| 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: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
12 Nov 2004 08:38:44 PM |
|
|
"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns959F62286B882taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in
news:4194EE41.B70EF9F1@rica.net:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:DQ_kd.6416$jE2.728@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
(snip)
To earn a living.......
To provide for their familes?
If that were the case, they would obey the law and transfer the
prescription to another pharmacy. Instead, at least one chose to
commit a federal crime, and made it *absolutely* clear that his
concern was forcing his religious beliefs on to others, and nothing
else.
I am waiting for the case to happen where a religious nut-case
pharmacist thinks that infectious disease is a judgment from God,
HIV has been called exactly that.
and
refuses to fill any prescriptions for antibiotics based on religious
principles.
I don't see how this is any different than the birth control example,
in principle -- the principle that religion in general doesn't make
sense in any logically defensible way.
I don't see any difference at all between a forced-birther pharmacist
refusing to fill a birth control prescription, a fundie pharmacist
refusing
to fill a prescription for HIV treatment, and a KKK pharmacist refusing to
fill a prescription for heart medication for a black man. They're all the
*exact* same thing - forcing religious beliefs on to others, against their
will, and to their detriment.
The slavers have made their position *very* clear.
Slavers?
What is an employer that requires an employee to act against his or her
religious beliefs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
14 Nov 2004 12:07:27 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:cseld.6878$jE2.2288@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns959F62286B882taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in
news:4194EE41.B70EF9F1@rica.net:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:DQ_kd.6416$jE2.728@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
(snip)
To earn a living.......
To provide for their familes?
If that were the case, they would obey the law and transfer the
prescription to another pharmacy. Instead, at least one chose to
commit a federal crime, and made it *absolutely* clear that his
concern was forcing his religious beliefs on to others, and nothing
else.
I am waiting for the case to happen where a religious nut-case
pharmacist thinks that infectious disease is a judgment from God,
HIV has been called exactly that.
and
refuses to fill any prescriptions for antibiotics based on
religious principles.
I don't see how this is any different than the birth control
example, in principle -- the principle that religion in general
doesn't make sense in any logically defensible way.
I don't see any difference at all between a forced-birther pharmacist
refusing to fill a birth control prescription, a fundie pharmacist
refusing
to fill a prescription for HIV treatment, and a KKK pharmacist
refusing to fill a prescription for heart medication for a black man.
They're all the *exact* same thing - forcing religious beliefs on to
others, against their will, and to their detriment.
The slavers have made their position *very* clear.
Slavers?
You heard me. You think of women as property. You've made that clear.
What is an employer that requires an employee to act against his or
her religious beliefs?
Better than a forced-birth slaver.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
12 Nov 2004 09:04:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:38:44 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<cseld.6878$jE2.2288@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
I don't see any difference at all between a forced-birther pharmacist
refusing to fill a birth control prescription, a fundie pharmacist
refusing
to fill a prescription for HIV treatment, and a KKK pharmacist refusing to
fill a prescription for heart medication for a black man. They're all the
*exact* same thing - forcing religious beliefs on to others, against their
will, and to their detriment.
The slavers have made their position *very* clear.
Slavers?
What is an employer that requires an employee to act against his or her
religious beliefs?
An employer with an employee who needs to decide whether to leave or
meet the requirement of the job.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 10:27:08 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:lcuap05q90qb3uflm4a1vbimugkv60lka0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:38:44 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<cseld.6878$jE2.2288@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
I don't see any difference at all between a forced-birther pharmacist
refusing to fill a birth control prescription, a fundie pharmacist
refusing
to fill a prescription for HIV treatment, and a KKK pharmacist refusing
to
fill a prescription for heart medication for a black man. They're all
the
*exact* same thing - forcing religious beliefs on to others, against
their
will, and to their detriment.
The slavers have made their position *very* clear.
Slavers?
What is an employer that requires an employee to act against his or her
religious beliefs?
An employer with an employee who needs to decide whether to leave or
meet the requirement of the job.
You want people to be enslaved to lawbreakers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 12:09:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:27:08 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<2Aqld.10998$WC6.6184@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:lcuap05q90qb3uflm4a1vbimugkv60lka0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:38:44 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<cseld.6878$jE2.2288@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
I don't see any difference at all between a forced-birther pharmacist
refusing to fill a birth control prescription, a fundie pharmacist
refusing
to fill a prescription for HIV treatment, and a KKK pharmacist refusing
to
fill a prescription for heart medication for a black man. They're all
the
*exact* same thing - forcing religious beliefs on to others, against
their
will, and to their detriment.
