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.
Thing is, you could go to pharmacy school, graduate get a job and be an excellent pharmacist. Then, long after all of this, the government comes along and tells you that your job has changed and you must kill children.
The job market changes. The subject is not about what you did to prepare for your job, it is about how you can serve the needs of your customer (or employer). Technology makes all kinds of "good" jobs obsolete daily. It creates new jobs too. What happens when computers replace most pharmacists? Do you outlaw the use of computers to protect the people who went to school to get a good job? Of course not.
Mike
Nope, medical fields have ALWAYS been about do no harm. Your analogy is pointless in this discussion. Actually you're pointless.
You realize if they say they object to you having that item because of their religious reasons, you can sue them, right?
No you cannot.
When a Pharmacist Refuses To Fill a Prescription
yes you can.
In several highly publicized incidents in Texas and Wisconsin, pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill based on religious or ethical beliefs. The Texas pharmacists lost their jobs, and the Wisconsin pharmacist was sued. Though such severe consequences are rare, these cases have generated a lot of controversy, and state and federal legislation.
Four statesArkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakotahave passed laws allowing pharmacists to "opt out" of filling prescriptions they find morally objectionable, and at least 13 others are considering doing so.1 The governor of Illinois, on the other hand, introduced legislation to compel pharmacies that carry contraceptives to fill all prescriptions for birth control. At least four other states are considering legislation that would require pharmacists to fill all prescriptions presented to them.
The job market changes. The subject is not about what you did to prepare for your job, it is about how you can serve the needs of your customer (or employer). Technology makes all kinds of "good" jobs obsolete daily. It creates new jobs too. What happens when computers replace most pharmacists? Do you outlaw the use of computers to protect the people who went to school to get a good job? Of course not.
Mike
Nope, medical fields have ALWAYS been about do no harm. Your analogy is pointless in this discussion. Actually you're pointless.
So wait, is this about what authority the state has or is this about what authority the "medical fields" have? Or is it about whatever assignment of authority you can make that will advance your personal beliefs as an agenda for others?
My analogy and I are pointless because my principles are not as flexible as yours. Enjoy your day and your ill gotten conclusions.
Mike
Nope, medical fields have ALWAYS been about do no harm. Your analogy is pointless in this discussion. Actually you're pointless.
So wait, is this about what authority the state has or is this about what authority the "medical fields" have? Or is it about whatever assignment of authority you can make that will advance your personal beliefs as an agenda for others?
My analogy and I are pointless because my principles are not as flexible as yours. Enjoy your day and your ill gotten conclusions.
Mike
Actually its both, because the licensing states make pharmacists get requires them to follow the Hippocratic Oath. This new state law is in conflict.
So wait, is this about what authority the state has or is this about what authority the "medical fields" have? Or is it about whatever assignment of authority you can make that will advance your personal beliefs as an agenda for others?
My analogy and I are pointless because my principles are not as flexible as yours. Enjoy your day and your ill gotten conclusions.
Mike
Actually its both, because the licensing states make pharmacists get requires them to follow the Hippocratic Oath. This new state law is in conflict.
That is a new way of looking at it, I'll give you that.
Even if that were the case then the lawsuit should be constructed differently. Even then though, it would not be about the state's authority to govern this matter, instead it would be about the state conflicting itself.
Mike
No you cannot.
When a Pharmacist Refuses To Fill a Prescription
yes you can.
In several highly publicized incidents in Texas and Wisconsin, pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill based on religious or ethical beliefs. The Texas pharmacists lost their jobs, and the Wisconsin pharmacist was sued. Though such severe consequences are rare, these cases have generated a lot of controversy, and state and federal legislation.
Four statesArkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakotahave passed laws allowing pharmacists to "opt out" of filling prescriptions they find morally objectionable, and at least 13 others are considering doing so.1 The governor of Illinois, on the other hand, introduced legislation to compel pharmacies that carry contraceptives to fill all prescriptions for birth control. At least four other states are considering legislation that would require pharmacists to fill all prescriptions presented to them.
So wait. There are states that have ruled that it is ok to opt out and there are states that have ruled that it is not ok? Wow. Imagine that. You have a choice about where to live and how you are governed.
Mike
True Immie.no they don't. They have a job to do. Which has been shown over and over again when people have done this. The end result is they are fired.
Don't want to deal out medicine? don't go into that field of work.
If the owner of the pharmacy wants them to dispense Plan B and they refuse, then the owner has the right to not employ them if he/she so chooses. Unfortunately, it seems you would also remove that right from the owner of the pharmacy.
