieBaba]

Then PP has hopefully met it's match.

 

[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.

Unfortunately for this position there are times and places where your profession does not allow for the complete freedom of denying someone your services. This is akin to a cop not stopping a crime because he does not like the color of your house, a doctor not saving your life because he does not believe in a specific type of medical treatment or a fireman not putting out a fire because his pagan beliefs does not allow him to stop a specific type of wood or object from burning. Fact is, there are times when a pharmacist should have the ability to not carry/dispense a medication and there are times when they should not be allowed that luxury. The times they cannot should pertain mostly to life/immediate harm instances. This instance seems to be one of those and is, therefore, morally reprehensible that the prescription was refused. Even with abortion, there are requirements placed on doctors requiring them to perform the procedure if there is imminent danger and no one else to accomplish it. These are part of entering the field to begin with.

I strongly disagree. Particularly when the woman used a public pharmacy, not a hospital pharmacy for the meds. The liability in this thing happens to be at the feet of the abortion clinic not the public pharmacy. The dirtballs in the abortion clinic had an obligation to provide those meds, kiddo. They have no right to expect any citizen to pony up care in any way in such an abhorrent scenario.

I also disagree that any refusal to participate in the actions of an abortionist is somehow akin to the Police or Fire Departments refusing assistance due to the color of a house or personal preferences. Even in a hospital setting, Professionals most certainly can and do refuse to participate in the actions of abortionists and refuse to participate in the care of such patients. Hospital Boards are also free to refuse abortions and abortion care. As well, Professionals are also free to refuse to provide care in other areas of medical attention as well. For example, Nurses are free to refuse nursing in mental wards.

It is not morally reprehensible that the Pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. It was reprehensible that the abortionist threw his/her patient out in the public sector with a prescription rather than the meds and expected others to be wheedled into the agenda of her care.

The fact is, there is such a thing as strong personal preferences in many matters, and nobody has the right to force anything or any agenda that is regarded as abhorrent on anyone. Even Nurses and Doctors. The fact is, when such strong personal preferences are there, such a Nurse or Doctor is not going to provide the same quality of care to such a patient as a non-abhorrent patient would receive.

So it's really best if the abhorrent seeks help somewhere else. The abhorrent found the abortionist and I'm very sure the abhorrent can sniff out other abhorrents with relative ease.

I absolutely refuse, under any condition and situation, to assist in any way the work of an abortionist and his/her screwing monkey who hired them to murder her baby.

If such a female comes to me, I shall not assist her in any way. Miss Piggy can go elsewhere. I do not have to provide care or treatment and I won't.

And finally, if that woman was bleeding she still required medical care in the abortion clinic. She should have been sent back to the butcher.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Um, this might not have even been a case of an abortion...but please, feel free to make assumptions...like the pharmacist allegedly did.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Unfortunately for this position there are times and places where your profession does not allow for the complete freedom of denying someone your services. This is akin to a cop not stopping a crime because he does not like the color of your house, a doctor not saving your life because he does not believe in a specific type of medical treatment or a fireman not putting out a fire because his pagan beliefs does not allow him to stop a specific type of wood or object from burning. Fact is, there are times when a pharmacist should have the ability to not carry/dispense a medication and there are times when they should not be allowed that luxury. The times they cannot should pertain mostly to life/immediate harm instances. This instance seems to be one of those and is, therefore, morally reprehensible that the prescription was refused. Even with abortion, there are requirements placed on doctors requiring them to perform the procedure if there is imminent danger and no one else to accomplish it. These are part of entering the field to begin with.

I strongly disagree. Particularly when the woman used a public pharmacy, not a hospital pharmacy for the meds. The liability in this thing happens to be at the feet of the abortion clinic not the public pharmacy. The dirtballs in the abortion clinic had an obligation to provide those meds, kiddo. They have no right to expect any citizen to pony up care in any way in such an abhorrent scenario.

I also disagree that any refusal to participate in the actions of an abortionist is somehow akin to the Police or Fire Departments refusing assistance due to the color of a house or personal preferences. Even in a hospital setting, Professionals most certainly can and do refuse to participate in the actions of abortionists and refuse to participate in the care of such patients. Hospital Boards are also free to refuse abortions and abortion care. As well, Professionals are also free to refuse to provide care in other areas of medical attention as well. For example, Nurses are free to refuse nursing in mental wards.

It is not morally reprehensible that the Pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. It was reprehensible that the abortionist threw his/her patient out in the public sector with a prescription rather than the meds and expected others to be wheedled into the agenda of her care.

