| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"RU 486" |
| Date: |
09 Nov 2004 05:56:58 PM |
| Object: |
Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
Druggists refuse to give out pill
By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY
For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a
Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one
day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription
because she did not believe in birth control.
"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her
prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills.
"Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to
fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."
Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to
fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to
Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.
Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July
that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not
participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South
Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right
to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar
bills this year.
The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a
policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they
object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient
can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the
prescription to another druggist to fill.
In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by
the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's
prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give
the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious
views.
Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such
actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that
would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if
they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for
abortions.
"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just
the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth
control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America.
"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number
of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that
prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing,"
she said.
Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such
drugs as the "morning-after" pill, which is emergency contraception
that can prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of
unprotected intercourse.
While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth
control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see
hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as
capable of causing an abortion.
"I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop
human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member
Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she
refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in
the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.
Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the
Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March.
In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in
Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a
rape victim.
In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to
refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another
pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her
prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she
missed a pill because of the delay.
She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of
2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's
Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen
didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in
October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's
pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely.
Susan Winckler, spokeswoman and staff counsel for the American
Pharmacists Association, says it is rare that pharmacists refuse to
fill a prescription for moral reasons. She says it is even less common
for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a referral.
"The reality is every one of those instances is one too many,"
Winckler says. "Our policy supports stepping away but not
obstructing."
In the 1970s, because of abortion and sterilization, some states
adopted refusal clauses to allow certain health care professionals to
opt out of providing those services. The issue re-emerged in the
1990s, says Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which
researches reproductive issues.
Sonfield says medical workers, insurers and employers increasingly
want the right to refuse certain services because of medical
developments, such as the "morning-after" pill, embryonic stem-cell
research and assisted suicide.
"The more health care items you have that people feel are
controversial, some people are going to object and want to opt out of
being a part of that," he says.
In Wisconsin, a petition drive is underway to revive a proposed law
that would protect pharmacists who refuse to prescribe drugs they
believe could cause an abortion or be used for assisted suicide.
"It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose
between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of
Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to
abortion."
.
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
12 Nov 2004 01:46:28 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Joann Evans" <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:419418AF.6ABD06BD@frontiernet.net...
Robibnikoff wrote:
What I had read was that some pharmacists were refusing to give back the
prescriptions, thus requiring the women to either return to their doctors
to
get a new one written up or have their doctor call it in to another
pharmacy. In my book, that's worse then out-and-out refusing to fill it.
And, I woud think, constitutes theft. Maybe even abuse of medical
records, but I'm less sure there...
Reaching for straws?
No. Theft of a prescription is a genuine crime.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
11 Nov 2004 12:25:48 AM |
|
|
In Message-ID:<san4p0piv7cbsjvosii0ic1f7vhi38fh5k@4ax.com>
posted on Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:27:52 -0700, rhoda penmark
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:13:31 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2004 09:31:37 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
Remaining employed is not a Constitutional Right. Nor is re-writing
the terms of employment.
It's entirely possible that the "terms of employment" may
include a provision for religious observation, and that's what's being
claimed in this case. I'm actually more or less with Johnny here; if a
pharmacist doesn't want to fill a prescription, that's his business. If
his employer wants to punish him for being an a**hole, that's their
business. If not, the employer takes the hit and the customer takes her
business elsewhere. It's the American way.
Unfortunately in a lot of places he can't.
In a free market, religious descrimination is a negative market
signal. Discrimination is expensive.
Elf
And that's a lovely theory, but the pharmacists in question refuse to
release the prescriptions so the women can have them filled somewhere
else. That is interfering with medical treatment, and it most
certainly is grounds for a whopping tort against both the pharmacist
personally and the pharmacy stupid enough to give him or her a
paycheck.
Yes, a civil suit is always possible, but the difficulty is
that the average person is probably going to lose even
against his or her local pharmacist.
At the very least they will have a lot of insurance against
any form of "malpractice", and their insurance company will
have far more legal talent available than a mere consumer
can possibly afford.
The step up from this is that they belong to an "association
of independent pharmacists" or something like this which
gives them much more power. Lots of lawyers on the staff,
far more than the customer can afford to fight.
Next step up is that they are mere employees, hired by a
national chain with even more power. Battalions of staff
lawyers!
