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.
These pharmacists refusing are NOT taking the drug and are NOT paying for the drug, therefore it does NOT impose on their religious beliefs or the sanctity of themselves imo....but if you can show an example from the Bible that might support your contentions, then i reserve the right to change my opinion on it.I was not talking about the women that were getting the plan B, but the women who did not dispense it, as prescribed. and sorry you can not give exceptions for UNFACTUAL reasons...that's just common sense....if the gvt allowed that, then the pharmacists could refuse dispensing a number of drugs for various cures, just because they claim it is murder when IT IS NOT MURDER....you would allow people to make decisions and life more difficult for others based on LIES, just made up lies. If there is absolutely no proof what so ever that plan b kills a baby then FACTS ARE FACTS and decisions made should be made on facts.
there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that facts would show that RU 486 does not kill a fetus....because it does kill a fetus.
but in the case with Plan B, it does NOT kill a fetus, a baby....facts are facts....and to make somone who has gone through the trauma of a rape, and goes to the pharmacy to get Plan B which is offered by the pharmacy but a pharmacist working alone refuses to dispense it, which has to be taken by the victim within 3 days, and make them go through the humiliation by this NON INFORMED pharmacist and sent somewhere else for it, seems like the pharmacist is forcing their NON FACTUAL fairy tale BELIEFS upon another person who is already under a post trauma situation, even more stress.....and THAT is unacceptable....and inhumane imho.
I can accept that a pharmacy should not have to carry all drugs, especially if they make exceptions for not carry other emergency drugs, then they should be able to have Plan B as just another exception of what they do not carry. but at some point, I can accept the government not licensing them to be a pharmacy, if they refuse to carry a great deal of the drugs prescribed by doctors....there will reach a point where what the pharmacy owner chooses not to carry, will hurt the community and should not be licensed as a drug dispenser any more....
I do hope that you as a Catholic realize that there are still people, I am not one of them, who are opposed to such things as the birth control pill for reasons of faith. The little bit of liberal, that is trying to rear its ugly head in you at the moment seems to think that you can force your beliefs upon these people. That is one thing that I oppose.
I would allow pharmacists to work in a free market sense where they can determine what products they will carry. A pharmacist should not be forced to carry a cancer drug that costs them $1000/dose but they can only sell it for $4, should they? If fact, you and the government are saying that they should. Nor should a pharmacist be forced to carry Plan B whether there reasons for not wanting to carry it is market driven or belief driven.
Immie
the state of washington law passed in 2007, so its been 5 years.
and anyone selling prescription drugs, should no go into that line of work. same argument.....
I think that most people really are over complicating the issue when talking about whether a person has a problem dispensing this medication, and whether they should have known they would have to one day. It's not about this particular medication. Anyone who works in the health care field, whether it be as a doctor, nurse, an emergency tech, in dispensing medication, right down to the receptionist at the dentist's office......any and all of these people need to decide BEFORE they enter the field whether or not they have any objections to PATIENT DECISION MAKING AND INFORMED CONSENT.
All of these jobs are done for one person...the patient. If you have a problem with letting the patient guide and direct their own medical issues, then you should not be in your line of work. If you have a problem humbling yourself to the will of the patient, then you should not be in the health care field in any capacity whatsoever. If you have a problem with making WHATEVER your concerns, desires, etc, become subservient to the patient, then you should not be in that line of work. YOU are there for THEM, their health, their decisions, their goals. PERIOD. If you think it's up to them to satisfy your own religious scruples, then you are dead wrong, and are not fit for that line of work.
That's not happening now. It's not. Please, don't present the situation in a clearly false manner. And I really don't care whether they have a "religious belief" that it's murder. The first amendment protects rights. It doesn't enable excuses. You can believe whatever you want. But the government is under no obligation to allow exceptions to generally applicable regulations of non-religious activity, under the guise of "religious belief." The factual, indisputable, scientific truth is that Plan B is a medication that can prevent pregnancy from occurring, up to 5 days after unprotected sex.
Let's take another type of potential religious belief. Let's say a doctor has a religious belief that when a person is near death, their soul becomes prepped to reincarnate into another person who will be born at or shortly after the time of the first person's death. Should this be an excuse for such a doctor to refuse to perform life saving treatment on a patient, just because the doctor's religious belief is that doing so might cause the death of a new born who will instead die when the soul is prevented from making the transition? Of course not.
I'm sure you had to walk uphill both ways as well. All of us one day become old enough that we eventually lament that when we were young prices politicians were noble, prices were reasonable, and children respected their elders. Humanity has been singing that requiem for millions of years.
Bullshit if that is not what is happening now. The state of Washington is insisting that pharmacists who believe that using Plan B is murder commit murder in their eyes. That is flat out wrong.
And as you say, you can believe what you want. That doesn't make your insistance of limiting personal liberties ethical, reasonable or moral.
