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.
I don't have contempt for pharmacists. I have nothing but respect for them, especially PharmD's who round with us and taught me pharmacology. Your attempts to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my personal frigging opinion, which you can only speculate on, is starting to verge on the dishonest and is far beyond being annoying. You don't have to agree with my opinion. Stop putting words in my mouth or telling me how I feel about another group in the health professions.
Is it? You are the only person on this thread that seems to be pitching a hissy fit about it. Perhaps it's because you inferred something that was never really there.
Then explain, if you can, why nurses and doctors get to opt out of abortions, but pharmacists do not because they are not really involved. That is your position, and I am not putting words into your mouth, I am just pointing out how absurd it is.
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.
>>>>
I am not going to parse the law in an attempt to defend the alleged actions of the pharmacist, I will simply point out that anyone who supports the right of a person to be a conscientious objector in time of war yet opposes the right of anyone in the medical field to always opt out of any procedures they have a similar moral objection to is a hypocrite.
Should nurses be required to assist in abortions?
Should doctors be required to perform abortions?
Should pharmacists be required to provide abortifacients?
+1 That is exactly how it should be. I can support laws requiring public hospitals that can fill scripts to dispense medications as there needs to be someplace that people can get their meds filled but a business should not be forced to sell a product because someone else wants them too. That is like forcing McDonalds to carry pears because you like them. Where do we have the right to force that on a business.My personal opinion and if I were making the laws there would be no Public Accommodation laws and there would need to be no "Conscience Laws" because the government should not be dictating to private businesses that they are required to service any customer. The performance of job related duties should be a matter between the employer and the employee. However, my personal opinion does not change the laws as they exist.
As to the deflection about hypocrites and conscientious objectors, the military is an all volunteer force and no one is forced to join. If you volunteer for the military, whose job it is to go to war btw, and you refuse to go to war after volunteering then you should be charged under United States Code Title 18 Chapter 47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and prosecuted as a Military Court Martial may direct.
>>>>
But your explanation was somewhat lacking. If I get your position correctly, you believe that because the pharmacist is simply dispensing the medication they are not really part of the process as someone that is actually prescribing, administering or otherwise taking part in the actual procedure and therefore should not have the right to object to the medication. I find that stretching as they ARE a part of that process. Is the getaway driver not implicated in the crime as well?Then explain, if you can, why nurses and doctors get to opt out of abortions, but pharmacists do not because they are not really involved. That is your position, and I am not putting words into your mouth, I am just pointing out how absurd it is.
I've already explained it. Twice. At this point, I am less inclined to explain it a third time to someone who is going to deliberately misrepresent my position and beliefs.
If someone wants to force businesses to sell specific items then they are in the wrong country. Why should a pharmacist in a private business be forces to provide particular service?if someone has a problem doing things required of their job, they are in the wrong professionWhy do you have reservations about a conscious clause? Should people be forced to do things that they disagree with simply because it inconveniences others? Do you also support slavery?
A person's morals might not be relevant if it complicates patient care. Perhaps they should consider another line of work. I have no idea where you are going with "slavery" but I'll venture to guess it's a stretch.
Why are any of those silly. I don't care what the particular reason is that a pharmacist does not want to sell a particular drug and I can't see where the problem is if the employer has equal power to hire someone else. It is funny that anyone here would support profitability as a good reason to not sell or stock a drug but bring in morality and suddenly we get a resounding we can't have that...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
I can understand the conscious clause as it applies to some areas of health care. An OB/GYN resident who is pro-life should not be forced to perform abortions as a requirement to complete their training. That is a procedure that, but for the actions of the person involved, would not have happened.
However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.
Frankly, I have never seen expanding this to pharmacists as a matter of conscious. I see it as another attempt by the anti-abortion crew to try and interdict Roe.
Which is why this pharmacist most likely refused to fill a non-abortificant medication simply because it came from planned parenthood.
What if Utah adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Mormon pharmacists don't have to give out pills that have caffeine in them?
What if California adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Scientologist pharmacists don't have to give out psychiatric meds.
I know those are *gasp* hypothetical situations, but this has the potential to get absolutely silly.