Regards,
"nilkids"
[posting in alt.support.childfree]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 12:39:15 PM |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2004 09:31:37 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <87sm7hbog6.fsf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
Remaining employed is not a Constitutional Right. Nor is re-writing
the terms of employment.
It's entirely possible that the "terms of employment" may
include a provision for religious observation, and that's what's being
claimed in this case.
I wonder if that policy is prominently posted for the customers.
I'm actually more or less with Johnny here; if a
pharmacist doesn't want to fill a prescription, that's his business.
If a fireman does not want to put out the fire at your house that is
his business.
If
his employer wants to punish him for being an a**hole, that's their
business. If not, the employer takes the hit and the customer takes her
business elsewhere. It's the American way.
In a free market, religious descrimination is a negative market
signal. Discrimination is expensive.
Apparently discrimination by christians against people who do not
follow there religion is considered by some to be acceptable.
It is not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 05:26:29 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
If a fireman does not want to put out the fire at your house that is
his business.
Most firemen are hired by governments and are obliged as a
matter of their employement to put out any fire within the territory
under that government's administration.
On the other hand, if you live in a place where fire services
are provided by private contractors, and you don't buy a contract, yeah,
if your house is on fire it's now *your* problem, not theirs.
Apparently discrimination by christians against people who do not
follow there religion is considered by some to be acceptable.
Have *you* got the wrong guy.
But yes, I consider "discrimination" by private interests an
acceptable consequence of a free and open society. We discriminate
against criminals all the time, and that costs money, but we perceive
the benefits to doing so to be worth the cost. Some people perceive
similar benefits discriminating against others for arbitrary reasons,
and are sometimes willing to pay, in both material and local-social
costs, for the right to do so. Why is it acceptable to discriminate
against *them*?
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
09 Nov 2004 07:46:44 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on "their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have his
***** sued off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GascoyneD" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
09 Nov 2004 08:42:08 PM |
|
|
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on "their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 09:18:54 AM |
|
|
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 09:32:47 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on "their"
moral beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
....unless, of course, you demand it for your pet causes.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 01:02:40 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Fiqkd.3054$IQ.2864@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
But denying someone medication when, for example getting pregnant could kill
them, does have a place?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 08:26:17 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
But denying someone medication when, for example getting pregnant could kill
them, does have a place?
In victorian era USA, you're not supposed to have sex unless you intend to
have a child.
No sex = no need for contraceptive or abortion.
Coming soon, when the new Ashkroft gets settled into his bosses job, all
americans will be issued chastity belts with the government holding the keys.
You'll need a permit from the goevrnment to have sex. Keys to be released only
to couples with religious marriages and for periods not exceeding 5 days at a
time, with proof that those 5 days match fertility period of the wife.
All couples will be obligated to have at least 1.7 children.
The white house is confident that the large pharmaceutical firms will increase
their profits despite the loss of revenus due to the Pill no longer be allowed
in the USA. This is because from now on, both men and women will take pills to
curb their sexual urges.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omixochitl" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 10:43:01 PM |
|
|
nobody <nobody@nobody.org> wrote in news:4192CDB7.A6D8DD1@nobody.org:
kathryn wrote:
But denying someone medication when, for example getting pregnant
could kill them, does have a place?
In victorian era USA, you're not supposed to have sex unless you
intend to have a child.
No sex = no need for contraceptive or abortion.
Coming soon, when the new Ashkroft gets settled into his bosses job,
all americans will be issued chastity belts with the government
holding the keys.
Speaking of the new Ashcroft...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40219-2004Nov10.html
Bush Nominates Gonzales for Attorney General
Current White House Counsel Would Replace Outgoing Ashcroft
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 10, 2004; 6:13 PM
"...A January 2002 draft memo signed by Gonzales also subjected him to
criticism when it was revealed that the memo called some Geneva
Convention provisions outdated. The memo said the nature of the war on
terrorism requires obtaining information quickly from captured terrorists
to avoid new atrocities. This, it said, makes the conventions' strict
limitations on questioning enemy prisoners "obsolete" and "renders quaint
some of its provisions."
"Earlier in his career, however, Gonzales attracted some grumbling from
staunch Bush supporters who felt he was insufficiently conservative, in
part because of suspicions about his commitment to eliminating
affirmative action.