Didn't you make the claim earlier today that you were for personal liberties? You sure do a shitty job of defending personal liberties.
Immie
does this mean that this rule can apply to all drugs, not just the morning after pill? lets means test this real quick and take the birth control issue out of it.
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of antibiotics?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of pain killers?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of heart medication?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of cancer pill?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of prenatal vitamins?
where does the moral objection stop? this is a slipper slope that pharmacists are walking, but it should also not be there decision to judge someone elses morality. if they have a conflict with the job in which they hold, they are free to change employers. but when you take a job you should know the responsibilities of that job prior to accepting a position. if you disagree with that, then the fault lies only with yourself.
so you in essence are advocating for a pharmacist to be able to control the distribution of all drugs based on their own personal morality? even if a doctor has specified it? that makes no sense at all. how is that keeping with the freedom of the right of a individual to choose?does this mean that this rule can apply to all drugs, not just the morning after pill? lets means test this real quick and take the birth control issue out of it.
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of antibiotics?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of pain killers?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of heart medication?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of cancer pill?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of prenatal vitamins?
where does the moral objection stop? this is a slipper slope that pharmacists are walking, but it should also not be there decision to judge someone elses morality. if they have a conflict with the job in which they hold, they are free to change employers. but when you take a job you should know the responsibilities of that job prior to accepting a position. if you disagree with that, then the fault lies only with yourself.
Yes, it can apply to any drug. IF IT WILL DO HARM. The rule doesn't change. The government rule came after the job started, so that fails. Also, with your POV, the nonCatholics should just quit instead of demanding birth control. Now who has to apply a rule evenly?
does this mean that this rule can apply to all drugs, not just the morning after pill? lets means test this real quick and take the birth control issue out of it.
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of antibiotics?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of pain killers?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of heart medication?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of cancer pill?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of prenatal vitamins?
where does the moral objection stop? this is a slipper slope that pharmacists are walking, but it should also not be there decision to judge someone elses morality. if they have a conflict with the job in which they hold, they are free to change employers. but when you take a job you should know the responsibilities of that job prior to accepting a position. if you disagree with that, then the fault lies only with yourself.
True Immie.If the owner of the pharmacy wants them to dispense Plan B and they refuse, then the owner has the right to not employ them if he/she so chooses. Unfortunately, it seems you would also remove that right from the owner of the pharmacy.
Didn't you make the claim earlier today that you were for personal liberties? You sure do a shitty job of defending personal liberties.
Immie
are you fucking stupid or something, because i never stated this. I dont care what a private owner does in the way of stocking.
I do care when its an employee who decides for themselves that they wont while the store carries said item.
seriously are you stupid?
so you in essence are advocating for a pharmacist to be able to control the distribution of all drugs based on their own personal morality? even if a doctor has specified it? that makes no sense at all. how is that keeping with the freedom of the right of a individual to choose?does this mean that this rule can apply to all drugs, not just the morning after pill? lets means test this real quick and take the birth control issue out of it.
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of antibiotics?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of pain killers?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of heart medication?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of cancer pill?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of prenatal vitamins?
where does the moral objection stop? this is a slipper slope that pharmacists are walking, but it should also not be there decision to judge someone elses morality. if they have a conflict with the job in which they hold, they are free to change employers. but when you take a job you should know the responsibilities of that job prior to accepting a position. if you disagree with that, then the fault lies only with yourself.
Yes, it can apply to any drug. IF IT WILL DO HARM. The rule doesn't change. The government rule came after the job started, so that fails. Also, with your POV, the nonCatholics should just quit instead of demanding birth control. Now who has to apply a rule evenly?
i partially agree with you. if you choose a job knowing that parts of your job could interfere with your personal morality, then you should not have chosen that profession. this would be akin to a religious conservative becoming on OB/GYN but refusing to perform a late term abortion because the mother is in serious risk of dying. the patient suffers in the end. the same could be true for many other religions.does this mean that this rule can apply to all drugs, not just the morning after pill? lets means test this real quick and take the birth control issue out of it.
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of antibiotics?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of pain killers?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of heart medication?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of cancer pill?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of prenatal vitamins?
where does the moral objection stop? this is a slipper slope that pharmacists are walking, but it should also not be there decision to judge someone elses morality. if they have a conflict with the job in which they hold, they are free to change employers. but when you take a job you should know the responsibilities of that job prior to accepting a position. if you disagree with that, then the fault lies only with yourself.
I do agree with you.
In this case, the pharmacists has been employed in the field and now the requirements of the field have changed. Should a person who is say two years away from retirement have to leave his life long career choice because the government now demands he fill perscriptions that he believes kill a human being? I don't think so.