The slavers have made their position *very* clear.
Slavers?
What is an employer that requires an employee to act against his or her
religious beliefs?
An employer with an employee who needs to decide whether to leave or
meet the requirement of the job.
You want people to be enslaved to lawbreakers?
No slavery exists involving legal employment. Anyone can quit at any
time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 02:32:54 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:fcjcp0l7rgsq8lgf63hf60dtc427a8auag@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:27:08 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<2Aqld.10998$WC6.6184@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:lcuap05q90qb3uflm4a1vbimugkv60lka0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:38:44 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<cseld.6878$jE2.2288@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
I don't see any difference at all between a forced-birther pharmacist
refusing to fill a birth control prescription, a fundie pharmacist
refusing
to fill a prescription for HIV treatment, and a KKK pharmacist
refusing
to
fill a prescription for heart medication for a black man. They're all
the
*exact* same thing - forcing religious beliefs on to others, against
their
will, and to their detriment.
The slavers have made their position *very* clear.
Slavers?
What is an employer that requires an employee to act against his or her
religious beliefs?
An employer with an employee who needs to decide whether to leave or
meet the requirement of the job.
You want people to be enslaved to lawbreakers?
No slavery exists involving legal employment. Anyone can quit at any
time.
False
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 02:49:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:32:54 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<sauld.11095$WC6.2995@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:fcjcp0l7rgsq8lgf63hf60dtc427a8auag@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:27:08 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<2Aqld.10998$WC6.6184@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:lcuap05q90qb3uflm4a1vbimugkv60lka0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:38:44 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<cseld.6878$jE2.2288@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
I don't see any difference at all between a forced-birther pharmacist
refusing to fill a birth control prescription, a fundie pharmacist
refusing
to fill a prescription for HIV treatment, and a KKK pharmacist
refusing
to
fill a prescription for heart medication for a black man. They're all
the
*exact* same thing - forcing religious beliefs on to others, against
their
will, and to their detriment.
The slavers have made their position *very* clear.
Slavers?
What is an employer that requires an employee to act against his or her
religious beliefs?
An employer with an employee who needs to decide whether to leave or
meet the requirement of the job.
You want people to be enslaved to lawbreakers?
No slavery exists involving legal employment. Anyone can quit at any
time.
False
That of course makes it so.
Anyone can quit their job at any time if they are unwilling to meet
the requirements.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 05:27:57 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:32:54 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<sauld.11095$WC6.2995@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:fcjcp0l7rgsq8lgf63hf60dtc427a8auag@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:27:08 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<2Aqld.10998$WC6.6184@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:lcuap05q90qb3uflm4a1vbimugkv60lka0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:38:44 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<cseld.6878$jE2.2288@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
I don't see any difference at all between a forced-birther pharmacist
refusing to fill a birth control prescription, a fundie pharmacist
refusing to fill a prescription for HIV treatment, and a KKK
pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for heart medication for a
black man. They're all the *exact* same thing - forcing religious
beliefs on to others, against their will, and to their detriment.
The slavers have made their position *very* clear.
Slavers? What is an employer that requires an employee to act against
his or her religious beliefs?
An employer with an employee who needs to decide whether to leave or
meet the requirement of the job.
You want people to be enslaved to lawbreakers?
No slavery exists involving legal employment. Anyone can quit at any
time.
False
That of course makes it so.
Anyone can quit their job at any time if they are unwilling to meet
the requirements.
No kidding. That's how it works in Texas, which is an employment at will
state.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
12 Nov 2004 11:04:41 AM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:DQ_kd.6416$jE2.728@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
(snip)
To earn a living.......
To provide for their familes?
If that were the case, they would obey the law and transfer the
prescription to another pharmacy. Instead, at least one chose to commit a
federal crime, and made it *absolutely* clear that his concern was forcing
his religious beliefs on to others, and nothing else.
I am waiting for the case to happen where a religious nut-case
pharmacist thinks that infectious disease is a judgment from God, and
refuses to fill any prescriptions for antibiotics based on religious
principles.
I'm waiting for the one that refuses Viagra.