2. Pharmacists take NO oath at all, much less an oath to fill any and all prescriptions that cross their counter. They can't take such an oath or the smaller ones in particular would quickly be driven out of business. Smaller pharmacies ROUTINELY tell someone they have to get a prescription for an uncommon medication filled somewhere else because they don't stock it and they don't want to mess with an uncommon one at all. I had a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription of mine because the smallest lots he could get were for 100 pills and I had been prescribed 5 -and it was an uncommon enough drug he knew no one was going to buy the other 95 before they expired and the cost of those 5 pills to me would not cover his loss on the other 95. Tough luck for me, it was absolutely his right to make that business decision -I had to take the prescription to another pharmacy. That's life. If he said he couldn't sell it me because it somehow violated his conscience to do so -I would have had to take it somewhere else too. That's life. I cannot force someone to sell me ANYTHING if they choose not to sell it (except if their reasons are because of my race or gender). Did you know that customers don't own the business and they don't get to make those decisions? A pharmacy is just another privately owned business and demanding they sell you a particular drug when they have decided not to sell that one -is no different than suing McDonald's because they refuse to sell you pineapple shakes! Tough luck, but you can't force McDonald's to sell you a pineapple shake and you can't force a pharmacist to sell you any particular drug either.
Then explain, if you can, why nurses and doctors get to opt out of abortions, but pharmacists do not because they are not really involved. That is your position, and I am not putting words into your mouth, I am just pointing out how absurd it is.
I've already explained it. Twice. At this point, I am less inclined to explain it a third time to someone who is going to deliberately misrepresent my position and beliefs.
I can understand the conscious clause as it applies to some areas of health care. An OB/GYN resident who is pro-life should not be forced to perform abortions as a requirement to complete their training. That is a procedure that, but for the actions of the person involved, would not have happened.
However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.
Frankly, I have never seen expanding this to pharmacists as a matter of conscious. I see it as another attempt by the anti-abortion crew to try and interdict Roe.
Which is why this pharmacist most likely refused to fill a non-abortificant medication simply because it came from planned parenthood.
What if Utah adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Mormon pharmacists don't have to give out pills that have caffeine in them?
What if California adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Scientologist pharmacists don't have to give out psychiatric meds.
I know those are *gasp* hypothetical situations, but this has the potential to get absolutely silly.
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.
>>>>
I am not going to parse the law in an attempt to defend the alleged actions of the pharmacist, I will simply point out that anyone who supports the right of a person to be a conscientious objector in time of war yet opposes the right of anyone in the medical field to always opt out of any procedures they have a similar moral objection to is a hypocrite.
My personal opinion and if I were making the laws there would be no Public Accommodation laws and there would need to be no "Conscience Laws" because the government should not be dictating to private businesses that they are required to service any customer. The performance of job related duties should be a matter between the employer and the employee. However, my personal opinion does not change the laws as they exist.
As to the deflection about hypocrites and conscientious objectors, the military is an all volunteer force and no one is forced to join. If you volunteer for the military, whose job it is to go to war btw, and you refuse to go to war after volunteering then you should be charged under United States Code Title 18 Chapter 47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and prosecuted as a Military Court Martial may direct.
>>>>
I am not going to parse the law in an attempt to defend the alleged actions of the pharmacist, I will simply point out that anyone who supports the right of a person to be a conscientious objector in time of war yet opposes the right of anyone in the medical field to always opt out of any procedures they have a similar moral objection to is a hypocrite.
My personal opinion and if I were making the laws there would be no Public Accommodation laws and there would need to be no "Conscience Laws" because the government should not be dictating to private businesses that they are required to service any customer. The performance of job related duties should be a matter between the employer and the employee. However, my personal opinion does not change the laws as they exist.
As to the deflection about hypocrites and conscientious objectors, the military is an all volunteer force and no one is forced to join. If you volunteer for the military, whose job it is to go to war btw, and you refuse to go to war after volunteering then you should be charged under United States Code Title 18 Chapter 47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and prosecuted as a Military Court Martial may direct.
>>>>
Last I looked no one is required to be a pharmacist either. I will also point out that, even as an all volunteer force, the military still recognizes conscientious objectors and has no problem discharging them. And, despite the claims of some to the contrary, it is actually pretty easy to get a discharge as a conscientious objector if it is legitimate. Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.
Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.
Fuck you and your patronizing attitude. You have not explained anything, and are, in fact, insisting that you did not mean what you said. I have quoted your post three times now, and you have not once responded to the portion of what you said that I am challenging.
My personal opinion and if I were making the laws there would be no Public Accommodation laws and there would need to be no "Conscience Laws" because the government should not be dictating to private businesses that they are required to service any customer. The performance of job related duties should be a matter between the employer and the employee. However, my personal opinion does not change the laws as they exist.
