 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / November 2004DRUGGISTS REFUSE TO GIVE OUT PILL
Druggists refuse to give out pill http://tinyurl.com/69yz4 Or, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102 x972424 Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti >Druggists refuse to give out pill > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >http://www.mantra.com/jai >Om Shanti Should these pharmacists be compelled under law to fill prescriptions? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger "Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant Joseph R. Darancette res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net >>Druggists refuse to give out pill >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Should these pharmacists be compelled under law to fill prescriptions? No. They should be fired for not doing their job. L. >>>Druggists refuse to give out pill >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >No. They should be fired for not doing their job. You are assuming that these folks work for an organization that agrees with you. Many pharmacists own their own business. Again the question. Should these pharmacists be compelled under law to fill prescriptions? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger "Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant Joseph R. Darancette res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net >You are assuming that these folks work for an organization that agrees >with you. Many pharmacists own their own business. > >Again the question. > >Should these pharmacists be compelled under law to fill prescriptions? Yes. > >You are assuming that these folks work for an organization that agrees > >with you. Many pharmacists own their own business. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes. Then I guess people should be compelled by law to offer pork products for meals. Michael > Then I guess people should be compelled by law to offer pork products for meals. It seems you don't understand the difference between selling hotdogs and providing medical care. >>>Druggists refuse to give out pill >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > L. Then you must also believe conscientious objectors should be imprisoned for refusing to fight in the nations wars, right? Don Swayser <swayser@optonline.net> wrote in news:4198681F.9030207 @optonline.net: >>>>Druggists refuse to give out pill >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Then you must also believe conscientious objectors should be imprisoned > for refusing to fight in the nations wars, right? Being a CO is not a "job" that one is hired and paid for. A pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions, not make a moral or religious judgement on those prescriptions. If he won't do his job, he/she should be fired. If he/she owns their own pharmacy then obviously patrons will have to go elsewhere, which can be a real hardship for poorer people who cannot travel to other pharmacies. I suspect we'll see more of this stuff over the next four years as the administration tries to impose their moral and religious beliefs on people here and around the world (mostly through restriction and denial of service). L. > >>Druggists refuse to give out pill > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > L. Sorry bozo, but pharmacists are businessmen and they can serve who they want so long as they don't violate the law. hball >Sorry bozo, but pharmacists are businessmen and they can serve who >they want so long as they don't violate the law. You sure about that? Unless you've read the laws and regulations for all 50 states, I'd say you have no idea if that's true or not. Pharmacists aren't selling hotdogs on the corner, you know. They're licensed medical professionals, which means that each state specifies what they can, can't, and must do. >> >>Druggists refuse to give out pill >> >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > hball (Bozo?) Hopefully, someday, you'll find yourself at a pharmacy to fill an important prescription and the pharmacist will tell you that for personal resons he can't fill it. You idiot troll. L. > >> >>Druggists refuse to give out pill > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > L. Why would pharmacists stock drugs they would not give unto others? Michael > >> >>Druggists refuse to give out pill > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > L. Gee, I hope it's when I go to get a refill on my birth control pills, ROFL. You seem to think that we have a right to anything we want . . . well buddy, you would be wrong. hball > >Druggists refuse to give out pill > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Should these pharmacists be compelled under law to fill prescriptions? No. Michael >> >Druggists refuse to give out pill >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Should these pharmacists be compelled under law to fill prescriptions? > No. That's my only problem with this. BTW I do think that this druggists are being pricks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger "Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant Joseph R. Darancette res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net > >Druggists refuse to give out pill > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Should these pharmacists be compelled under law to fill prescriptions? No. Michael Here we go, an idiot liberal demanding that a person be required to violate their conscience. > Druggists refuse to give out pill > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://www.mantra.com/jai > Om Shanti >Here we go, an idiot liberal demanding that a person be required to >violate their conscience. If your conscience can't handle the job, don't take it. All sorts of careers require you to put your own opinions aside and do the job you're being paid to do. What makes pharmacists so special? >> Here we go, an idiot liberal demanding that a person be required to >> violate their conscience. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > do the job you're being paid to do. What makes pharmacists so > special? Performing therapeutic abortions is part of a doctor's job. Does the fact that he refuses to perform unrestricted abortions on conscientious principals mean he shouldn't take a job as a physician? >Performing therapeutic abortions is part of a doctor's job. Does the >fact that he refuses to perform unrestricted abortions on conscientious >principals mean he shouldn't take a job as a physician? In a word, yes. If the procedure is legal and accepted medical practice, and he is qualified to perform the procedure, then I think refusal is dereliction. Must be nice to be able to wave a lofty hand, unilaterally ignore the law of the land, and still keep one's job. The rest of us have no such choice. >Must be nice to be able to wave a lofty hand, unilaterally ignore the law of >the land, and still keep one's job. The rest of us have no such choice. There is no law of the land that says one has to perform abortions, only that you can't stop those who want to do so (with some restrictions as to who can do them and under what conditions). Catholic hospitals, for instance, have never been forced to provide abortion services. -------------------------------------------------------- "Writers even write the silences" -J. Michael Straczynski >>Must be nice to be able to wave a lofty hand, unilaterally ignore the law of >>the land, and still keep one's job. The rest of us have no such choice. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Catholic hospitals, for instance, have never been forced to provide >abortion services. I didn't mean to imply the law _requires_ them to perform abortions, only that it's a legal procedure. I can't refuse to provide legal medical procedures just because I happen to object to them as a matter of conscience, so I fail to see why a pharmacist should have that option. Basically, he's overruling the pt's physician when he does that, especially if it's a rural area where there may not be other pharmacists. >I didn't mean to imply the law _requires_ them to perform abortions, only >that it's a legal procedure. I can't refuse to provide legal medical >procedures just because I happen to object to them as a matter of >conscience, so I fail to see why a pharmacist should have that option. Of course you can. You, personally, may have some extra limits put on by the nature of your work (emergency medicine), although none come to mind, but there is nothing that says you have to perform procedures. >Basically, he's overruling the pt's physician when he does that, especially >if it's a rural area where there may not be other pharmacists. No, he isn't saying she can't get the medication at all, which would be overruling the doc. Just that she can't get them from him. BTW: You responded in another part of the thread that the law you were citing was Roe V Wade. This isn't a law but a court decision and, especially important in this context, it only limited the actions of the STATES, not the individuals. -------------------------------------------------------- "Writers even write the silences" -J. Michael Straczynski > Of course you can. You, personally, may have some extra limits put >on by the nature of your work (emergency medicine), although none >come to mind, but there is nothing that says you have to perform >procedures. It's a choice between doing the job and being fired. If I take the job and refuse to do the *entire* job, negligence suits and disciplinary actions by the state could also result. Everyone always has the choice not to take a job they object to, including pharmacists, but everyone does *not* have the option to pick and choose which parts they'll do. >>Basically, he's overruling the pt's physician when he does that, especially >>if it's a rural area where there may not be other pharmacists. >> > No, he isn't saying she can't get the medication at all, which >would be overruling the doc. Just that she can't get them from him. And if he's the only pharmacist for 100 miles? Or the only one open? Or the only one who carries the drug? > BTW: You responded in another part of the thread that the law you >were citing was Roe V Wade. This isn't a law but a court decision >and, especially important in this context, it only limited the >actions of the STATES, not the individuals. Kurt, cut me some slack here. Of course I know it's a court decision. Nevertheless, court decisions quite often constitute "the law" every bit as much as legislation does, and this would be one such case. Roe v. Wade made abortion a legal medical procedure in