I don't see how this is any different than the birth control example,
in principle -- the principle that religion in general doesn't make
sense in any logically defensible way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
12 Nov 2004 03:32:53 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2vhrm0F2kpropU1@uni-berlin.de...
Johnny wrote:
"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns959E5E1ADFAE9taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
Donalbain@gmail.com (Donalbain) wrote in
news:983b42a3.0411110452.551e3915@posting.google.com:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<9mqkd.3061$IQ.1257@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkoei5u4do.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$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.
Neither do you...and you don't have a problem with pharmacists who
refuse to
do their jobs?
I do have a right to Free Speech to defend conscientious Pharmacists
who are exercising their Free Exercise of Religion rights in this
nation.
Someone joins the army. Then they convert to Methodism, or Quakerism
(I know..) and decide that they no longer can take part in military
actions. Their unit is posted to a combat zone and they refuse to go.
Should they
a) Be allowed to stay in the army, on full pay but refusing to do
their job
b) Be fired and/or put up before a court martial
A man joins the fire service and then joins the religion of Helloism.
A central tenet of Helloism is that it is wrong to help Jews. There is
a fire at the local synagogue and our man refuses to go help.
Should he
a) Be allowed to stay in the fire service on full pay but refusing to
do his job
b) Be fired
A man becomes a doctor. He then converts to the religion of Madeupism.
A central tenet of madeupism is that it is immoral to treat people who
like strawberry cheesecake. A patient comes in who was injured while
baking a strawberry cheesecake. Our doctor refuses to treat him.
Should he
a) Be allowed to remain a doctor on full pay while refusing to do his
job
b) Be fired and sued for malpractice
A man is a faithful member of the Ku Klux Klan. He goes to medical
school,
and becomes a doctor. One of the reasons why is because he knows there
will
only be one doctor in a typical small town, and if that doctor is him,
and
he has the legal right to refuse to treat a patient based on moral values
alone, and his moral values include the sincere belief that the human
race
should be purified by removing all the darkies, then the darkies in his
home town will die at a faster rate due to lack of medical care. This is
his explicity plan - to reduce the black population in his home town
through death.
Illegal.
You don't know that discrimination on the basis of race is illegal?
So is discrimination on the basis of gender.
So why do you hold to that so much?
???
Do men take birth control pills?
Is this a gender biased question?
No, that's a point of discrimination. The only people being denied
service are one specific gender. Illegal.
Should he
a) Be allowed to remain a doctor, and cause the deaths of black people
solely for being black
b) Be taken out in an alley and a bullet put in the back of his head
Sorry.
Why don't you read up on the law of this nation, and stop conjuring up
fantastical scenarios to try to persuade people that a pharmacist has no
legal right to deny the abortion pill to a customer?
I guess the guy can find employment elsewhere.
But, to force him to participate in something he disagrees with, which
would violate his own religious practice, is illegal.
No one is forcing him to do anything, unless you are implying that all
pharmacists are forced to take their jobs at gunpoint. Pharmacists know
going into the job that they will be dealing out not only birth control
but narcotics and sexual aids like Viagra. Why then did they take the job?
To earn a living.......
To provide for their familes?
They can't do that at ANY OTHER JOB?
There are NO other jobs, anywhere in the U.S.?
They knew going in, before they were ever hired, that this was part of
the job. Picture a girl being hired at a brothel and then deciding that
having sex is against her religion (but she still wants to keep her job
and salary). Ridiculous, eh? If you know ahead of time- and they do-
that you cannot perform the job, don't take the job or prepare to get fired.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
11 Nov 2004 07:07:13 AM |
|
|
In article <983b42a3.0411110452.551e3915@posting.google.com>, Donalbain
<Donalbain@gmail.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<9mqkd.3061$IQ.1257@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkoei5u4do.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$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.
Neither do you...and you don't have a problem with pharmacists who refuse
to
do their jobs?
I do have a right to Free Speech to defend conscientious Pharmacists who
are
exercising their Free Exercise of Religion rights in this nation.
Someone joins the army. Then they convert to Methodism, or Quakerism
(I know..) and decide that they no longer can take part in military
actions. Their unit is posted to a combat zone and they refuse to go.
Should they
a) Be allowed to stay in the army, on full pay but refusing to do
their job
b) Be fired and/or put up before a court martial
Be discharged. Nothing more.
A man joins the fire service and then joins the religion of Helloism.
A central tenet of Helloism is that it is wrong to help Jews. There is
a fire at the local synagogue and our man refuses to go help.
Should he
a) Be allowed to stay in the fire service on full pay but refusing to
do his job
b) Be fired
Be prosecuted and sued.