As to your other questions, the way I see it is that if the owner of a pharmacy does not want to carry pain killers for whatever ridiculous reason, he would have every right not to do so. His clientele would also have every right to seek a business that more closely serves their needs.
If the pharmacist is an employee of the pharmacy and refuses to fill pain killer perscriptions then it is his bosses right to decide whether or not he will remain employed.
Immie
this has nothing to do with the business owner. if it is the business owner who is deciding not to provide a product, the response could be we do not carry that product here i am sorry. this is vastly different from i refuse to give you the product that i have already chosen to carry.so you in essence are advocating for a pharmacist to be able to control the distribution of all drugs based on their own personal morality? even if a doctor has specified it? that makes no sense at all. how is that keeping with the freedom of the right of a individual to choose?Yes, it can apply to any drug. IF IT WILL DO HARM. The rule doesn't change. The government rule came after the job started, so that fails. Also, with your POV, the nonCatholics should just quit instead of demanding birth control. Now who has to apply a rule evenly?
Let me ask you this. Are you advocating telling a business owner what products he must carry? It seems to me that what you are saying is that the owner of a Chinese Food Restaurant must also offer hot dogs because some of his customers might want to eat hot dogs.
Does Jerry Jones have to sell Washington Redskins memorabilia in his stadium?
Should the owners of the Texas Rangers have a claim against Jerry Jones, because when he built his stadium it was not designed as a baseball field and they want to move into his stadium?
Where do we get off dictating to business owners what products they will sell and for that matter who they will employ?
Immie
this has nothing to do with the business owner. if it is the business owner who is deciding not to provide a product, the response could be we do not carry that product here i am sorry. this is vastly different from i refuse to give you the product that i have already chosen to carry.so you in essence are advocating for a pharmacist to be able to control the distribution of all drugs based on their own personal morality? even if a doctor has specified it? that makes no sense at all. how is that keeping with the freedom of the right of a individual to choose?
Let me ask you this. Are you advocating telling a business owner what products he must carry? It seems to me that what you are saying is that the owner of a Chinese Food Restaurant must also offer hot dogs because some of his customers might want to eat hot dogs.
Does Jerry Jones have to sell Washington Redskins memorabilia in his stadium?
Should the owners of the Texas Rangers have a claim against Jerry Jones, because when he built his stadium it was not designed as a baseball field and they want to move into his stadium?
Where do we get off dictating to business owners what products they will sell and for that matter who they will employ?
Immie
i partially agree with you. if you choose a job knowing that parts of your job could interfere with your personal morality, then you should not have chosen that profession. this would be akin to a religious conservative becoming on OB/GYN but refusing to perform a late term abortion because the mother is in serious risk of dying. the patient suffers in the end. the same could be true for many other religions.does this mean that this rule can apply to all drugs, not just the morning after pill? lets means test this real quick and take the birth control issue out of it.
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of antibiotics?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of pain killers?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of heart medication?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of cancer pill?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of prenatal vitamins?
where does the moral objection stop? this is a slipper slope that pharmacists are walking, but it should also not be there decision to judge someone elses morality. if they have a conflict with the job in which they hold, they are free to change employers. but when you take a job you should know the responsibilities of that job prior to accepting a position. if you disagree with that, then the fault lies only with yourself.
I do agree with you.
In this case, the pharmacists has been employed in the field and now the requirements of the field have changed. Should a person who is say two years away from retirement have to leave his life long career choice because the government now demands he fill perscriptions that he believes kill a human being? I don't think so.
As to your other questions, the way I see it is that if the owner of a pharmacy does not want to carry pain killers for whatever ridiculous reason, he would have every right not to do so. His clientele would also have every right to seek a business that more closely serves their needs.
If the pharmacist is an employee of the pharmacy and refuses to fill pain killer perscriptions then it is his bosses right to decide whether or not he will remain employed.
Immie
lets look at this from a different point of view. i have a personal objection to elderly drivers since they cause a lot of death (same argument could be used for teenage drivers as well). lets say i work at the DMV and an 80 year man comes in. he has had no accidents or tickets in 20 years. he has perfect eye sight, and is in great physical shape. but my morality tells me that those people shouldnt drive. so i deny the extension of his license. how is this any different that a pharmacist acting as the gate keeper?
i partially agree with you. if you choose a job knowing that parts of your job could interfere with your personal morality, then you should not have chosen that profession. this would be akin to a religious conservative becoming on OB/GYN but refusing to perform a late term abortion because the mother is in serious risk of dying. the patient suffers in the end. the same could be true for many other religions.does this mean that this rule can apply to all drugs, not just the morning after pill? lets means test this real quick and take the birth control issue out of it.