"One complaint arose in 2000 when Gonzales voted with the majority in a
6- 3 decision by the Texas Supreme Court that narrowly defined a law --
strongly supported by Bush -- requiring a minor to get parental
permission before having an abortion. Critics charged that the decision
would make it easier to qualify for exceptions to the law."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joann Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
11 Nov 2004 07:30:33 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
But denying someone medication when, for example getting pregnant could kill
them, does have a place?
'Johnny' is welcome to speak for himself (assuming this isn't simple
trooldom), but I suspect the answer will be something like: "Abstain.
Don't have sex. Just say no. Etc."
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
12 Nov 2004 12:20:59 PM |
|
|
"Joann Evans" <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:41941289.A23A33D9@frontiernet.net...
kathryn wrote:
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
But denying someone medication when, for example getting pregnant could
kill
them, does have a place?
'Johnny' is welcome to speak for himself (assuming this isn't simple
trooldom), but I suspect the answer will be something like: "Abstain.
Don't have sex. Just say no. Etc."
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
she could be married
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
12 Nov 2004 01:07:01 AM |
|
|
"Joann Evans" <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:41941289.A23A33D9@frontiernet.net...
kathryn wrote:
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
But denying someone medication when, for example getting pregnant could
kill
them, does have a place?
'Johnny' is welcome to speak for himself (assuming this isn't simple
trooldom), but I suspect the answer will be something like: "Abstain.
Don't have sex. Just say no. Etc."
If getting pregnant could kill a person, shouldn't the prescription be not
to place one's self at risk?
Looks like women who want to die should go out and get pregnant, huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joann Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
14 Nov 2004 12:07:26 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Joann Evans" <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:41941289.A23A33D9@frontiernet.net...
kathryn wrote:
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
But denying someone medication when, for example getting pregnant could
kill
them, does have a place?
'Johnny' is welcome to speak for himself (assuming this isn't simple
trooldom), but I suspect the answer will be something like: "Abstain.
Don't have sex. Just say no. Etc."
If getting pregnant could kill a person, shouldn't the prescription be not
to place one's self at risk?
Looks like I was right....
Now, where is it said that a pharmacist gets to decide that for any
particular woman?
Looks like women who want to die should go out and get pregnant, huh?
News flash: the purpose of contraception...is to prevent conception.
No conception, no pregnancy.
But as pregnancy does indeed occasionally kill/severely harm some
women, that sounds like a good argument for legal abortion, too....
God forbid you might unintentionally make such an argument, though.
Now, what if this were about a *fertility* drug? Would you be as
willing to jump to the defense then?
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
14 Nov 2004 05:27:41 PM |
|
|
In Message-ID:<4196F66D.E06E6CB3@frontiernet.net> posted on
Sun, 14 Nov 2004 06:07:26 GMT, Joann Evans wrote:
Johnny wrote:
"Joann Evans" <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:41941289.A23A33D9@frontiernet.net...
kathryn wrote:
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
But denying someone medication when, for example getting pregnant could
kill
them, does have a place?
'Johnny' is welcome to speak for himself (assuming this isn't simple
trooldom), but I suspect the answer will be something like: "Abstain.
Don't have sex. Just say no. Etc."
If getting pregnant could kill a person, shouldn't the prescription be not
to place one's self at risk?
Looks like I was right....
Now, where is it said that a pharmacist gets to decide that for any
particular woman?
Looks like women who want to die should go out and get pregnant, huh?
News flash: the purpose of contraception...is to prevent conception.
No conception, no pregnancy.
But as pregnancy does indeed occasionally kill/severely harm some
women, that sounds like a good argument for legal abortion, too....
These aren't the only ones, of course. Women and girls have
been known to suicide if denied abortion. Then too, there
the all too common cases of parents killing children.
A embryo or even a fetus is not a person under law. It
isn't a person until it is born and takes the first breath.
Children, however _are_ legally people.
To quote from one of my earlier posts:
---------
From:
Newsgroups: alt.support.childfree
Subject: Re: Re: Quest for the CFers
Message-ID: <kcsjk01n3vuetb06np43l5iefsigumoklu@4ax.com>
Lines: 162
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:11:46 GMT
[extract]
I find it absurd that many on this ng believe
parents do this intentionally.
