Druggists refuse to give out pill

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 9, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    i believe the tenor of the country, and its "newfound morality", gives power to pharmacists who choose to apply their personal beliefs to their jobs. should they be able to?
     
  2. brap macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #2
    Hell no.

    When I worked for the NHS nursing bank, we had to fill requests for nurses to go to abortion clinics; it's the principle of the thing. It's not your decision to make - the moral implications are nothing to do with you, as an intermediary. Who knows what kind of circumstances have led to this person wanting the 'morning after' pill, hm?
    If you can't stand the heat. We had Jehova's Witnesses who refused to work with blood on our books. Makes you wonder just where these people get off. The 'non-obstruciton' argument doesn't stand up, either; suppose through missing a pill an unwanted pregnancy, and thus conventional abortion takes place?

    Sorry, not usually one to vent in Political, but this came up several times over the last year and it's sickening, from my dirty-liberal point of view.
     
  3. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #3
    Well, I never knew the word "Druggist" existed before today.

    I wonder how long this religious ferver will last. What gets me is that businesses complain any kind of regulation and this is regulation of the most inane. If you are unwilling to fulfill the the requirements of the job, don't do it.

    I would like to see where in the Bible it states that you shall not fill birth control prescriptions. You won't take birth control, fine, don't worry about others, respect thy neighbor and stuff.

    All of this fundamentalist posturing is going to garner a reaction eventually, especially when it starts affecting people as they go about their normal day to day lives.
     
  4. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    for the record, i disagree w/ the pharmacists who feel they can pick and choose which prescriptions to fill.

    but let me pose these questions: should a waiter / waitress be empowered to not serve a drink to a pregnant woman? can the convenience store clerk refuse to sell cigarettes to a pregnant woman when s/he knows they're for the woman requesting them?
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    Once again, no. The real story here is the number of state legislatures which are apparently willing to pass laws to protect pharmacists who think they know what is best for everyone.
     
  6. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #6
    Oh yeah, I shouldn't forget the kooky legislature who made this law with obvious concerns for everybodies needs.

    See, see why we have seperation of church and state??? Well, you will when it applies to you.
     
  7. brap macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #7
    There are fundamental differences between refusing to fulfil a prescription, given out by someone very well qualified indeed for the purpose of fixing a problem... and refusing to give out 'harmful' substances on some presumably ill-informed judgement. Nice try though ;)

    In my opinion, nobody has any right to stop you from doing whatever the hell you want, harmful (in reality, or in perception - the eye of the beholder, so to speak). Isn't freedom of choice, you know, alleged to be a pillar of your society?
     
  8. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #8
    I guess I am safe though if I came in with a script for OxyContin.

    Strange how lines are drawn sometimes.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    I guess they don't see things logically.

    Refusing to dispense birth control precriptions, especially morning-after types (which are NOT abortion pills) will result in increased abortions, unwanted pregnancy and single-mother families.

    What a bunch of dumb****s. The sweet irony is probably lost on them.
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    Meanwhile...
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-suicide10nov10,1,622331.story

    Do we detect a pattern here?
     
  11. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    So, do you think this topic would have had more posts in it if we weren't pretty much all men?
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    I think this topic would have generated more posts if anyone could have offered a rational explanation for why states are passing laws allowing pharmacists to impose their religious beliefs on their customers.
     
  13. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    Yeah, threads on things will all pretty much agree on tend to die a quick death.


    Lethal
     
  14. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #14
    That and the fact that it is hard to effect any change from where I am. From CA, what I am going to do, other than state the obvious, this is a bad move.

    I disagree with what was done and agree with the purpose of the post, but simply protesting on a message board is a token action. Liberals need to put differences aside and form a cohesive unit that can actually benefit people. Constructive criticism maybe, simple protest is not going to do much, no matter how much I may agree.
     
  15. Roger1 macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #15
    This is stupid. Some forms of birth control pills are used to treat menstrual problems, not just used for birth control. How's the pharmacist supposed to know what they are used for? Unless the patient reveals their medical history to (yet) another person, in order to get their prescription filled :rolleyes:
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    Good point. Wait until one of them get his/her righteous ass sued off for endangering the life of some poor woman with dysmenorrhea. I rather hope they're thrown in jail and brought up on criminal charges for it though.

    Oh, wait, thanks to Bush, their wilful and deliberate malice will simply be treated like an accident and at worst cost them $250k out of insurance.
     
  17. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #17
    While I understand the reason the pharms were feeling this way, I was a little taken aback that they could do it.

    Zim's point was the thinking I came up with to justify it.

    Also, if you are a prison guard, and it is your turn to throw the switch on death row, do you have to go. No because they use volunteers for that. But to some (those that refuse to fill the presc, this is identical).

    There are usually routines in place for this, like the other guy/gal will fill it or the other store (can be inconvienant).
     
  18. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #18
    Stu, the problem with your death row analogy is that the selection occurs before the event and for a known circumstance (throwing the switch). Arangments for those who object to throwing the switch can be made beforehand. For each individual person coming in to fill, what particular prescription they will require is not known.

    Prescription filling and executions are not analogous and certainly not "identical" situations. It is always dangerous to reason by analogy. Instead of trying to come up with one, why not try to get to the heart of the question: does any individual have the right to use their job providing a service to the general public to impose their personal beliefs on particular members of that public?
     
  19. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #19
    A guard is paid with tax dollars to provide a service to the public, yet guards are not required to throw the switch, why, because it is against what many believe. Should all guards, paid with tax money, be required to throw the switch-a service to the general public?
    Personnaly I am against the dealth penalty, and would not want to require them to.

    Prescrition filling for the "morning after pill" is for some perfectly analagous. Whether in this country or another.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    Your analogy is far from perfect, and is an attempt to evade the real issue, which is that a pharmacist has no right to decide what drugs a person should or should not be taking. This is matter to be decided between a doctor and a patient, exclusively. I would go as far as to say that any pharmacist who has a problem dispensing any legal drug should find another line of work.
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    Especially when nothing -- NOTHING -- is ever killed by any contraceptives currently sold in the US.
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    The issue boils down to this: some people think women should be punished for having sex for pleasure.

    Some people think their punishment should be that they're made to conceive and bear children because of this beleif.

    Some of these people are pharmacists.
     
  23. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    You've actually made my point. These situations are "for some perfectly analogous," meaning that _for others_, and perhaps even the vast majority of others, they are not analogous at all. This is the problem with reasoning (and arguing) by analogy: different people see different aspects of the question and different connections to other issues. While these situations are analogous _to you_ in terms of the particular moral question you prioritize, they are objectively quite different. As IJ Reilly points out, the real question is whether or not a pharmacist has the right to decide what drugs a person should or should not be taking? How would you approach that issue directly?
     
  24. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #24
    Like the guard, I don't mind the druggest thang if there is one important factor--there must be a backup procedure.

    That one pharm should not have been allowed to tear up the presc, there is always a line somewhere, he/she went over it.

    Generically (pun intended) I have no problem with the individual not filling it, if there is a procedure in place for it to get filled.
     
  25. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #25
    This is a stupid tactic on the part of the pro-life druggists; the pro-choice people can say "see--they're not just fighting against abortion, they want to take our birth control away, too"--as was done in this article. It's counterproductive to their cause because it will turn public opinion against them. So I for one hope they keep doing it ;)
     

Share This Page