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of antibiotics?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of pain killers?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of heart medication?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of cancer pill?
- is it ok to refuse to fill a prescription of prenatal vitamins?
where does the moral objection stop? this is a slipper slope that pharmacists are walking, but it should also not be there decision to judge someone elses morality. if they have a conflict with the job in which they hold, they are free to change employers. but when you take a job you should know the responsibilities of that job prior to accepting a position. if you disagree with that, then the fault lies only with yourself.
I do agree with you.
In this case, the pharmacists has been employed in the field and now the requirements of the field have changed. Should a person who is say two years away from retirement have to leave his life long career choice because the government now demands he fill perscriptions that he believes kill a human being? I don't think so.
As to your other questions, the way I see it is that if the owner of a pharmacy does not want to carry pain killers for whatever ridiculous reason, he would have every right not to do so. His clientele would also have every right to seek a business that more closely serves their needs.
If the pharmacist is an employee of the pharmacy and refuses to fill pain killer perscriptions then it is his bosses right to decide whether or not he will remain employed.
Immie
lets look at this from a different point of view. i have a personal objection to elderly drivers since they cause a lot of death (same argument could be used for teenage drivers as well). lets say i work at the DMV and an 80 year man comes in. he has had no accidents or tickets in 20 years. he has perfect eye sight, and is in great physical shape. but my morality tells me that those people shouldnt drive. so i deny the extension of his license. how is this any different that a pharmacist acting as the gate keeper?
no they don't. They have a job to do. Which has been shown over and over again when people have done this. The end result is they are fired.
Don't want to deal out medicine? don't go into that field of work.
If the owner of the pharmacy wants them to dispense Plan B and they refuse, then the owner has the right to not employ them if he/she so chooses. Unfortunately, it seems you would also remove that right from the owner of the pharmacy.
Didn't you make the claim earlier today that you were for personal liberties? You sure do a shitty job of defending personal liberties.
Immie
on the abortion front, i used the example of a mother's life being at risk because of the child. not your typical "i want to have an abortion." if an OB/GYN is part of that mothers care, she her personal morality rule over what is best for her patient? why should the patient not be the one to choose? i am simply showing the conflict that can arise in other situations should people be able to make decisions for other people.i partially agree with you. if you choose a job knowing that parts of your job could interfere with your personal morality, then you should not have chosen that profession. this would be akin to a religious conservative becoming on OB/GYN but refusing to perform a late term abortion because the mother is in serious risk of dying. the patient suffers in the end. the same could be true for many other religions.I do agree with you.
In this case, the pharmacists has been employed in the field and now the requirements of the field have changed. Should a person who is say two years away from retirement have to leave his life long career choice because the government now demands he fill perscriptions that he believes kill a human being? I don't think so.
As to your other questions, the way I see it is that if the owner of a pharmacy does not want to carry pain killers for whatever ridiculous reason, he would have every right not to do so. His clientele would also have every right to seek a business that more closely serves their needs.
If the pharmacist is an employee of the pharmacy and refuses to fill pain killer perscriptions then it is his bosses right to decide whether or not he will remain employed.
Immie
lets look at this from a different point of view. i have a personal objection to elderly drivers since they cause a lot of death (same argument could be used for teenage drivers as well). lets say i work at the DMV and an 80 year man comes in. he has had no accidents or tickets in 20 years. he has perfect eye sight, and is in great physical shape. but my morality tells me that those people shouldnt drive. so i deny the extension of his license. how is this any different that a pharmacist acting as the gate keeper?
Point one: not all OB/GYN's perform abortions. In fact, without doing the research, I am fairly certain the percentage of OB/GYN's who do perform abortions is extremely small. Planned Parenthood or Alan Guttmacher might have those numbers somewhere. Now, if President Obama signed an executive order tomorrow stating that all OB/GYN's must perform a minimum of 10 abortions a year would you then tell all practicing OB's that they must either perform those abortions or find another line of work?
Point two: it is sad to say, that you as an employee of the DMV would, I presume not knowing what the DMV requirements are, have the right to deny that person the extension of his license. I also would assume that the driver, your customer, would have both the right to appeal your decision AND the right to complain to your employer. If he chooses to complain and your action or a compilation of this and earlier actions are aggrevious enough, then the manager at the DMV would have every right to terminate you from your employment... oh wait! There is one small complication there and that is that as a government employee you would be a member of the union and they would probably demand you be given a commendation and a raise... go figure. Is that why government employees are held in such low esteem by others?
Immie