_You_ may find it absurd, but I assure you that it isn't.
It has been estimated that up to a third of childhood
accidents are not actually accidents, although they aren't
necessarily premeditated murder. The act resulting in the
death of the child may not always be conscious, it can be
subconscious or unconscious.
Given that so many warnings on child safety have been issued
for decades, it is very difficult to believe that _all_ of
these events are traceable merely to stupidity.
No doubt _some_ of them are the result of stupidity, but
if that is the case then perhaps it is time to start
demanding that intending parents are a licensed to have
children or at least have to have to pass a competency
test.
Most if not all states require a marriage license, and a
license or permit for a number of other activities less
potentially harmful than parenthood.
That's a lunatic allegation.
Not really. It isn't unknown for parents to kill their
children. Are you incapable of accepting this very
provable fact? Happens quite frequently actually. To
believe that some of these car deaths are not accidents is
to be extremely naive.
Murderers often try to make a death look like an accident,
surely you know that.
However, I suppose I should take the trouble to *prove* that
parents do indeed kill their children.
-----------
Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities: Statistics and
Interventions
[extract]
The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)
reported an estimated 1,400 child fatalities in 2002. This
translates to a rate of 1.98 children per 100,000
children in the general population. NCANDS defines “child
fatality” as the death of a child caused by an injury
resulting from abuse or neglect, or where abuse or neglect
were contributing factors. Many researchers and
practitioners believe child fatalities due to abuse and
neglect are underreported.
States’ definitions of key terms such as “child homicide,”
“abuse,” and “neglect” vary (therefore, so do the numbers
and types of child fatalities they report). In addition,
some deaths officially labeled as accidents, child
homicides, and/or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) might
be attributed to child abuse or neglect if more
comprehensive investigations were conducted or if there were
more consensus in the coding of abuse on death certificates.
Recent studies in Colorado and North Carolina have estimated
as many as 50 to 60 percent of deaths resulting from abuse
or neglect are not recorded (Crume, DiGuiseppi,
Byers, Sirotnak, Garrett, 2002; Herman-Giddens, Brown,
Verbiest, Carlson, Hooten, et al., 1999). These studies
indicate that neglect is the most underrecorded form of
fatal maltreatment." . . . This material may be freely
reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please
credit the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect
Information.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.pdf<
93 KB download, includes graph
This download lists a link to
Homicide trends in the United States
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm<
Go there and click the link on infanticide, or go direct to
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm<
This page gives the following bit of interesting info:
Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2000 --
31% were killed by fathers
30% were killed by mothers
23% were killed by male acquaintances
7% were killed by other relatives
3% were killed by strangers
So much for *stranger danger* to kids under 5!
Assume you can now see that it isn't a "lunatic allegation"
that parents murder children. It would be very strange if
some of those murders _didn't_ involve leaving children in
cars.
Of course, in many cases law enforcement officials are
reluctant to investigate child accidents very closely as
they don't want to cause additional distress of a parent if
the incident actually was an accident. It is also very
difficult to prove whether or not a particular death was an
accident.
-------
Infanticide — "SIDS" in Australia; four children killed in
one family
[extracts]
Proving that women who kill no more than one of their
infants get away with murder, Kathleen Folbigg's husband,
who had found her diary, raised the suspicion of the
authorities only after she had killed her fourth child of
her four children she had killed, a 19-month-old baby girl.
Mind, you, if her husband would not have found her diary,
she would have gotten away with murdering that child, too. .
..
.. . . It seemed a tragic coincidence - at first.
Craig and Kathleen Folbigg's first son died in his sleep at
19 days old. Their next child, Patrick, died two years later
at nine months.
Still, it was after their fourth baby died before Australian
police suspected something was terribly wrong.
In Sydney's New South Wales State Supreme Court this week,
Kathleen Folbigg, 35, was found guilty of killing all four
of her babies.
The jury's work would have been made much easier if they had
been allowed to read Folbigg's entire secret diary. In it,
she practically confesses to following in her dad's deadly
footsteps.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/SIDS-Australia.htm<
------------------
To read whole message go to google| groups| advanced search
and enter Message-ID:
<kcsjk01n3vuetb06np43l5iefsigumoklu@4ax.com>
in space provided.