As to the deflection about hypocrites and conscientious objectors, the military is an all volunteer force and no one is forced to join. If you volunteer for the military, whose job it is to go to war btw, and you refuse to go to war after volunteering then you should be charged under United States Code Title 18 Chapter 47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and prosecuted as a Military Court Martial may direct.
>>>>
Last I looked no one is required to be a pharmacist either. I will also point out that, even as an all volunteer force, the military still recognizes conscientious objectors and has no problem discharging them. And, despite the claims of some to the contrary, it is actually pretty easy to get a discharge as a conscientious objector if it is legitimate. Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.
From Military Regulations concerning conscientious objector status are not as easy as you imply. There are procedures to request such status, however those procedures require an indpendent investigation to determine the validity of such a request and the military does not view or process such requests favorably when:
1. Personal history and claims to being a conscientious objector prior to volunteering for the military.
2. Based on conscientious objector status claimed and rejected under the Selective Service System.
3. Based on disagreement with a particular action (such as deployment orders), pragmatism, or expediency to evade deployment.
4. Insincere claims.
5. Based on disagreement with a certain war.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf
Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.
Here is the link to the Manual of the Courts Martial -->> http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf
The MCM describes in detail the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it's punative articles, and the means of charging each and the criteria used in evaluating each of the charges.
Please quote the section that cites "conscientious objector" is a positive defense for any of the punitive articles contained therein.
I will gladly review your findings, but be aware the word "conscientious objector", "objector" or "conscientious" (as it pertains to this subject) do not appear anywhere in the Manual of the Courts Martial and so are not listed as a "positive defense" respect to any charge under the UCMJ.
>>>>
But your explanation was somewhat lacking. If I get your position correctly, you believe that because the pharmacist is simply dispensing the medication they are not really part of the process as someone that is actually prescribing, administering or otherwise taking part in the actual procedure and therefore should not have the right to object to the medication. I find that stretching as they ARE a part of that process. Is the getaway driver not implicated in the crime as well?I've already explained it. Twice. At this point, I am less inclined to explain it a third time to someone who is going to deliberately misrepresent my position and beliefs.
If someone wants to force businesses to sell specific items then they are in the wrong country. Why should a pharmacist in a private business be forces to provide particular service?
Why are any of those silly. I don't care what the particular reason is that a pharmacist does not want to sell a particular drug and I can't see where the problem is if the employer has equal power to hire someone else. It is funny that anyone here would support profitability as a good reason to not sell or stock a drug but bring in morality and suddenly we get a resounding we can't have that...I can understand the conscious clause as it applies to some areas of health care. An OB/GYN resident who is pro-life should not be forced to perform abortions as a requirement to complete their training. That is a procedure that, but for the actions of the person involved, would not have happened.
However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.
Frankly, I have never seen expanding this to pharmacists as a matter of conscious. I see it as another attempt by the anti-abortion crew to try and interdict Roe.
Which is why this pharmacist most likely refused to fill a non-abortificant medication simply because it came from planned parenthood.
What if Utah adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Mormon pharmacists don't have to give out pills that have caffeine in them?
What if California adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Scientologist pharmacists don't have to give out psychiatric meds.
I know those are *gasp* hypothetical situations, but this has the potential to get absolutely silly.
The same can be said for the example given here by another poster of the Muslim woman that wants to be a dancer. She has every right to refuse to remove her gear and the employer has every right to not hire/fire her for that decision as it affects his business directly.
There is ALWAYS time for a thought out answer. The boards are not going anywhereLegit questions. If you can wait, I'll try and respond tomorrow.
While the true/false arguments are getting old and drawn out I will say that Walgreens actions do not lead any more credence to the accusation. Walgreens would have said the same thing whether or not the accusations are false. Dodging and claiming innocents looks much worse than a simple my bad and quick fix. That is how you assuage the public and get the bad press over with.Update on the facts:
Walgreens called PP and spoke with their regional media director. Why? Because Walgreens is worried about the negative media this is giving them. Walgreens is a well run organization.
Walgreens took prompt action and informed PP media director Kristen Plosser that they informed the pharmacist that what they did was wrong, that it will never happen again and that the pharmacist in question was told specifically she should have handed it off to another colleague and was instructed to do so in the future.
But wait a minute. Walgreens did all this not even knowing if any of the allegations were true or not.
Of course all of these allegations are false. Abortion is wrong and anyone involved in it is a liar and they made this entire episode up.
Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.
I can't think of a single CO request (or CO period) that I stumbled upon during my time in the service.
