Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, the fact that nobody got the name lends a little more weight to the story for me. The main reason I am making an issue of it myself is that one person is insisting that the only way you can file a complaint is if you have the name.
I would think it would be a relatively easy matter to find out who the pharmacist (s) on duty were and to find out who did this.
I agree both sides deserve their say, but I don't think we have to wait for any official response to discuss the issue.
I mean, this is a message board, not a court of law.
Even if someone proposed this as a hypothetical, it's an interesting question. Whether it happened now or not, eventually it's going to happen.
Nobody has said you "can't discuss" it. What I object to is not the discussion of what might have happened, but the fact that the thread title is misleading and dishonest; not because it couldn't be true, but because so far there's absolutely no evidence that it's true.
Discuss the scenarios all you want; but it's a LIE to claim that this happened or that happened based on the extremely limited information that is currently available. You can say this MIGHT have happened, or WHAT IF that happened and that's acceptable. When you say "PHARMACIST DENIED HEMMORAGING WOMAN MEDICATION BECAUSE SHE OBJECTS TO ABORTION " blah blah blah, that's purposely deceitful. It might be true; but it's presented as an established fact. And it's not.
Even if the story is bunk, it's still an interesting hypothetical. Eventually, this is going to lead to a conflict like this.
Furthermore, the fact that no one thought to get the pharmacist's name is not terribly damming. Per Walgreen's, someone has responded to the complaint. If the matter goes forward, people could be deposed and no one is going to be able to hide behind anonymity.
Actually, the fact that nobody got the name lends a little more weight to the story for me. The main reason I am making an issue of it myself is that one person is insisting that the only way you can file a complaint is if you have the name.
I would think it would be a relatively easy matter to find out who the pharmacist (s) on duty were and to find out who did this.
I agree both sides deserve their say, but I don't think we have to wait for any official response to discuss the issue.
I mean, this is a message board, not a court of law.
Even if someone proposed this as a hypothetical, it's an interesting question. Whether it happened now or not, eventually it's going to happen.
I would think it would be a relatively easy matter to find out who the pharmacist (s) on duty were and to find out who did this.
I agree both sides deserve their say, but I don't think we have to wait for any official response to discuss the issue.
I mean, this is a message board, not a court of law.
Even if someone proposed this as a hypothetical, it's an interesting question. Whether it happened now or not, eventually it's going to happen.
Nobody has said you "can't discuss" it. What I object to is not the discussion of what might have happened, but the fact that the thread title is misleading and dishonest; not because it couldn't be true, but because so far there's absolutely no evidence that it's true.
Discuss the scenarios all you want; but it's a LIE to claim that this happened or that happened based on the extremely limited information that is currently available. You can say this MIGHT have happened, or WHAT IF that happened and that's acceptable. When you say "PHARMACIST DENIED HEMMORAGING WOMAN MEDICATION BECAUSE SHE OBJECTS TO ABORTION " blah blah blah, that's purposely deceitful. It might be true; but it's presented as an established fact. And it's not.
Why split hairs? People are more concerned with the underlying issue and not with prosecuting some un-named pharmacist.
Furthermore, and again, it's never been the "standard" on here to wait for all the facts to come in before talking about things. Case in point: Lougher.
I understand your point, your foolish insistence on it is just silly.
As for the OP, I have no control over that.
Actually, the fact that nobody got the name lends a little more weight to the story for me. The main reason I am making an issue of it myself is that one person is insisting that the only way you can file a complaint is if you have the name.
I would think it would be a relatively easy matter to find out who the pharmacist (s) on duty were and to find out who did this.
I agree both sides deserve their say, but I don't think we have to wait for any official response to discuss the issue.
I mean, this is a message board, not a court of law.
Even if someone proposed this as a hypothetical, it's an interesting question. Whether it happened now or not, eventually it's going to happen.
I absolutely agree.
The point I made earlier was that the pharmacist was wrong. Even if this is a hypothetical with the facts as they were presented, the pharmacists was wrong to do what he/she did.
What I am having a problem with is the statements that these things are facts when we have only heard one side of the story. They may not be facts at all. They are nothing more than a complaint and people make frivolous accusations all the time.
Immie
I would think it would be a relatively easy matter to find out who the pharmacist (s) on duty were and to find out who did this.