Regards,
"nilkids"
[reading and posting in alt.support.childfree. On email
request from Yves Bellefeuille
<yan@storm.ca>
FAQ Maintainer, rec.travel.europe
am no longer posting to that group]
God forbid you might unintentionally make such an argument, though.
Now, what if this were about a *fertility* drug? Would you be as
willing to jump to the defense then?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
12 Nov 2004 01:48:46 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Joann Evans" <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:41941289.A23A33D9@frontiernet.net...
kathryn wrote:
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
But denying someone medication when, for example getting pregnant could
kill
them, does have a place?
'Johnny' is welcome to speak for himself (assuming this isn't simple
trooldom), but I suspect the answer will be something like: "Abstain.
Don't have sex. Just say no. Etc."
If getting pregnant could kill a person, shouldn't the prescription be not
to place one's self at risk?
....hence the birth control. Are you trying to say no woman should ever
have sex?
Looks like women who want to die should go out and get pregnant, huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
12 Nov 2004 10:37:27 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2vj86uF2mhqf4U4@uni-berlin.de:
Johnny wrote:
"Joann Evans" <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:41941289.A23A33D9@frontiernet.net...
kathryn wrote:
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
But denying someone medication when, for example getting pregnant
could kill
them, does have a place?
'Johnny' is welcome to speak for himself (assuming this isn't
simple
trooldom), but I suspect the answer will be something like: "Abstain.
Don't have sex. Just say no. Etc."
If getting pregnant could kill a person, shouldn't the prescription
be not to place one's self at risk?
...hence the birth control. Are you trying to say no woman should ever
have sex?
Since none of them - not even the hookers - will have sex with *him*, no
matter how much he offers to pay, why should anybody else get any?
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joann Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
11 Nov 2004 07:16:58 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
The grounds are legitamate. If I happen to enjoy the litigation, so
much the better. Show me a lawsuit that *doesn't* have an element of
hostility.
And there's nothing 'frivolous' about controlling one's fertility.
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
11 Nov 2004 08:14:15 PM |
|
|
In Message-ID:<41940F5A.E34AC49A@frontiernet.net> posted on
Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:16:58 GMT, Joann Evans wrote:
Johnny wrote:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
The grounds are legitamate. If I happen to enjoy the litigation, so
much the better. Show me a lawsuit that *doesn't* have an element of
hostility.
And there's nothing 'frivolous' about controlling one's fertility.
I totally agree with this post. The US is not a theocracy,
and no one has any right to try to take the law into their
own hands. Especially someone who pretends to be any sort
of a professional.
The situation can be even more complex, of course. Suppose
that a psychiatrist, GP, psychologist, or clinical
hypnotherapist uses hypnosis in their practice?
Suppose a pregnant woman seeks help. Does the professional
have a right to impose their will on the woman and suggest
that she not have an abortion?
In law, when a judge feels that he or she may have a
personal bias which may affect their ability to render an
impartial judgment on a case they will often disqualify
themselves.
IMHO, anyone who allows a personal or religious bias to
cloud their judgment should advertise this bias to warn
their patients, clients, or customers.
Regards,
"nilkids"
[reading and posting in alt.support.childfree. On email
request from Yves Bellefeuille
<yan@storm.ca>
FAQ Maintainer, rec.travel.europe,am no longer posting to
that group]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
11 Nov 2004 08:23:05 PM |
|
|
In Message-ID:<41940F5A.E34AC49A@frontiernet.net> posted on
Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:16:58 GMT, Joann Evans wrote:
Johnny wrote:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
The grounds are legitamate. If I happen to enjoy the litigation, so
much the better. Show me a lawsuit that *doesn't* have an element of
hostility.
And there's nothing 'frivolous' about controlling one's fertility.
I totally agree with this post. The US is not a theocracy,
and no one has any right to try to take the law into their
own hands. Especially someone who pretends to be any sort
of a professional.
The situation can be even more complex, of course. Suppose
that a psychiatrist, GP, psychologist, or clinical
hypnotherapist uses hypnosis in their practice?
Suppose a pregnant woman seeks help. Does the professional
have a right to impose their will on the woman and suggest
that she not have an abortion?
In law, when a judge feels that he or she may have a
personal bias which may affect their ability to render an
impartial judgment on a case they will often disqualify
themselves.