You can play games with your hypotheticals that do not apply by yourself. I'm sorry, but I am not interested in that game at this time.
As a matter of fact, I was barefoot too!I'm sure you had to walk uphill both ways as well.
Immie
so let me get this straight Immie....
Do you actually believe that the Gun Shop owner that sold a gun legally to a person that then later shot and murdered another person with this gun he was sold, that the person who sold the gun, was the person who committed murder or an accessory to murder ?
If not, then how would the pharmacist who filled a prescription be responsible for the person who chose to take the medication?
Care
Conservative panel? The same "conservative" judge who ruled against DADT ruled against the state here. That throws your conservative panel argument out the window.
Be it noted that the Windbag's position is that ruling in favor of free speech demonstrates a liberal bias, and cannot possibly be a conservative point of view.
A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another.
For example, religious freedom. You have the right to religious freedom. But people also have the right to medical treatment. So, your religious freedom becomes limited at the point where it infringes upon another person's right to medical treatment. Glad we cleared that up.
PS nurses are usually fired if they don't follow a doctor's orders but that has to do with their EMPLOYER having the right to tell them they must follow orders
Actually, no. Nurses are legally required to follow the orders of the doctors, and refusal to do so can result in sanctions on their license, suspensions, or revocations, along with criminal charges, and civil liability.
uhhhhh ....on ethical grounds? since when was the DEA involved with religious beliefs?
i can understand making certain drugs that should not be mixed, or a doctor they repeatedly see prescribing Oxycontin or something of the sort....
bbut, i saw no pharmacist filling michael jackson's and ana nicole's prescriptions on trial....so they probably don't even do what the DEA wants, most of the time....
You don't think breaking the law and going to jail might possible encompass an ethical dilemma between the theoretical patient privacy and the pharmacist not going to jail?
As usual, you haven't a clue what you're talking about in the first place, and are flagrantly misrepresenting the facts in the process.
Pharmacists do not have any kind of duty to second guess a doctor. What they do have is a responsibility to exercise due diligence in dispensing medications and filling prescriptions. This can mean, for example, contacting a doctor if it appears that a prescription may have been mistakenly written out. Perhaps a normal dosage for a medication 7.5 -12.5 mg, but the doctor's orders indicate 100 mg. The pharmacist has a responsibility to be diligent to clarify these clearly unusual orders. Another example might be to recognize instances where a medication may be contra indicated with something relevant to the patient. If the pharmacist notices his records indicate that the patient also has a regular prescription for X, and that happens to be contra indicated for the new prescription, then the pharmacist must exercise due diligence to ensure that the patient's needs are met. This kind of thing can happen most especially with elderly patients who may see several doctors and specialists, but may not fully inform each doctor of what they've been prescribed by other doctors.
It is not the pharmacists role to second guess the doctor, or to refuse to follow orders simply because the pharmacist thinks he knows better than the doctor regarding the patient's health. The doctor is by far the most knowledgeable and qualified person to make diagnoses and give medical advice to the patient. The doctor always knows more than the pharmacist. The pharmacist has a responsibility to WORK WITH the doctor, not against the orders of the doctor.
If I were a pharmacist I would refuse to fill prescriptions for Republicans because I am morally opposed to their beliefs and actions.
A law is not neutral if, in practice, it accomplishes a religious gerrymander. Id. at 535.
In Lukumi, the Supreme Court addressed three related questions in determining whether the City of Hialehs ban on animal sacrifice impermissibly did so: (1) whether the regulations burden falls, in practical terms, on religious objectors but almost no others; (2) whether the governments interpretation of the law favors secular conduct; and (3) whether the law proscribes more religious conduct than is necessary to achieve its stated ends. See id., at 53638. Here, the answers to these inquiries show that the Board of Pharmacys rules similarly accomplish a religious gerrymander.
http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stormans-Opinion-from-Judge-revised.pdf
2. Some might be inclined to discredit todays ruling on the ground that the judge who issued it, Judge Ronald B. Leighton, was appointed by President George W. Bush and therefore might be thought to have, and to have indulged, social-conservative biases. Thats an extremely improbable hypothesis.
If I were a pharmacist I would refuse to fill prescriptions for Republicans because I am morally opposed to their beliefs and actions.
Forcing people OUT of their profession isn't very American in my opinion.
That is the opposite of what I said....are actually trained to do.
In other words, you're just talking, without any purpose or relevance to the point you're actually trying to make. Gotcha.
Editing quotes to make it look like a poster is saying things other than what he did is against the rules.
How does that prove you wrong? Is teaching children reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic a strictly religious activity?