I agree both sides deserve their say, but I don't think we have to wait for any official response to discuss the issue.
I mean, this is a message board, not a court of law.
Even if someone proposed this as a hypothetical, it's an interesting question. Whether it happened now or not, eventually it's going to happen.
I absolutely agree.
The point I made earlier was that the pharmacist was wrong. Even if this is a hypothetical with the facts as they were presented, the pharmacists was wrong to do what he/she did.
What I am having a problem with is the statements that these things are facts when we have only heard one side of the story. They may not be facts at all. They are nothing more than a complaint and people make frivolous accusations all the time.
Immie
Again, you don't know what the pharmacist did. You just know what PP claims she did.
So there's no way to tell that the pharmacist was wrong...
Discuss the scenarios all you want; but it's a LIE to claim that this happened or that happened based on the extremely limited information that is currently available. You can say this MIGHT have happened, or WHAT IF that happened and that's acceptable. When you say "PHARMACIST DENIED HEMMORAGING WOMAN MEDICATION BECAUSE SHE OBJECTS TO ABORTION " blah blah blah, that's purposely deceitful. It might be true; but it's presented as an established fact. And it's not.
I absolutely agree.
The point I made earlier was that the pharmacist was wrong. Even if this is a hypothetical with the facts as they were presented, the pharmacists was wrong to do what he/she did.
What I am having a problem with is the statements that these things are facts when we have only heard one side of the story. They may not be facts at all. They are nothing more than a complaint and people make frivolous accusations all the time.
Immie
Again, you don't know what the pharmacist did. You just know what PP claims she did.
So there's no way to tell that the pharmacist was wrong...
The point being that under the hypothetical situation the pharmacist was wrong. We were discussing the so-called facts of the OP... then some jumped onto a tangent about whether or not the "facts" are facts. I never said the OP was correct, but the discussion was about whether or not, given the scenario presented in the OP the pharmacist was right to do what was presented and as I said before, if the facts are as presented she was wrong.
Immie
The truth of the matter is there are people in this thread presenting the hypothetical as the actual facts.
And that is dishonest.
The truth of the matter is there are people in this thread presenting the hypothetical as the actual facts.
And that is dishonest.
Discussing the situation as presented in news reports and as described in the actual complaint (which was posted in this thread) is not "dishonest", it's discussing the situation as presented.
>>>>
Again, you don't know what the pharmacist did. You just know what PP claims she did.
So there's no way to tell that the pharmacist was wrong...
The point being that under the hypothetical situation the pharmacist was wrong. We were discussing the so-called facts of the OP... then some jumped onto a tangent about whether or not the "facts" are facts. I never said the OP was correct, but the discussion was about whether or not, given the scenario presented in the OP the pharmacist was right to do what was presented and as I said before, if the facts are as presented she was wrong.
Immie
Maybe that was your intent.
The truth of the matter is there are people in this thread presenting the hypothetical as the actual facts.
And that is dishonest.
And I've been here from the beginning, btw. I objected to the title and the blitherers from the beginning. You've jumped into it, however.
That's another one of those "get the facts straight" things. You present it one way, but in reality it's quite the opposite. It wasn't presented as a hypothetical, and it hasn't been argued as a hypothetical. Until the last few posts.
Nobody has said you "can't discuss" it. What I object to is not the discussion of what might have happened, but the fact that the thread title is misleading and dishonest; not because it couldn't be true, but because so far there's absolutely no evidence that it's true.
Discuss the scenarios all you want; but it's a LIE to claim that this happened or that happened based on the extremely limited information that is currently available. You can say this MIGHT have happened, or WHAT IF that happened and that's acceptable. When you say "PHARMACIST DENIED HEMMORAGING WOMAN MEDICATION BECAUSE SHE OBJECTS TO ABORTION " blah blah blah, that's purposely deceitful. It might be true; but it's presented as an established fact. And it's not.
Why split hairs? People are more concerned with the underlying issue and not with prosecuting some un-named pharmacist.
Furthermore, and again, it's never been the "standard" on here to wait for all the facts to come in before talking about things. Case in point: Lougher.
I understand your point, your foolish insistence on it is just silly.
As for the OP, I have no control over that.