IMHO, anyone who allows a personal or religious bias to
cloud their judgment should advertise this bias to warn
their patients, clients, or customers.
Regards,
"nilkids"
[reading and posting in alt.support.childfree. On email
request from Yves Bellefeuille
<yan@storm.ca>
FAQ Maintainer, rec.travel.europe,am no longer posting to
that group]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 10:00:41 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
Since when ?
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
NFS Porsche Unleashed, Hot Pursuit 2, Underground.
Yeowww
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 10:14:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:18:54 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
How the heck would it be frivolous, hostile or malicious?
He is not doing his job.
He is forcing his conscience on others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 10:24:36 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3sd4p0he24p8vv5b0a0srpi3a2sq0kb58s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:18:54 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
How the heck would it be frivolous, hostile or malicious?
He is not doing his job.
Since when do citizens of this nation have to perform what they deem to be
unconscionable acts as part of their jobs?
Since when are citizens expected to be deprived of their Constitutional
rights in the USA?
He is forcing his conscience on others.
Read the Constitution.
There is nothing you can do to prevent citizens from exercising their
Constitutional rights here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 05:01:58 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:24:36 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> let us all know that:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3sd4p0he24p8vv5b0a0srpi3a2sq0kb58s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:18:54 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
How the heck would it be frivolous, hostile or malicious?
He is not doing his job.
Since when do citizens of this nation have to perform what they deem to be
unconscionable acts as part of their jobs?
Then that person had better be prepared to accept the
consequences, such as being fired for not performing his or her job.
Since when are citizens expected to be deprived of their Constitutional
rights in the USA?
They aren't. Your job is not a fucking right, dipshit.
He is forcing his conscience on others.
Read the Constitution.
There is nothing you can do to prevent citizens from exercising their
Constitutional rights here.
And there'd be nothing you can do if the guy got fired, either.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 12:38:00 PM |
|
|
In our last thrilling episode, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> was
pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:24:36
-0500 by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
Since when do citizens of this nation have to perform what they deem to be
unconscionable acts as part of their jobs?
If being a pharmacist causes you to perform acts that you feel are
unconscionable, change jobs. I quot a job once because the new owners
changed policies in such a way that I no longer felt I could do my
hjob with a clear conscious.
I did not whine and moan about it. I quit, and got another job.
Pharmacists are not doctors. They have no fucking right to decide
wether or not a patient gets medication prescribed by a doctor.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 01:23:40 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:fqn4p0dnf9i2k2c0iq76d6og59i1r6c9td@4ax.com...
In our last thrilling episode, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> was
pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:24:36
-0500 by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
Since when do citizens of this nation have to perform what they deem to be
unconscionable acts as part of their jobs?
If being a pharmacist causes you to perform acts that you feel are
unconscionable, change jobs. I quot a job once because the new owners
changed policies in such a way that I no longer felt I could do my
hjob with a clear conscious.
I did not whine and moan about it. I quit, and got another job.
Pharmacists are not doctors. They have no fucking right to decide
wether or not a patient gets medication prescribed by a doctor.
Are pharmacists bound by the Hypocratic Oath (I have no idea if I spelled
that right)?
Also, despite what "Johnny" says, I don't think this is a frivolous lawsuit
at all, and I'm not American (I thought he was joking when he claimed
frivolous lawsuits have no place in the US. Who's he kidding? That doesn't
stop people.). I think what the pharmacist did is outrageous, and a case
like this should go all the way to the Supreme Court if need be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joann Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
11 Nov 2004 07:25:03 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3sd4p0he24p8vv5b0a0srpi3a2sq0kb58s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:18:54 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
How the heck would it be frivolous, hostile or malicious?
He is not doing his job.
Since when do citizens of this nation have to perform what they deem to be
unconscionable acts as part of their jobs?
Nothing in the Constitution requires you to be kept employed, if you
do it on your employer's time.
Since when are citizens expected to be deprived of their Constitutional
rights in the USA?
When he's not filling prescriptions, he can go decry contraception
all he wants.
He is forcing his conscience on others.
Read the Constitution.
There is nothing you can do to prevent citizens from exercising their
Constitutional rights here.
If his job requires him to do the unconscionable, why is he there?
Did he not forsee this? No one forced him to become a pharmacist.