A man becomes a doctor. He then converts to the religion of Madeupism.
A central tenet of madeupism is that it is immoral to treat people who
like strawberry cheesecake. A patient comes in who was injured while
baking a strawberry cheesecake. Our doctor refuses to treat him.
Should he
a) Be allowed to remain a doctor on full pay while refusing to do his
job
b) Be fired and sued for malpractice
Be fired and sued - but not for malpractice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
11 Nov 2004 10:14:19 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:111120040507134994%spam@aol.com...
In article <983b42a3.0411110452.551e3915@posting.google.com>, Donalbain
<Donalbain@gmail.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<9mqkd.3061$IQ.1257@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkoei5u4do.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$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.
Neither do you...and you don't have a problem with pharmacists who
refuse
to
do their jobs?
I do have a right to Free Speech to defend conscientious Pharmacists
who
are
exercising their Free Exercise of Religion rights in this nation.
Someone joins the army. Then they convert to Methodism, or Quakerism
(I know..) and decide that they no longer can take part in military
actions. Their unit is posted to a combat zone and they refuse to go.
Should they
a) Be allowed to stay in the army, on full pay but refusing to do
their job
b) Be fired and/or put up before a court martial
Be discharged. Nothing more.
Way to tell the extremist.
A man joins the fire service and then joins the religion of Helloism.
A central tenet of Helloism is that it is wrong to help Jews. There is
a fire at the local synagogue and our man refuses to go help.
Should he
a) Be allowed to stay in the fire service on full pay but refusing to
do his job
b) Be fired
Be prosecuted and sued.
Yes, because he violated civil rights legislation.
A man becomes a doctor. He then converts to the religion of Madeupism.
A central tenet of madeupism is that it is immoral to treat people who
like strawberry cheesecake. A patient comes in who was injured while
baking a strawberry cheesecake. Our doctor refuses to treat him.
Should he
a) Be allowed to remain a doctor on full pay while refusing to do his
job
b) Be fired and sued for malpractice
Be fired and sued - but not for malpractice.
Why not for malpractice?
What about violation of the Hippocratic oath?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
11 Nov 2004 05:00:53 PM |
|
|
In Message-ID:<%aMkd.62375$Tq1.21666@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
posted on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:14:19 -0500, Johnny wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:111120040507134994%spam@aol.com...
In article <983b42a3.0411110452.551e3915@posting.google.com>, Donalbain
<Donalbain@gmail.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<9mqkd.3061$IQ.1257@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkoei5u4do.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"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.
Neither do you...and you don't have a problem with pharmacists who
refuse
to
do their jobs?
I do have a right to Free Speech to defend conscientious Pharmacists
who
are
exercising their Free Exercise of Religion rights in this nation.
Someone joins the army. Then they convert to Methodism, or Quakerism
(I know..) and decide that they no longer can take part in military
actions. Their unit is posted to a combat zone and they refuse to go.
Should they
a) Be allowed to stay in the army, on full pay but refusing to do
their job
b) Be fired and/or put up before a court martial
Be discharged. Nothing more.
Way to tell the extremist.
A man joins the fire service and then joins the religion of Helloism.
A central tenet of Helloism is that it is wrong to help Jews. There is
a fire at the local synagogue and our man refuses to go help.
Should he
a) Be allowed to stay in the fire service on full pay but refusing to
do his job
b) Be fired
Be prosecuted and sued.
Yes, because he violated civil rights legislation.
A man becomes a doctor. He then converts to the religion of Madeupism.
A central tenet of madeupism is that it is immoral to treat people who
like strawberry cheesecake. A patient comes in who was injured while
baking a strawberry cheesecake. Our doctor refuses to treat him.
Should he
a) Be allowed to remain a doctor on full pay while refusing to do his
job
b) Be fired and sued for malpractice
Be fired and sued - but not for malpractice.
Why not for malpractice?
What about violation of the Hippocratic oath?
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment,
this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those
physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such
knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures
which are required, avoiding those twin traps of
overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as
science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may
outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail
to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are
needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their
problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life
and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But
it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome
responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and
awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at
God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a
cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may
affect the person's family and economic stability. My
responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to
care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is
preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with
special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those
sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art,
respected while I live and remembered with affection
thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest
traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy
of healing those who seek my help.
Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the
School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many
medical schools today.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html<
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: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
12 Nov 2004 02:04:56 AM |
|
|
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:vir7p0hgrome9kflbi3c1hmdq346p8uljb@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<%aMkd.62375$Tq1.21666@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
posted on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:14:19 -0500, Johnny wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:111120040507134994%spam@aol.com...
In article <983b42a3.0411110452.551e3915@posting.google.com>, Donalbain
<Donalbain@gmail.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<9mqkd.3061$IQ.1257@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkoei5u4do.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wpdkd.873311$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.
Neither do you...and you don't have a problem with pharmacists who
refuse
to
do their jobs?
I do have a right to Free Speech to defend conscientious Pharmacists
who
are
exercising their Free Exercise of Religion rights in this nation.
Someone joins the army. Then they convert to Methodism, or Quakerism
(I know..) and decide that they no longer can take part in military
actions. Their unit is posted to a combat zone and they refuse to go.
Should they
a) Be allowed to stay in the army, on full pay but refusing to do
their job
b) Be fired and/or put up before a court martial
Be discharged. Nothing more.
Way to tell the extremist.
A man joins the fire service and then joins the religion of Helloism.
A central tenet of Helloism is that it is wrong to help Jews. There is
a fire at the local synagogue and our man refuses to go help.
Should he
a) Be allowed to stay in the fire service on full pay but refusing to
do his job
b) Be fired
Be prosecuted and sued.
Yes, because he violated civil rights legislation.
A man becomes a doctor. He then converts to the religion of Madeupism.
A central tenet of madeupism is that it is immoral to treat people who
like strawberry cheesecake. A patient comes in who was injured while
baking a strawberry cheesecake. Our doctor refuses to treat him.
Should he
a) Be allowed to remain a doctor on full pay while refusing to do his
job
b) Be fired and sued for malpractice
Be fired and sued - but not for malpractice.
Why not for malpractice?
What about violation of the Hippocratic oath?
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
Inferior version.
Where is the original version?
What you published is not the Hippocratic oath.
Lasagna and Hippocrates are not the same person.
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment,
this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those
physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such
knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures
which are required, avoiding those twin traps of
overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as
science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may
outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail
to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are
needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their
problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life
and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But
it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome
responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and
awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at
God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a
cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may
affect the person's family and economic stability. My
responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to
care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is
preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with
special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those
sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art,
respected while I live and remembered with affection
thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest
traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy
of healing those who seek my help.
Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the
School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many
medical schools today.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html<
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 |
12 Nov 2004 08:31:14 PM |
|
|
In Message-ID:<Z7_kd.6407$jE2.1930@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
posted on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:04:56 -0500, Johnny wrote:
[snip]
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
Inferior version.
Where is the original version?
What you published is not the Hippocratic oath.
Lasagna and Hippocrates are not the same person.
If you are not competent to find both versions, you are
hardly worth correspending with are you?
Are you a complete idiot or are you just trying to provide
that impression!
Again, are you actually a qualified pharmacist in _any_
state in the USA?
If you are, are you willing to at least mention the state so
that Americans can flee from your state or even from the USA
if anyone can possibly tolerate your somewhat noxious
presence?
As have said earlier, I "dislike" Caine. To say the least!
And I think my "dislike" fully justified!
Now if you want to join her obsessive/compulsive emotional
group, please feel free to do so.
It would be very interesting to know if Caine was a former
Roman Catholic and how many of her supporters are/were.
However, I sincerely doubt that most would even try to be
that honest.
I could be wrong, of course! How many members of this
group will be willing to admit that they were once members
of the Roman Catholic Church?
Now, now, _ no _ lies please people!
Perhaps we should narrow it down a bit! Perhaps I should
just ask if any reader has ever attended a Roman Catholic
service?
I must admit that I once attended a "high church"
Episcopicalian service in the USA. Perhaps needless to say
I was not remotely impressed!
If
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 10:12:19 AM |
|
|
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0rap0p8hjck2oqk977j6i279clp1gfrrn@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<Z7_kd.6407$jE2.1930@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
posted on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:04:56 -0500, Johnny wrote:
[snip]
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
Inferior version.
Where is the original version?
What you published is not the Hippocratic oath.
Lasagna and Hippocrates are not the same person.
If you are not competent to find both versions, you are
hardly worth correspending with are you?
Why do I need to look it up?
Someone failed to quot both versions, opting for the more wordy version
which is not attributed to Hippocrates.
Are you a complete idiot or are you just trying to provide
that impression!
Maybe you are the complete idiot.