The fact is, there is such a thing as strong personal preferences in many matters, and nobody has the right to force anything or any agenda that is regarded as abhorrent on anyone. Even Nurses and Doctors. The fact is, when such strong personal preferences are there, such a Nurse or Doctor is not going to provide the same quality of care to such a patient as a non-abhorrent patient would receive.

So it's really best if the abhorrent seeks help somewhere else. The abhorrent found the abortionist and I'm very sure the abhorrent can sniff out other abhorrents with relative ease.

I absolutely refuse, under any condition and situation, to assist in any way the work of an abortionist and his/her screwing monkey who hired them to murder her baby.

If such a female comes to me, I shall not assist her in any way. Miss Piggy can go elsewhere. I do not have to provide care or treatment and I won't.

And finally, if that woman was bleeding she still required medical care in the abortion clinic. She should have been sent back to the butcher.

I certainly hope you are not in the medical field...for your sake and for everyone else's.

 

[AllieBaba]

I sincerely hope you aren't, dipshit. There'd be people bleeding out in the streets, undoubtedly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are wrong, maybe. Whoever the women reported the crime to, is who is responsible for reporting it to the state board. The state board does investigate, but the chances that they would rule against one of their own is mighty slim. A death might have to occur to get honest action from these unethically charged assholes.

The nurse practitioner who alleges this event occurred wrote directly to the state board. Who should she have reported this crime to? The local police? The FBI? The World Court?

You should know the facts before you attempt to sound like you are intelligent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unfortunately for this position there are times and places where your profession does not allow for the complete freedom of denying someone your services. This is akin to a cop not stopping a crime because he does not like the color of your house, a doctor not saving your life because he does not believe in a specific type of medical treatment or a fireman not putting out a fire because his pagan beliefs does not allow him to stop a specific type of wood or object from burning. Fact is, there are times when a pharmacist should have the ability to not carry/dispense a medication and there are times when they should not be allowed that luxury. The times they cannot should pertain mostly to life/immediate harm instances. This instance seems to be one of those and is, therefore, morally reprehensible that the prescription was refused. Even with abortion, there are requirements placed on doctors requiring them to perform the procedure if there is imminent danger and no one else to accomplish it. These are part of entering the field to begin with.

I strongly disagree. Particularly when the woman used a public pharmacy, not a hospital pharmacy for the meds. The liability in this thing happens to be at the feet of the abortion clinic not the public pharmacy. The dirtballs in the abortion clinic had an obligation to provide those meds, kiddo. They have no right to expect any citizen to pony up care in any way in such an abhorrent scenario.

I also disagree that any refusal to participate in the actions of an abortionist is somehow akin to the Police or Fire Departments refusing assistance due to the color of a house or personal preferences. Even in a hospital setting, Professionals most certainly can and do refuse to participate in the actions of abortionists and refuse to participate in the care of such patients. Hospital Boards are also free to refuse abortions and abortion care. As well, Professionals are also free to refuse to provide care in other areas of medical attention as well. For example, Nurses are free to refuse nursing in mental wards.

It is not morally reprehensible that the Pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. It was reprehensible that the abortionist threw his/her patient out in the public sector with a prescription rather than the meds and expected others to be wheedled into the agenda of her care.

The fact is, there is such a thing as strong personal preferences in many matters, and nobody has the right to force anything or any agenda that is regarded as abhorrent on anyone. Even Nurses and Doctors. The fact is, when such strong personal preferences are there, such a Nurse or Doctor is not going to provide the same quality of care to such a patient as a non-abhorrent patient would receive.

So it's really best if the abhorrent seeks help somewhere else. The abhorrent found the abortionist and I'm very sure the abhorrent can sniff out other abhorrents with relative ease.

I absolutely refuse, under any condition and situation, to assist in any way the work of an abortionist and his/her screwing monkey who hired them to murder her baby.

If such a female comes to me, I shall not assist her in any way. Miss Piggy can go elsewhere. I do not have to provide care or treatment and I won't.

And finally, if that woman was bleeding she still required medical care in the abortion clinic. She should have been sent back to the butcher.

I certainly hope you are not in the medical field...for your sake and for everyone else's.

I think Toss is going to be the extreme right wing version of rdean. Everytime he posts he sounds more irrational, and pays less attention to facts. One thing I like about rdean in comparison is that he is willing to back himself up with links.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, but his links are ridiculous crap....

You might be right about Toss, though. His stuff is all over the place. He's like a pre menstrual Huggy.

 

[HUGGY]

Yes, but his links are ridiculous crap....