If you're a devout vegan, go protest meat eating all you want, but
don't apply for work at a cattle farm, *then* complain. Those who do the
things you oppose are not required to support you, either.
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 10:41:42 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:24:36 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<fgrkd.3079$IQ.1846@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3sd4p0he24p8vv5b0a0srpi3a2sq0kb58s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:18:54 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
How the heck would it be frivolous, hostile or malicious?
He is not doing his job.
Since when do citizens of this nation have to perform what they deem to be
unconscionable acts as part of their jobs?
When they choose professions that contain such acts as define by them.
Since when are citizens expected to be deprived of their Constitutional
rights in the USA?
There is no Constitutional right to a job or a profession.
He is forcing his conscience on others.
Read the Constitution.
There is nothing you can do to prevent citizens from exercising their
Constitutional rights here.
Except this has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
10 Nov 2004 10:24:26 PM |
|
|
In Message-ID:<u2h4p0pin2tt1ah2le6p6u9tqjnbc50tkb@4ax.com>
posted on Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:41:42 -0500, Attila wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:24:36 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<fgrkd.3079$IQ.1846@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3sd4p0he24p8vv5b0a0srpi3a2sq0kb58s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:18:54 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"GascoyneD" <gamdas@nospamhere.org> wrote in message
news:4efkd.10466$Gm6.6273@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qekd.140712$9b.43833@edtnps84...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7rq2p09ugp0c2dsu6f0gpimi69qcrv92v4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:09:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$Gx4.505427@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If pharmacists do not want to fill legal prescriptions base on
"their"
moral
beliefs, they should change their professions.
Sorry. But, you do not get to decide that.
Wrong.
A pharmacist is not doing his job if he refuses.
Forget the pharmacist changing their profession, I think he should have
his
***** sued off.
Even better.
Frivolous. hostile, malicious litigation has no place in the USA.
How the heck would it be frivolous, hostile or malicious?
He is not doing his job.
Since when do citizens of this nation have to perform what they deem to be
unconscionable acts as part of their jobs?
When they choose professions that contain such acts as define by them.
Since when are citizens expected to be deprived of their Constitutional
rights in the USA?
There is no Constitutional right to a job or a profession.
He is forcing his conscience on others.
Read the Constitution.
There is nothing you can do to prevent citizens from exercising their
Constitutional rights here.
Except this has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.
There are limitations on _all_ US
"Constitutional Rights", although admittedly it can be
difficult to know exactly where to draw the line.
In general, a cop or fireman cannot decide who and who not
to protect, nor can a physican refuse emergency treatment
merely because he or she doesn't like the victim.
.....However, these points can be difficult to enforce in
practice.
Decades ago in the USA any physician would stop to help the
victim of a road accident. However, once the lawyers
started suing them for some often imaginary "negligence"
because their roadside emergency surgery didn't meet
prevailing "hospital standards" with a full crew available,
many refused to stop and render any aid whatsoever.
As a result, many states passed "Good Samaritian" laws which
meant that anyone rendering aid to the limits of their
ability couldn't be sued.
No matter how much any given society values "freedom" or
"rights" there are always going to be disagreements.
As a simple example, should a landlord or employer be
allowed to discriminate on grounds of race, national
origion, religion, age, sex, beliefs, and so on?
If an unmarried couple want to rent a room, apartment,
house, etc. should a landlord be able to refuse to rent to
them? At one time in many places in the US, yes. In
Australia, no.
Should it be an offense to be drunk in a public place? Once
was in many places in the US, possibly still is. In
Australia, not if the drunk isn't causing problems.
Must admit that I don't know the exact regulations as apply
to pharmacists here in New South Wales, let alone the rest
of Australia, but I strongly suspect that any pharmicist
here who refused to fill a legal prescription would find
themselves in a whole lot of trouble from their customers,
their professional association, the local doctors, as well
as more formal civil and criminal charges.
Posting from alt.support childfree. Don't follow the other
groups.
---- OOPS, breaking news just heard, gotta go---------
UNRELATED breaking news just heard on radio at 3:18 PM
Sydney * Thu 3:19 PM, 1528 hrs.
London Thu 4:19 AM
New York Wed 11:19 PM
Los Angeles Wed 8:19 PM
Yassar Arafat has died.
Regards,
"nilkids"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