Again, are you actually a qualified pharmacist in _any_
state in the USA?
Are you actually wanting to discuss this matter in full?
If you are, are you willing to at least mention the state so
that Americans can flee from your state or even from the USA
if anyone can possibly tolerate your somewhat noxious
presence?
Ok. South Carolina.
People are free to flee something they do not like.
As have said earlier, I "dislike" Caine. To say the least!
And I think my "dislike" fully justified!
Caine?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 10:57:47 PM |
|
|
In Message-ID:<emqld.10986$WC6.9489@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
posted on Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:12:19 -0500, Johnny wrote:
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0rap0p8hjck2oqk977j6i279clp1gfrrn@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<Z7_kd.6407$jE2.1930@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
posted on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:04:56 -0500, Johnny wrote:
[snip]
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
Inferior version.
Where is the original version?
What you published is not the Hippocratic oath.
Lasagna and Hippocrates are not the same person.
If you are not competent to find both versions, you are
hardly worth correspending with are you?
Why do I need to look it up?
Someone failed to quot both versions, opting for the more wordy version
which is not attributed to Hippocrates.
I get criticized enough when I post current information, let
alone old information. Am sure that anyone can find the
old version if they wish.
If you have problems, though, Johnny, do let me, or us,
know. Am sure that someone will be able to help you if you
are too incompetent to find it on your own.
You are beginning to worry me a bit. Would you be able to
fill a scrip handwritten in medical Latin?
Are you a complete idiot or are you just trying to provide
that impression!
Maybe you are the complete idiot.
Want to try to prove it?
Again, are you actually a qualified pharmacist in _any_
state in the USA?
Are you actually wanting to discuss this matter in full?
What do you consider "in full"?
If you are, are you willing to at least mention the state so
that Americans can flee from your state or even from the USA
if anyone can possibly tolerate your somewhat noxious
presence?
Ok. South Carolina.
People are free to flee something they do not like.
OK, you admit that you live in such a state. However, you
have not claimed to be a qualified pharmacist or employed as
such. Let us try to get the details right!
If you are a qualified pharmacist in your state, why should
you be reluctant to claim this? We aren't asking your real
name or location or any personal details, after all!
Next question, are you currently employed as such?
Admittedly, this is a bit personal, and you don't have to
admit your employment status if you don't wish to.
OK, at least we have settled this issue. Some progress,
anyway!
As have said earlier, I "dislike" Caine. To say the least!
And I think my "dislike" fully justified!
Caine?
Obviously you don't follow alt.support.childfree very
closely.
Actually, I don't even dislike you as much as I dislike
Caine.
Firstly, you may have some professional medical
qualifications.
Secondly, you seem to be religious, even though our
religions obviously differ in many ways.
Thirdly, you have not been so childishly emotional and
arrogant as she has been.
Fourthly, you seem to be trying to make a "good fight" on
your interpretation of the "rights" of a pharmacist, based
your religion.
I don't agree with you, of course, but at least you don't
seem as religiously shallow as Caine and some of her
supporters!
Who seem to be atheists, agnostics or worse.
Perhaps at the predicted end of the world, Catholics and
Protestants will actually reunite, but I wouldn't put any
money on it.
Regards,
"nilkids"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
14 Nov 2004 09:46:16 AM |
|
|
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:afndp09ommdo613hgls5849929l53t4c53@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<emqld.10986$WC6.9489@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
posted on Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:12:19 -0500, Johnny wrote:
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0rap0p8hjck2oqk977j6i279clp1gfrrn@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<Z7_kd.6407$jE2.1930@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
posted on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:04:56 -0500, Johnny wrote:
[snip]
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
Inferior version.
Where is the original version?
What you published is not the Hippocratic oath.
Lasagna and Hippocrates are not the same person.
If you are not competent to find both versions, you are
hardly worth correspending with are you?
Why do I need to look it up?
Someone failed to quot both versions, opting for the more wordy version
which is not attributed to Hippocrates.
I get criticized enough when I post current information, let
alone old information. Am sure that anyone can find the
old version if they wish.
If you have problems, though, Johnny, do let me, or us,
know. Am sure that someone will be able to help you if you
are too incompetent to find it on your own.
You are beginning to worry me a bit. Would you be able to
fill a scrip handwritten in medical Latin?
Are you a complete idiot or are you just trying to provide
that impression!
Maybe you are the complete idiot.
Want to try to prove it?