You might be right about Toss, though. His stuff is all over the place. He's like a pre menstrual Huggy.

RIMSHOT!!! Oh Allie...you so funny!!!!

 

[TossObama]

Unfortunately for this position there are times and places where your profession does not allow for the complete freedom of denying someone your services. This is akin to a cop not stopping a crime because he does not like the color of your house, a doctor not saving your life because he does not believe in a specific type of medical treatment or a fireman not putting out a fire because his pagan beliefs does not allow him to stop a specific type of wood or object from burning. Fact is, there are times when a pharmacist should have the ability to not carry/dispense a medication and there are times when they should not be allowed that luxury. The times they cannot should pertain mostly to life/immediate harm instances. This instance seems to be one of those and is, therefore, morally reprehensible that the prescription was refused. Even with abortion, there are requirements placed on doctors requiring them to perform the procedure if there is imminent danger and no one else to accomplish it. These are part of entering the field to begin with.

I strongly disagree. Particularly when the woman used a public pharmacy, not a hospital pharmacy for the meds. The liability in this thing happens to be at the feet of the abortion clinic not the public pharmacy. The dirtballs in the abortion clinic had an obligation to provide those meds, kiddo. They have no right to expect any citizen to pony up care in any way in such an abhorrent scenario.

I also disagree that any refusal to participate in the actions of an abortionist is somehow akin to the Police or Fire Departments refusing assistance due to the color of a house or personal preferences. Even in a hospital setting, Professionals most certainly can and do refuse to participate in the actions of abortionists and refuse to participate in the care of such patients. Hospital Boards are also free to refuse abortions and abortion care. As well, Professionals are also free to refuse to provide care in other areas of medical attention as well. For example, Nurses are free to refuse nursing in mental wards.

It is not morally reprehensible that the Pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. It was reprehensible that the abortionist threw his/her patient out in the public sector with a prescription rather than the meds and expected others to be wheedled into the agenda of her care.

The fact is, there is such a thing as strong personal preferences in many matters, and nobody has the right to force anything or any agenda that is regarded as abhorrent on anyone. Even Nurses and Doctors. The fact is, when such strong personal preferences are there, such a Nurse or Doctor is not going to provide the same quality of care to such a patient as a non-abhorrent patient would receive.

So it's really best if the abhorrent seeks help somewhere else. The abhorrent found the abortionist and I'm very sure the abhorrent can sniff out other abhorrents with relative ease.

I absolutely refuse, under any condition and situation, to assist in any way the work of an abortionist and his/her screwing monkey who hired them to murder her baby.

If such a female comes to me, I shall not assist her in any way. Miss Piggy can go elsewhere. I do not have to provide care or treatment and I won't.

And finally, if that woman was bleeding she still required medical care in the abortion clinic. She should have been sent back to the butcher.

I certainly hope you are not in the medical field...for your sake and for everyone else's.

You might want to read a little further and try some comprehension. The Pharmacist did in fact make a call to determine the nature of the prescription. Pharmacists have that right and in fact do this many times a day on a variety of meds. A red flag should have gone up when the so-called Nurse claimed Patient Privacy in the matter. Not once has any Doctor, Nurse, or clinic worker EVER used such an excuse in response to a Pharmacy call, that I can recall UNLESS there is something going on they are trying to hide. There was something way way wrong in this picture and the Pharmacist did the correct thing by not filling that prescription.

That med happens to be a dangerous med and for your information Pharmacists are indeed charged with seeking and supplying information to Patients and have every right to refuse a prescription. Nurses as well have the right to refuse administering a med.

The abortion butcher wanted someone else to take the liability. That's what this is about.

One step further, sugarplum, had that Patient gone to a legit GYN -- rather than an abortion butcher -- she would have been placed in the hospital for a D&C and testing done for that bleeding. I do not know one single OB/GYN who would have sent a Patient home with such a symptom OR been stupid enough to write a prescription like that. Just because it's in the pharmacy doesn't mean it's safe or that other medical things should not have been done. This deal reeked of abortion.

You place more value on the life of a female who allows the murder of her baby than you do the baby, and I disagree strongly with that. Neither do I think such bimbos should have the compassion and all the ideas that what she is doing is acceptable. It isn't acceptable.

It is also unacceptable that abortionists think they can drag the entire medical profession into their killing field -- and drag all women into their heinous crap. I don't buy it now and never have. And won't ever. One step further, you might want to check the history of Planned Parenthood. They are hardly honorable. But, boy they are supposedly experts when it comes to your private parts, eh? That trash should not get one cent of public monies.