Yes, well you talk to the idiots who spent weeks pillorying the FLDS making all sorts of ridiculous claims based upon nothing, and see how intelligent they felt when all the kids were returned to their homes.
I didn't say you had any control over it. I said it's dishonest to lie and pretend the facts are in, and present the complaint as a given when the complaint is just that...a complaint. An allegation.
I absolutely agree.
The point I made earlier was that the pharmacist was wrong. Even if this is a hypothetical with the facts as they were presented, the pharmacists was wrong to do what he/she did.
What I am having a problem with is the statements that these things are facts when we have only heard one side of the story. They may not be facts at all. They are nothing more than a complaint and people make frivolous accusations all the time.
Immie
Again, you don't know what the pharmacist did. You just know what PP claims she did.
So there's no way to tell that the pharmacist was wrong...
The point being that under the hypothetical situation the pharmacist was wrong. We were discussing the so-called facts of the OP... then some jumped onto a tangent about whether or not the "facts" are facts. I never said the OP was correct, but the discussion was about whether or not, given the scenario presented in the OP the pharmacist was right to do what was presented and as I said before, if the facts are as presented she was wrong.
Immie
It's starting to look like a lame attempt at a thread jack.
If the story happened as it was alleged to have happened, the conscious clause is going to look pretty bad. That scares some people, I suppose.
I have a question for Goldcatt:
Could Walgreens legally screen employees on whether or not they would have a problem filling RU-486?
That would only seem fair to me.
Below is the law, but it may be easier to read at the link.
A couple of points...
#3: Given such written notification, the employer is not allowed to discriminate against the employee because of such objection (which would also apply to not hiring the employee to begin with) unless the employer were to show undue hardship. Now in a hospital, that would normally not be a problem as there are multiple doctors/nurses/technicians/staff available at all times. However an independent Pharmacy could make the claim that having to hire two Pharmacists who make over $100,000 is an unreasonable accommodation. Although the counter argument can be made is that if Walgreens is a chain store and there is another Walgreens in the immediate area, then one store can support another and all Walgreens has to do is ensure two objecting Pharmacists are not on duty at the same time at two different store. A scheduling modification/screening would not be considered an acceptable accommodation.
Again, you don't know what the pharmacist did. You just know what PP claims she did.
So there's no way to tell that the pharmacist was wrong...
The point being that under the hypothetical situation the pharmacist was wrong. We were discussing the so-called facts of the OP... then some jumped onto a tangent about whether or not the "facts" are facts. I never said the OP was correct, but the discussion was about whether or not, given the scenario presented in the OP the pharmacist was right to do what was presented and as I said before, if the facts are as presented she was wrong.
Immie
It's starting to look like a lame attempt at a thread jack.
If the story happened as it was alleged to have happened, the conscious clause is going to look pretty bad. That scares some people, I suppose.
I have a question for Goldcatt:
Could Walgreens legally screen employees on whether or not they would have a problem filling RU-486?
That would only seem fair to me.
It's starting to look like a lame attempt at a thread jack.
If the story happened as it was alleged to have happened, the conscious clause is going to look pretty bad. That scares some people, I suppose.
I have a question for Goldcatt:
Could Walgreens legally screen employees on whether or not they would have a problem filling RU-486?
That would only seem fair to me.
Below is the law, but it may be easier to read at the link.
A couple of points...
#1: To be eligible for application of the "Conscience Law" the health care provided must fall into the defined categories which are "abortion, dispensation of an abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or end of life treatment and care". Anti-bleeding medication does not fall into those categories.
#2: The objection to provide those services (which in this case don't apply anyway) must be submitted in writing to the employer in advance.
#3: Given such written notification, the employer is not allowed to discriminate against the employee because of such objection (which would also apply to not hiring the employee to begin with) unless the employer were to show undue hardship. Now in a hospital, that would normally not be a problem as there are multiple doctors/nurses/technicians/staff available at all times. However an independent Pharmacy could make the claim that having to hire two Pharmacists who make over $100,000 is an unreasonable accommodation. Although the counter argument can be made is that if Walgreens is a chain store and there is another Walgreens in the immediate area, then one store can support another and all Walgreens has to do is ensure two objecting Pharmacists are not on duty at the same time at two different store. A scheduling modification/screening would not be considered an acceptable accommodation.
