| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 12:01:01 AM |
| Object: |
Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/
Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate
Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions
for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the
medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over
reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing
rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they
consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor
has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in
statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either
to protect pharmacists from being penalized - or force them to carry
out their duties.
.
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 10:42:07 PM |
|
|
In article <vW32e.4350$yq2.2536@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Sanders Kaufman said...
Are you really saying that "access to all the prescriptions the
patient is getting" does not entail "a better position to detect
potentially dangerous drug interactions"?
You neglected to include the part about "from that pharmacy".
No, I didn't "neglect" it, I just didn't retype it. It's self-
obvious that a pharmacy would keep a record of the medications
it has dispensed to a patient. That's part and parcel of my
point, in fact.
You're a real idiot if you think the local pharmacy has
your entire medical record on file.
Did I mention anything about an "entire medical history"?
A person as quick as you to rely on straw men should be more
hesitant about casting about the word "idiot."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 01:12:01 AM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cb2a6a7e9673f88989911@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <vW32e.4350$yq2.2536@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Sanders Kaufman said...
Are you really saying that "access to all the prescriptions the
patient is getting" does not entail "a better position to detect
potentially dangerous drug interactions"?
You neglected to include the part about "from that pharmacy".
No, I didn't "neglect" it, I just didn't retype it. It's self-
obvious that a pharmacy would keep a record of the medications
it has dispensed to a patient. That's part and parcel of my
point, in fact.
So your point (that the pharmacy only has a partial record of a patient's
medical history) somehow proves your other point - that Pharamacists usually
know the patient better than the doctor (who has a complete record of the
patient's medical history)?
I mean - forget the fact that the Doctor sees parts of you your family never
sees (much less your pharmacist).
And forget the fact that the Pharmacist probably doesn't know your name.
Do you see how stupid that is?
You're a real idiot if you think the local pharmacy has
your entire medical record on file.
Did I mention anything about an "entire medical history"?
No - that's where you screwed up.
You said the guy without the entire medical history is better positioned to
decide what meds you should take than the guy who DOES have a complete
medical history.
A person as quick as you to rely on straw men should be more
hesitant about casting about the word "idiot."
No straw men. No need to be hesitant.
You just go right ahead and take your pharmacists word over your doctors.
And while your at it - you might want to ask your bookkeeper to advise you
on dentistry.
Sharpen Occam's razor, dude - the best answer is usually the most obvious
one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 11:51:06 AM |
|
|
In article <5d72e.4959$yq2.1469@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Sanders Kaufman said...
So your point (that the pharmacy only has a partial record of a patient's
medical history) somehow proves your other point - that Pharamacists usually
know the patient better than the doctor (who has a complete record of the
patient's medical history)?
No, straw-weaver, my point is that a doctor might not have a
complete *pharmacological* history of a patient, while the
pharmacist often does.
Furthermore, a competent pharmacist can keep himself up-to-date
regarding the flurry of pharmacological changes and advances
more easily than many doctors can. Do you think a busy
cardiologist keeps up with the podiatric literature? Do
endocrinologists survey every monograph relating to sports
medicine?
I mean - forget the fact that the Doctor sees parts of
you your family never sees (much less your pharmacist).
Never once did I advise seeking medical advice from a
pharmacist.
And forget the fact that the Pharmacist probably doesn't
know your name.
What of it? My family doctor could recall my name, but I expect
that none of the specialists I've consulted over the years
could.
More to the point, my local pharmacist knows me, but I wouldn't
place my trust in a man merely because he's good with names. I'm
more impressed by his professionalism. He also possesses a
talent for remembering people's previous subscriptions, even for
people like me who rarely need any medication.
And his state-of-the-art, widely networked, pharmacological
database keeps tabs on patients' prescriptions all on its own.
:)
You said the guy without the entire medical history is
better positioned to decide what meds you should take
than the guy who DOES have a complete
medical history.
To borrow a quote from the celebrated Christopher A. Lee: "When
you tell me MY position you have to get it right." You haven't.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 07:44:15 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cb35f923cca8169989919@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <5d72e.4959$yq2.1469@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Sanders Kaufman said...
So your point (that the pharmacy only has a partial record of a patient's
medical history) somehow proves your other point - that Pharamacists
usually
know the patient better than the doctor (who has a complete record of the
patient's medical history)?
No, straw-weaver, my point is that a doctor might not have a
complete *pharmacological* history of a patient, while the
pharmacist often does.
That's not true of my doctor and pharmacist.
My doctor has my complete medical history - pharmacological and otherwise.
My Pharmacist just has a green-screen computer that's often not working.
My doctor knows what allergies I have, my Pharmacist does not.
My doctor knows what drugs have worked for me in the past, my pharmacist
does not - and I dont' think he cares.
And perhaps most importantly, my pharmacist gets his orders from the
doctor - not the other way around.