You are aware I suppose, that one of the major conflicts in the Democratic Party happens to be the issue of abortion? If you think all Dems support that crap you are very wrong. I'll never forget one of the meetings -- we got a talk from Catholics who assist abortion clinics, and then a talk from a Rabbi who claimed the pre-born aren't humans. And I'll tell you something, if this abortion issue doesn't reek of really disgusting religious bullshit, I don't know what does.

Finally, if I give care it's proper care. I don't kill Patients. If you consider that out of step, I strongly suggest you might want to think about your own mental state.

 

[TossObama]

Yes, but his links are ridiculous crap....

You might be right about Toss, though. His stuff is all over the place. He's like a pre menstrual Huggy.

Are you on drugs?

 

[AllieBaba]

Why? Are you looking to score?

 

[geauxtohell]

I strongly disagree. Particularly when the woman used a public pharmacy, not a hospital pharmacy for the meds. The liability in this thing happens to be at the feet of the abortion clinic not the public pharmacy. The dirtballs in the abortion clinic had an obligation to provide those meds, kiddo. They have no right to expect any citizen to pony up care in any way in such an abhorrent scenario.

I know you claim to be in healthcare, but let me explain to you how this works.

Doctors/Nurse Practitioners/PA's write prescriptions.

Pharmacists fill those prescriptions.

The technicalities behind filling a prescription is so complicated that it requires another degree path and a license.

The only exception to this is getting "free samples" from a Doctor, which is the exception and not the rule. Doctors don't fill their own scripts. It's illegal.

Ideally, the system works when everyone stays in their lane and does their job. We are going to start having problems if Pharmacists start trying to play doctor or Doctors start trying to play pharmacist.

 

[geauxtohell]

On the point, he was right and it is going to spread. A pharmacist should have the right to not administer abortion medications

This wasn't an "abortion medication".

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Unfortunately for this position there are times and places where your profession does not allow for the complete freedom of denying someone your services. This is akin to a cop not stopping a crime because he does not like the color of your house, a doctor not saving your life because he does not believe in a specific type of medical treatment or a fireman not putting out a fire because his pagan beliefs does not allow him to stop a specific type of wood or object from burning. Fact is, there are times when a pharmacist should have the ability to not carry/dispense a medication and there are times when they should not be allowed that luxury. The times they cannot should pertain mostly to life/immediate harm instances. This instance seems to be one of those and is, therefore, morally reprehensible that the prescription was refused. Even with abortion, there are requirements placed on doctors requiring them to perform the procedure if there is imminent danger and no one else to accomplish it. These are part of entering the field to begin with.

I strongly disagree. Particularly when the woman used a public pharmacy, not a hospital pharmacy for the meds. The liability in this thing happens to be at the feet of the abortion clinic not the public pharmacy. The dirtballs in the abortion clinic had an obligation to provide those meds, kiddo. They have no right to expect any citizen to pony up care in any way in such an abhorrent scenario.

I also disagree that any refusal to participate in the actions of an abortionist is somehow akin to the Police or Fire Departments refusing assistance due to the color of a house or personal preferences. Even in a hospital setting, Professionals most certainly can and do refuse to participate in the actions of abortionists and refuse to participate in the care of such patients. Hospital Boards are also free to refuse abortions and abortion care. As well, Professionals are also free to refuse to provide care in other areas of medical attention as well. For example, Nurses are free to refuse nursing in mental wards.

It is not morally reprehensible that the Pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. It was reprehensible that the abortionist threw his/her patient out in the public sector with a prescription rather than the meds and expected others to be wheedled into the agenda of her care.

The fact is, there is such a thing as strong personal preferences in many matters, and nobody has the right to force anything or any agenda that is regarded as abhorrent on anyone. Even Nurses and Doctors. The fact is, when such strong personal preferences are there, such a Nurse or Doctor is not going to provide the same quality of care to such a patient as a non-abhorrent patient would receive.

So it's really best if the abhorrent seeks help somewhere else. The abhorrent found the abortionist and I'm very sure the abhorrent can sniff out other abhorrents with relative ease.

I absolutely refuse, under any condition and situation, to assist in any way the work of an abortionist and his/her screwing monkey who hired them to murder her baby.

If such a female comes to me, I shall not assist her in any way. Miss Piggy can go elsewhere. I do not have to provide care or treatment and I won't.

And finally, if that woman was bleeding she still required medical care in the abortion clinic. She should have been sent back to the butcher.

God, what are your predictions for the AFC/NFC finals this week?