Again, are you actually a qualified pharmacist in _any_
state in the USA?
Are you actually wanting to discuss this matter in full?
What do you consider "in full"?
If you are, are you willing to at least mention the state so
that Americans can flee from your state or even from the USA
if anyone can possibly tolerate your somewhat noxious
presence?
Ok. South Carolina.
People are free to flee something they do not like.
OK, you admit that you live in such a state. However, you
have not claimed to be a qualified pharmacist or employed as
such. Let us try to get the details right!
If you are a qualified pharmacist in your state, why should
you be reluctant to claim this? We aren't asking your real
name or location or any personal details, after all!
Next question, are you currently employed as such?
No.
Admittedly, this is a bit personal, and you don't have to
admit your employment status if you don't wish to.
OK, at least we have settled this issue. Some progress,
anyway!
As have said earlier, I "dislike" Caine. To say the least!
And I think my "dislike" fully justified!
Caine?
Obviously you don't follow alt.support.childfree very
closely.
Actually, I don't even dislike you as much as I dislike
Caine.
Firstly, you may have some professional medical
qualifications.
Secondly, you seem to be religious, even though our
religions obviously differ in many ways.
Thirdly, you have not been so childishly emotional and
arrogant as she has been.
Fourthly, you seem to be trying to make a "good fight" on
your interpretation of the "rights" of a pharmacist, based
your religion.
I merely read the law, and do not like seeing people's legal rights
transgressed.
I don't agree with you, of course, but at least you don't
seem as religiously shallow as Caine and some of her
supporters!
I live by the law pretty much.
Why can't the rest of the people do so?
The rules are very specific.
Who seem to be atheists, agnostics or worse.
Perhaps at the predicted end of the world, Catholics and
Protestants will actually reunite, but I wouldn't put any
money on it.
Regards,
"nilkids"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 12:07:55 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:12:19 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<emqld.10986$WC6.9489@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0rap0p8hjck2oqk977j6i279clp1gfrrn@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<Z7_kd.6407$jE2.1930@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
posted on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:04:56 -0500, Johnny wrote:
[snip]
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
Inferior version.
Where is the original version?
What you published is not the Hippocratic oath.
Lasagna and Hippocrates are not the same person.
If you are not competent to find both versions, you are
hardly worth correspending with are you?
Why do I need to look it up?
Someone failed to quot both versions, opting for the more wordy version
which is not attributed to Hippocrates.
Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and
all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will
fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this
covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to
live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to
give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my
brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire
to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts
and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the
sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the
covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no
one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according
to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor
will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to
a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my
life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will
withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick,
remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in
particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be
they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside
of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one
must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things
shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me
to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all
time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite
of all this be my lot.
Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic
Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html
Now shut up and go away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 02:32:16 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u9jcp0dl2j0b6tamop8m2pv77h0oii0a8m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:12:19 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<emqld.10986$WC6.9489@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0rap0p8hjck2oqk977j6i279clp1gfrrn@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<Z7_kd.6407$jE2.1930@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
posted on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:04:56 -0500, Johnny wrote:
[snip]
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
Inferior version.
Where is the original version?
What you published is not the Hippocratic oath.
Lasagna and Hippocrates are not the same person.
If you are not competent to find both versions, you are
hardly worth correspending with are you?
Why do I need to look it up?
Someone failed to quot both versions, opting for the more wordy version
which is not attributed to Hippocrates.
Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and
all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will
fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this
covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to
live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to
give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my
brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire
to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts
and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the
sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the
covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no
one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according
to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor
will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to
a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my
life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will
withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick,
remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in
particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be
they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside
of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one
must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things
shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me
to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all
time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite
of all this be my lot.
Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic
Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html
Now shut up and go away.
Both versions are too wordy.
I like this one better:
I will treat the sick without regard for their ability to pay.
As a physician I am expected to perform my job for any human being who may
seek my services; and, as such, I shall treat any person who seeks my
services if I am able to do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 11:15:48 PM |
|
|
In Message-ID:<S9uld.11094$WC6.6535@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
posted on Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:32:16 -0500, Johnny wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u9jcp0dl2j0b6tamop8m2pv77h0oii0a8m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:12:19 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<emqld.10986$WC6.9489@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0rap0p8hjck2oqk977j6i279clp1gfrrn@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<Z7_kd.6407$jE2.1930@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
posted on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:04:56 -0500, Johnny wrote:
[snip]
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
Inferior version.