Furthermore, a competent pharmacist can keep himself up-to-date
regarding the flurry of pharmacological changes and advances
more easily than many doctors can.
So can a doctor.
Your implication, that doctors are less able to keep up with new science
than a pharmacist is irrational.
Doctors have PROVEN they are able to keep up with this stuff, even more than
the pharmacist.
I mean - forget the fact that the Doctor sees parts of
you your family never sees (much less your pharmacist).
Never once did I advise seeking medical advice from a
pharmacist.
I sense a back-pedal there.
You started out saying the pharmacist is better equipped to determine my
medical needs.
Now you're saying not to get my medical advice from him.
And his state-of-the-art, widely networked, pharmacological
database keeps tabs on patients' prescriptions all on its own.
:)
You seem to be inferring that the db is unavailable to the doctor, which is
not true.
You said the guy without the entire medical history is
better positioned to decide what meds you should take
than the guy who DOES have a complete
medical history.
To borrow a quote from the celebrated Christopher A. Lee: "When
you tell me MY position you have to get it right." You haven't.
In my defense - you have taken conflicting positions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 06:41:41 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cb35f923cca8169989919@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <5d72e.4959$yq2.1469@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Sanders Kaufman said...
So your point (that the pharmacy only has a partial record of a patient's
medical history) somehow proves your other point - that Pharamacists
usually
know the patient better than the doctor (who has a complete record of the
patient's medical history)?
No, straw-weaver, my point is that a doctor might not have a
complete *pharmacological* history of a patient, while the
pharmacist often does.
Usually only if the prescriptions are through the same pharmacy. Otherwise,
you're out of luck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 09:14:31 PM |
|
|
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:KrudnQXcMuqnaNTfRVn-vg@giganews.com...
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
No, straw-weaver, my point is that a doctor might not have a
complete *pharmacological* history of a patient, while the
pharmacist often does.
Usually only if the prescriptions are through the same pharmacy.
Otherwise, you're out of luck.
No - the national pharmaceutical database is real.
But it's optional, and only the big corporate pharmacies really use it.
And that's mostly because they DON'T know their patients.
Try to sell the service to some indepndent operator - and he'll probably
recommend you go see a shrink.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
30 Mar 2005 10:46:51 PM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <usenet@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:rQo2e.4081$oy3.1751@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:KrudnQXcMuqnaNTfRVn-vg@giganews.com...
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
No, straw-weaver, my point is that a doctor might not have a
complete *pharmacological* history of a patient, while the
pharmacist often does.
Usually only if the prescriptions are through the same pharmacy.
Otherwise, you're out of luck.
No - the national pharmaceutical database is real.
Yes, but not all pharmacies use it. I suppose I shouldn't have used the word
"usually" since I don't know exactly how the percentages break down.
But it's optional, and only the big corporate pharmacies really use it.
And that's mostly because they DON'T know their patients.
Try to sell the service to some indepndent operator - and he'll probably
recommend you go see a shrink.
No kidding.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Asher N" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 05:42:32 PM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.1cb35f923cca8169989919@news.comcast.giganews.com:
In article <5d72e.4959$yq2.1469@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Sanders Kaufman said...
So your point (that the pharmacy only has a partial record of a
patient's medical history) somehow proves your other point - that
Pharamacists usually know the patient better than the doctor (who has
a complete record of the patient's medical history)?
No, straw-weaver, my point is that a doctor might not have a
complete *pharmacological* history of a patient, while the
pharmacist often does.
Furthermore, a competent pharmacist can keep himself up-to-date
regarding the flurry of pharmacological changes and advances
more easily than many doctors can. Do you think a busy
cardiologist keeps up with the podiatric literature? Do
endocrinologists survey every monograph relating to sports
medicine?
Then again, the cardiologist would not care to see foot ailments, and the
endocrinologist could care less about that tennis elbow.
I mean - forget the fact that the Doctor sees parts of
you your family never sees (much less your pharmacist).
Never once did I advise seeking medical advice from a
pharmacist.
And forget the fact that the Pharmacist probably doesn't
know your name.
What of it? My family doctor could recall my name, but I expect
that none of the specialists I've consulted over the years
could.
More to the point, my local pharmacist knows me, but I wouldn't
place my trust in a man merely because he's good with names. I'm
more impressed by his professionalism. He also possesses a
talent for remembering people's previous subscriptions, even for
people like me who rarely need any medication.
And his state-of-the-art, widely networked, pharmacological
database keeps tabs on patients' prescriptions all on its own.
:)
You said the guy without the entire medical history is
better positioned to decide what meds you should take
than the guy who DOES have a complete
medical history.
To borrow a quote from the celebrated Christopher A. Lee: "When
you tell me MY position you have to get it right." You haven't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 08:09:31 AM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cb283afb8a41d9398990a@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <o_GdnQZZqb4lKtXfRVn-hw@giganews.com>, Mark Stahl
Not really; they just have access to all the prescriptions the patient is
getting from that pharmacy.