But your explanation was somewhat lacking. If I get your position correctly, you believe that because the pharmacist is simply dispensing the medication they are not really part of the process as someone that is actually prescribing, administering or otherwise taking part in the actual procedure and therefore should not have the right to object to the medication. I find that stretching as they ARE a part of that process. Is the getaway driver not implicated in the crime as well?
I don't care what the particular reason is that a pharmacist does not want to sell a particular drug and I can't see where the problem is if the employer has equal power to hire someone else. It is funny that anyone here would support profitability as a good reason to not sell or stock a drug but bring in morality and suddenly we get a resounding we can't have that...
The same can be said for the example given here by another poster of the Muslim woman that wants to be a dancer. She has every right to refuse to remove her gear and the employer has every right to not hire/fire her for that decision as it affects his business directly.
There is ALWAYS time for a thought out answer. The boards are not going anywhereLegit questions. If you can wait, I'll try and respond tomorrow.
While the true/false arguments are getting old and drawn out I will say that Walgreens actions do not lead any more credence to the accusation. Walgreens would have said the same thing whether or not the accusations are false. Dodging and claiming innocents looks much worse than a simple my bad and quick fix. That is how you assuage the public and get the bad press over with.Update on the facts:
Walgreens called PP and spoke with their regional media director. Why? Because Walgreens is worried about the negative media this is giving them. Walgreens is a well run organization.
Walgreens took prompt action and informed PP media director Kristen Plosser that they informed the pharmacist that what they did was wrong, that it will never happen again and that the pharmacist in question was told specifically she should have handed it off to another colleague and was instructed to do so in the future.
But wait a minute. Walgreens did all this not even knowing if any of the allegations were true or not.
Of course all of these allegations are false. Abortion is wrong and anyone involved in it is a liar and they made this entire episode up.
My personal opinion and if I were making the laws there would be no Public Accommodation laws and there would need to be no "Conscience Laws" because the government should not be dictating to private businesses that they are required to service any customer. The performance of job related duties should be a matter between the employer and the employee. However, my personal opinion does not change the laws as they exist.
As to the deflection about hypocrites and conscientious objectors, the military is an all volunteer force and no one is forced to join. If you volunteer for the military, whose job it is to go to war btw, and you refuse to go to war after volunteering then you should be charged under United States Code Title 18 Chapter 47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and prosecuted as a Military Court Martial may direct.
>>>>
Last I looked no one is required to be a pharmacist either. I will also point out that, even as an all volunteer force, the military still recognizes conscientious objectors and has no problem discharging them. And, despite the claims of some to the contrary, it is actually pretty easy to get a discharge as a conscientious objector if it is legitimate. Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.
From Military Regulations concerning conscientious objector status are not as easy as you imply. There are procedures to request such status, however those procedures require an indpendent investigation to determine the validity of such a request and the military does not view or process such requests favorably when:
1. Personal history and claims to being a conscientious objector prior to volunteering for the military.
2. Based on conscientious objector status claimed and rejected under the Selective Service System.
3. Based on disagreement with a particular action (such as deployment orders), pragmatism, or expediency to evade deployment.
4. Insincere claims.
5. Based on disagreement with a certain war.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf
"Affirmative defense?" That means that someone was charged with something (otherwise they wouldn't need a "defense").Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.
Here is the link to the Manual of the Courts Martial -->> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf
The MCM describes in detail the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it's punative articles, and the means of charging each and the criteria used in evaluating each of the charges.
Please quote the section that cites "conscientious objector" is a positive defense for any of the punitive articles contained therein.
I will gladly review your findings, but be aware the word "conscientious objector", "objector" or "conscientious" (as it pertains to this subject) do not appear anywhere in the Manual of the Courts Martial and so are not listed as a "positive defense" in respect to any charge under the UCMJ.
>>>>
Fuck you and your patronizing attitude. You have not explained anything, and are, in fact, insisting that you did not mean what you said. I have quoted your post three times now, and you have not once responded to the portion of what you said that I am challenging.
Way to class it up, QW. For the record, you have distorted my position, falsely attributed statements to me, and claimed I believe things I do not believe. I am not the problem here. By all means, keep telling me what I believe. If you've gotten disdain from me recently, it's because you earned it. I've lost count of the things you've claimed that I've said that I never said. Everyone else on this thread has been capable of talking about this issue without ad hominem.
This is why I try to avoid "abortion" topics. People like you don't do nuance on the issue.