#4: The law provides for immunity in the event of the application of the Conscience Law in the cases of "civilly, criminally or administratively" prosecution. However since the medication prescribed does not meet the critera as an applicable "health care service" under the law the Pharmacist could be open to administrative discipline under the Idaho Board of Pharmacy and if found to be negligent, that would provide a good basis for a civil suit.
TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 6
ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTIVES
18-611. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FOR HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS. (1) As used in this section:
(a) "Abortifacient" means any drug that causes an abortion as defined in 18-604, Idaho Code, emergency contraception or any drug the primary purpose of which is to cause the destruction of an embryo or fetus.
(b) "Conscience" means the religious, moral or ethical principles sincerely held by any person.
(c) "Embryo" means the developing human life from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of gestation.
(d) "Fetus" means the developing human life from the start of the ninth week of gestation until birth.
(e) "Health care professional" means any person licensed, certified or registered by the state of Idaho to deliver health care.
(f) "Health care service" means an abortion, dispensation of an abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or end of life treatment and care.
(g) "Provide" means to counsel, advise, perform, dispense, assist in or refer for any health care service.
(h) "Religious, moral or ethical principles," "sincerely held," "reasonably accommodate" and "undue hardship" shall be construed consistently with Title VII of the federal civil rights act of 1964, as amended.
(2) No health care professional shall be required to provide any health care service that violates his or her conscience.
(3) Employers of health care professionals shall reasonably accommodate the conscience rights of their employees as provided in this section, upon advanced written notification by the employee. Such notice shall suffice without specification of the reason therefor. It shall be unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any health care professional based upon his or her declining to provide a health care service that violates his or her conscience, unless the employer can demonstrate that such accommodation poses an undue hardship.
(4) No health care professional or employer of the health care professional shall be civilly, criminally or administratively liable for the health care professional declining to provide health care services that violate his or her conscience, except for life-threatening situations as provided for in subsection (6) of this section.
(5) The provisions of this section do not allow a health care professional or employer of the health care professional to refuse to provide health care services because of a patients race, color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin.
(6) If a health care professional invokes a conscience right in a life-threatening situation where no other health care professional capable of treating the emergency is available, such health care professional shall provide treatment and care until an alternate health care professional capable of treating the emergency is found.
(7) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of conscience provided for in section 18-612, Idaho Code, to the extent that those rights are broader in scope than those provided for in this section.
Statutes
>>>>
Below is the law, but it may be easier to read at the link.
A couple of points...
#3: Given such written notification, the employer is not allowed to discriminate against the employee because of such objection (which would also apply to not hiring the employee to begin with) unless the employer were to show undue hardship. Now in a hospital, that would normally not be a problem as there are multiple doctors/nurses/technicians/staff available at all times. However an independent Pharmacy could make the claim that having to hire two Pharmacists who make over $100,000 is an unreasonable accommodation. Although the counter argument can be made is that if Walgreens is a chain store and there is another Walgreens in the immediate area, then one store can support another and all Walgreens has to do is ensure two objecting Pharmacists are not on duty at the same time at two different store. A scheduling modification/screening would not be considered an acceptable accommodation.
Thanks. That's what I was looking for. I have reservations about the conscious clause, but I can understand the intent. However, it is unfair to force a pharmacy to employ someone that could be harmful to their bottom line. I have a more libertarian perspective on the matter I suppose. Physicians shouldn't have to start playing a "guessing" game about which pharmacies/pharmacists will comply with their plan of care for a patient. There needs to be more equity under this law.
I agree the pharmacist screwed up by refusing a drug that wasn't covered under the clause. I suspect that this issue, or a similar issue, will ultimately be challenged in court.
I happen to agree with you about pharmacies not having to employ pharmacists that will not comply. The employer has the right not to hire or even to fire employees that they do not want in their employment. If the employer (in this case Walgreen's) insists that all pharmacists dispense RU-486 and some of their pharmacists refuse to do so on account of the conscious clause, then the employer has every right, IMHO, to terminate their contract or the employee has the right to find employment elsewhere.
A pharmacist who refuses to perform his or her duties might be better of seeking a position in another line of work.
That is hard for me to say because I understand and agree with the need for the conscious clause. However, the employee (in this case a pharmacists) places him or her self under the authority of the employer and thus should comply with the employer's instructions.
Immie