the US, and that's really all a pharmacist needs to know. If a doctor prescribes a legal drug, I don't think pharmacists should have the option of refusing to fill it based on their personal moral views. That's particularly true when you consider that they don't usually even know the reason or purpose for the prescription; and even if they do, they lack the medical training to second guess those reasons. To do so is to overrule the patient's physician. I think the term for that is practicing medicine without a license. >> Of course you can. You, personally, may have some extra limits put >>on by the nature of your work (emergency medicine), although none [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >refuse to do the *entire* job, negligence suits and disciplinary actions by >the state could also result. Related to the emergency nature with extra responsibilities attached thereto. Hardly the same as a pharmacist in this case. >Everyone always has the choice not to take a job they object to, including >pharmacists, but everyone does *not* have the option to pick and choose >which parts they'll do. Unless told different by the empployer in this case, yes he does. I would have no problem with the employer tossing his butt out the door for that reason. But there is no state-mandated requirement. Having said that, I am even less enthralled with the idea of state-mandated protections. If anything, it would seem to violate the EMPLOYER's free association if not free speech rights to not be able to can someone. >And if he's the only pharmacist for 100 miles? Or the only one open? Or >the only one who carries the drug? Or the only left handed one? The last two are so unlikely as to be laughable, especially since the pill involved is not THAT time sensitive. As for the other one, then he may have a moral (as seen by me and you) but no legal responsibility and thus shouldn't lose his license, etc. over it. >> BTW: You responded in another part of the thread that the law you >>were citing was Roe V Wade. This isn't a law but a court decision >>and, especially important in this context, it only limited the >>actions of the STATES, not the individuals. > >Kurt, cut me some slack here. Of course I know it's a court decision. I couldn't resist, sorry. Although the REAL point was that RvW put limits on what the State could do and not what individuals or non governmental entities HAD to do. >Nevertheless, court decisions quite often constitute "the law" every bit as >much as legislation does, and this would be one such case. Roe v. Wade made >abortion a legal medical procedure in the US, and that's really all a >pharmacist needs to know. But it also only discussed what the state COULD do in regulationg and had no impact on what an individual should be forced to do against his/her will. >If a doctor prescribes a legal drug, I don't think pharmacists should have >the option of refusing to fill it based on their personal moral views. That is another kettle of fish entirely. I don't think it is the place of the state to say someone has to go against their moral views merely because they are licensed by the aforementioned state. If the employer wants to can his behind for the above, that is certainly within the right of the employer (sans contractural obligations to the contrary), as I mentioned earlier. -------------------------------------------------------- "Writers even write the silences" -J. Michael Straczynski >>If a doctor prescribes a legal drug, I don't think pharmacists should have >>the option of refusing to fill it based on their personal moral views. > > That is another kettle of fish entirely. Is it? What if a doctor orders a blood transfusion and I'm a Jehova's Witness? Hell, what if I'm a Christian Scientist and the doctor orders anything other than prayer? > I don't think it is the place of the state to say someone >has to go against their moral views merely because they are licensed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(sans contractural obligations to the contrary), as I mentioned >earlier. Then you believe I should be able to ignore resuscitation protocols and impose my beliefs, with the only penalty being loss of my job. Right? >>>If a doctor prescribes a legal drug, I don't think pharmacists should have >>>the option of refusing to fill it based on their personal moral views. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Witness? Hell, what if I'm a Christian Scientist and the doctor orders >anything other than prayer? One is active against YOUR wishes and thus, by legal definition, becomes assault at best. The other is passive and isn;t unduly intrusive into your (or better stated the patient's) beliefs. If anything, it is unduly intrusive into the pharm's beliefs. >Then you believe I should be able to ignore resuscitation protocols and >impose my beliefs, with the only penalty being loss of my job. Right? How many times do I have to mention that emergency medicine is different from pharmacist because of the immediate health and safety issues (I think I am up to about 4 by now-grin). I also find it real hard to believe that anyone with such beliefs would go into the biz, whereas pharms do a whole lot more than just give out contraceptives so they might still be drawn to the field. -------------------------------------------------------- "Writers