STOP LYING, YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT!!!!! I SAID THAT THE COURTS HAVE LONG MAINTAINED THAT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS NOT ABSOLUTE, AND THAT IT DOES NOT EXTEND TO BEHAVIOR THAT IS NOT INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS. YOUR OWN EXAMPLE IS STILL COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THAT, AS WELL AS A PLETHORA OF ADDITIONAL CASE LAW. IF YOU CAN'T HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL HONESTLY TO READ A DAMN DOCUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT IT SAYS, THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!By the way, the case we are actually discussing in this thread where the court ruled that states don't have a right to force people to violate their religion actually disproves your assertion that the state can force pharmacists to ignore their religion just because they invented licensing requirements for pharmacists in order to protect pharmacists from competition.
You have not provided a single example of a case that said anything even remotely close to what you claim the courts have ruled, despite my repeated challenges to do so. You then take a case where a court ruled that teachers are ministers despite the fact that most of what they do has nothing to do with religion.
For the record, the court did rule that choosing ministers is a religious activity. That is actually a side issue, and one which the government never disputed. They argued that, unless a ministers was actually doing ministry work all the time they were not ministers for the purpose of the ministerial exception. The court disagreed.
You can throw fits all day long, the facts won't change.
the state of washington law passed in 2007, so its been 5 years.
and anyone selling prescription drugs, should no go into that line of work. same argument.....
I think that most people really are over complicating the issue when talking about whether a person has a problem dispensing this medication, and whether they should have known they would have to one day. It's not about this particular medication. Anyone who works in the health care field, whether it be as a doctor, nurse, an emergency tech, in dispensing medication, right down to the receptionist at the dentist's office......any and all of these people need to decide BEFORE they enter the field whether or not they have any objections to PATIENT DECISION MAKING AND INFORMED CONSENT.
All of these jobs are done for one person...the patient. If you have a problem with letting the patient guide and direct their own medical issues, then you should not be in your line of work. If you have a problem humbling yourself to the will of the patient, then you should not be in the health care field in any capacity whatsoever. If you have a problem with making WHATEVER your concerns, desires, etc, become subservient to the patient, then you should not be in that line of work. YOU are there for THEM, their health, their decisions, their goals. PERIOD. If you think it's up to them to satisfy your own religious scruples, then you are dead wrong, and are not fit for that line of work.
Wow, that almost makes sense.
There are plastic surgeons that require people to undergo a psychological evaluation before they operate. They believe that some surgery is potentially harmful, and prefer to have patients who are not getting surgery for the wrong reasons. If we allowed your POV to dominate these surgeons would be required to perform surgery even when they think it is wrong because there only purpose in life is to serve the patient.
Doctors are not there to serve patients, they are there to make patients healthy. If a pharmacist happens to think that making people healthy prohibits them from dispensing a drug they believe to be harmful they should be able to refuse to dispense it, period, even if the FDA says it is legal. I bet I could find a few people from the 1950s that would now be delighted if their pharmacist elected not to fill a prescription for thalidomide for morning sickness.
The job of a pharmacist is to make sure that people understand exactly what drugs do, their side effects, and to prevent harm to their patients. By allowing the state to force pharmacists to carry all drugs that are legal, and to dispense them to anyone who has a prescription, you remove one of the safety valves in the medical system. That makes things worse, all the time.
Bullshit if that is not what is happening now. The state of Washington is insisting that pharmacists who believe that using Plan B is murder commit murder in their eyes. That is flat out wrong.
And as you say, you can believe what you want. That doesn't make your insistance of limiting personal liberties ethical, reasonable or moral.
You can play games with your hypotheticals that do not apply by yourself. I'm sorry, but I am not interested in that game at this time.
As a matter of fact, I was barefoot too!
Immie
so let me get this straight Immie....
Do you actually believe that the Gun Shop owner that sold a gun legally to a person that then later shot and murdered another person with this gun he was sold, that the person who sold the gun, was the person who committed murder or an accessory to murder ?
If not, then how would the pharmacist who filled a prescription be responsible for the person who chose to take the medication?
Care
Guns of course have oyher uses then killing people. A better question would be would a gunsmith have the right to not sell hollowpoint bullets just because he chooses to be a gunsmith?
Forcing people OUT of their profession isn't very American in my opinion.
What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?
Forcing people OUT of their profession isn't very American in my opinion.
What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?
so let me get this straight Immie....
Do you actually believe that the Gun Shop owner that sold a gun legally to a person that then later shot and murdered another person with this gun he was sold, that the person who sold the gun, was the person who committed murder or an accessory to murder ?
If not, then how would the pharmacist who filled a prescription be responsible for the person who chose to take the medication?
Care
Guns of course have oyher uses then killing people. A better question would be would a gunsmith have the right to not sell hollowpoint bullets just because he chooses to be a gunsmith?
Every single business on the planet makes choices about what goods and services they will and won't provide, based on a variety of factors. Why is this such a new and shocking concept to liberals?
Forcing people OUT of their profession isn't very American in my opinion.
What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?
Which would be relevant if we were talking about a pharmacist whose beliefs prohibited him from ever giving ANY medication to ANYONE. Since we aren't, perhaps you could find an analogy that means something.