Where is the original version?
What you published is not the Hippocratic oath.
Lasagna and Hippocrates are not the same person.
If you are not competent to find both versions, you are
hardly worth correspending with are you?
Why do I need to look it up?
Someone failed to quot both versions, opting for the more wordy version
which is not attributed to Hippocrates.
Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and
all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will
fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this
covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to
live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to
give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my
brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire
to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts
and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the
sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the
covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no
one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according
to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor
will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to
a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my
life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will
withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick,
remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in
particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be
they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside
of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one
must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things
shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me
to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all
time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite
of all this be my lot.
Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic
Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html
Now shut up and go away.
Both versions are too wordy.
I like this one better:
I will treat the sick without regard for their ability to pay.
As a physician I am expected to perform my job for any human being who may
seek my services; and, as such, I shall treat any person who seeks my
services if I am able to do so.
Um, yes, that sounds pretty good, _except_ for the legal
"escape clause" in the final six words:
"If I am able to do so."
After all, Hitler or most of his staff could have made such
a qualification. Bad luck for the "untermensch" who might
not meet the qualification. Not only Jews, Gypsies, other
Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, and so on.
If you are willing to eliminate those six words and promise
to treat _any_ fellow humans, and I might agree with you.
Regards,
"nilkids"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
14 Nov 2004 09:42:57 AM |
|
|
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:3jpdp0t69lqnj82gofcaom5kivalo24arm@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<S9uld.11094$WC6.6535@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
posted on Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:32:16 -0500, Johnny wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u9jcp0dl2j0b6tamop8m2pv77h0oii0a8m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:12:19 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<emqld.10986$WC6.9489@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0rap0p8hjck2oqk977j6i279clp1gfrrn@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<Z7_kd.6407$jE2.1930@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
posted on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:04:56 -0500, Johnny wrote:
[snip]
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
Inferior version.
Where is the original version?
What you published is not the Hippocratic oath.
Lasagna and Hippocrates are not the same person.
If you are not competent to find both versions, you are
hardly worth correspending with are you?
Why do I need to look it up?
Someone failed to quot both versions, opting for the more wordy version
which is not attributed to Hippocrates.
Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and
all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will
fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this
covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to
live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to
give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my
brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire
to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts
and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the
sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the
covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no
one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according
to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor
will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to
a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my
life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will
withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick,
remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in
particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be
they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside
of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one
must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things
shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me
to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all
time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite
of all this be my lot.
Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic
Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html
Now shut up and go away.
Both versions are too wordy.
I like this one better:
I will treat the sick without regard for their ability to pay.
As a physician I am expected to perform my job for any human being who may
seek my services; and, as such, I shall treat any person who seeks my
services if I am able to do so.
Um, yes, that sounds pretty good, _except_ for the legal
"escape clause" in the final six words:
"If I am able to do so."
After all, Hitler or most of his staff could have made such
a qualification. Bad luck for the "untermensch" who might
not meet the qualification. Not only Jews, Gypsies, other
Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, and so on.
If you are willing to eliminate those six words and promise
to treat _any_ fellow humans, and I might agree with you.
Can't do it.
The possibility of overburdening some doctors would exist without provision
for them to rest.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Moralist Pharmacists Refusing To Fill Prescriptions |
13 Nov 2004 03:34:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:32:16 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<S9uld.11094$WC6.6535@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u9jcp0dl2j0b6tamop8m2pv77h0oii0a8m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:12:19 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<emqld.10986$WC6.9489@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
<nilkids@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0rap0p8hjck2oqk977j6i279clp1gfrrn@4ax.com...
In Message-ID:<Z7_kd.6407$jE2.1930@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
posted on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:04:56 -0500, Johnny wrote:
[snip]
Firstly, which one? Ancient or Modern? Secondly, there is
no legal penalty for violating either AFIK.
======================================
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version
Inferior version.
Where is the original version?
What you published is not the Hippocratic oath.
Lasagna and Hippocrates are not the same person.
If you are not competent to find both versions, you are
hardly worth correspending with are you?
Why do I need to look it up?
Someone failed to quot both versions, opting for the more wordy version
which is not attributed to Hippocrates.
Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and
all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will
fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this
covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to
live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to
give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my
brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire
to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts
and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the
sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the
covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no
one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according
to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor
will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to
a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my
life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will
withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick,
remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in
particular of sexu | | | | | | | | | |