even write the silences" -J. Michael Straczynski >>Is it? What if a doctor orders a blood transfusion and I'm a Jehova's >>Witness? Hell, what if I'm a Christian Scientist and the doctor orders [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >intrusive into your (or better stated the patient's) beliefs. If >anything, it is unduly intrusive into the pharm's beliefs. Maybe I wasn't clear. Clearly the pt is free to refuse any and all treatments. I meant what if, say, I'm a JW nurse and a doctor orders blood for my patient. Should I be able to refuse that order because I don't believe in blood transfusions? > How many times do I have to mention that emergency medicine is >different from pharmacist because of the immediate health and safety >issues (I think I am up to about 4 by now-grin). I also find it >real hard to believe that anyone with such beliefs would go into the >biz, whereas pharms do a whole lot more than just give out >contraceptives so they might still be drawn to the field. Well, I'm not so sure pharmacists never get involved in immediate health and safety issues. Not all of them operate drug stores, you know. Be that as it may, what does it matter why someone went into the business? The job is providing medical care to *other* people. Whether I'm a pharmacist, a paramedic, an x-ray tech, or whatever, the *patient* remains in charge of their own moral and ethical choices. When providers start imposing their own morals on them, I think you've headed down a slippery slope indeed. >Maybe I wasn't clear. Clearly the pt is free to refuse any and all >treatments. I meant what if, say, I'm a JW nurse and a doctor orders blood >for my patient. Should I be able to refuse that order because I don't >believe in blood transfusions? Probably not. In the hospital's clinical setting, a nurse's failure to comply with the standard of care by providing services validly ordered, clinically indicated, permissible by hospital policy, and within the scope of the nurse's training and experience may subject the nurse to professional discipline, various civil and/or criminal penalties, and likely job loss. Duty details and penalties will vary by jurisdiction and claim. However, as this is not the setting originally in question, the answer becomes less clear cut. You're comparing apples to oranges, which may make even a well-reasoned argument invalid. Still, I'd love to hear a well-reasoned argument either way. @~ > BTW: You responded in another part of the thread that the law you >were citing was Roe V Wade. This isn't a law but a court decision >and, especially important in this context, it only limited the >actions of the STATES, not the individuals. Actually, Roe v. Wade is law. It's an example of what's commonly called "case law," which is not statutory but is law nonetheless. The Supremes in Roe struck down a state abortion statute that they found offensive to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, they created a law established by judicial decision. In other respects, you're right. Roe restricts states' authority to something less than absolute in respect to the People's fundamental rights, even the implicit ones. This ruling limits the prohibitions imposed by states rather than imposing any duties on the individual. What's this mean to us? States have cooled their jets in trying to legislate absolute prohibitions against elective abortion - for now. @~ >Must be nice to be able to wave a lofty hand, unilaterally ignore the law of >the land, and still keep one's job. The rest of us have no such choice. To which law are you referring? @~ > >> Here we go, an idiot liberal demanding that a person be required to > >> violate their conscience. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >fact that he refuses to perform unrestricted abortions on conscientious >principals mean he shouldn't take a job as a physician? Not in an abortion clinic, no. >All sorts of careers require you to put your own opinions aside and do the >job you're being paid to do. What makes pharmacists so special? Are pharmacists who reserve discretion to refuse to dispense any medications prescribed by a physician acting within the ethical guidance of their profession or the practice licensed of the State? Professional careers generally require their practitioners to be subject to regulatory review in light of the accepted scope and application of professional practice. Still, few professional careers require their practitioners to permanently set aside sound judgment in practice of their craft - assuming any do. However, those who deviate from the regulation of a profession are generally subject to censure or removal from the profession's ranks - whether you're talking about a defrocked priest, a disbarred lawyer, or an unlicensed physician. Additionally and aside from this, they may be subject to some civil or criminal penalties, depending upon the infraction and their governing jurisdiction's view of such wrongdoing. Professionals may do more than a job for hire, and to the degree pharmacists are professionals, this is what makes them special. And, to the degree they are recognized to possess some special expertise in a worthy craft, they may be licensed to exercise special judgment in particular circumstances. @~ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.