Are you really saying that "access to all the prescriptions the
patient is getting" does not entail "a better position to detect
potentially dangerous drug interactions"?
You neglected to include the part about "from that pharmacy".
You're a real idiot if you think the local pharmacy has your entire medical
record on file.
Tsk. It is so sad when a normally intelligent, articulate person feels reduced
to name calling in order to get his point accross.
Whether or not a pharmacy has your entire medical record on file is not the
issue. The issue is that the pharmacy can see that Drug A, which you've been
taking for three years because of your allergies, should NEVER be taken with
Drug B, which your doctor just put you on to lower your cholesterol, unless you
want to die a very messy death involving liver failure and brain hemorrhaging.
A doctor, especially a general practitioner, has an awful lot of medical
advances to keep up with. A pharmacist has only one area to keep up with. For
this reason, a pharmacist is almost always going to be more knowledgeable about
drugs, side effects and how different medications can or might interact with one
another.
When talking to you, your doctor has only a folder filled with written, static
notes; any computer files she keeps of your current health are updated long
after you have picked up prescription slips and left. A pharmacist has your
prescriptions on a computer, will check that computer file *before* filling your
prescriptions, and that check almost always will search for potentially
hazardous drug combinations. And it is not just your local pharmacy: nowadays,
almost every pharmacy is part of a national prescription database. If I need a
prescription while visiting New York City, the chances are very good that the
pharmacist will have access to all of my prescription history from Seattle.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 07:44:13 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4249619B.EB0A200F@serv.net...
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
When talking to you, your doctor has only a folder filled with written,
static
notes; any computer files she keeps of your current health are updated
long
after you have picked up prescription slips and left. A pharmacist has
your
My doctor knows my name and face - has for years.
My pharmacist is rarely ever the same person for a whole 6 months before
he's replaced by another.
And most importantly - my doctor never handed me meds that were meant for
someone else - my pharmacist has.
But then again, I use a real doctor - not an HMO.
If you're using one of those crooked insurance companies that pretend to be
care-givers, they you're probably right.
I would trust the candy-stripers more than I would those McDoctors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
02 Apr 2005 02:18:18 PM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <usenet@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:Nvn2e.4042$oy3.2935@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4249619B.EB0A200F@serv.net...
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
When talking to you, your doctor has only a folder filled with written,
static
notes; any computer files she keeps of your current health are updated
long
after you have picked up prescription slips and left. A pharmacist has
your
My doctor knows my name and face - has for years.
My pharmacist is rarely ever the same person for a whole 6 months before
he's replaced by another.
And most importantly - my doctor never handed me meds that were meant for
someone else - my pharmacist has.
But then again, I use a real doctor - not an HMO.
If you're using one of those crooked insurance companies that pretend to
be care-givers, they you're probably right.
I would trust the candy-stripers more than I would those McDoctors.
Usually they're the same doctors with different employment arrangements.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 10:14:37 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cb283afb8a41d9398990a@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <o_GdnQZZqb4lKtXfRVn-hw@giganews.com>, Mark Stahl
said...
In any event pharmacists often know the *patients* better than
the doctors do and are in a better position to detect
potentially dangerous drug interactions.
Not really; they just have access to all the prescriptions the patient is
getting from that pharmacy.
Are you really saying that "access to all the prescriptions the
patient is getting" does not entail "a better position to detect
potentially dangerous drug interactions"?
I am really saying that the pharmacists don't really "often know the
patients better than the doctors do".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 11:14:20 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cb283afb8a41d9398990a@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <o_GdnQZZqb4lKtXfRVn-hw@giganews.com>, Mark Stahl
said...
In any event pharmacists often know the *patients* better than
the doctors do and are in a better position to detect
potentially dangerous drug interactions.
Not really; they just have access to all the prescriptions the patient is
getting from that pharmacy.
Are you really saying that "access to all the prescriptions the
patient is getting" does not entail "a better position to detect
potentially dangerous drug interactions"?
Yes, but that's not the same as "knowing the patient better."
Susan
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 11:38:39 PM |
|
|
In article <Mu52e.54896$hA3.20985@trnddc09>, Susan Cohen said...
Yes, but that's not the same as "knowing the patient better."
Hmm. Here's the sort of thing I'm talking about: I know of
several cases in which a pharmacist's intervention prevented a
patient from taking contraindicated prescriptions medicines. (I
know of these incidents because the people in question never
tire of retelling the stories or of unfairly blaming their
doctors.)
None of these cases involved any actual mistakes made by
physicians. Rather, the patients were under the care of multiple
specialists for different ailments, and they had failed to fully
inform the physicians about their medications. The pharmacists
(or in one case, his pricey software) noticed the conflicting
prescriptions, while the doctors, lacking the requisite
information, could not.
For one of these patients, her pharmacist is the only person who
has any real hope of keeping track of her repertoire of
medication. The patient is one of those physician-fickle,
borderline hypochondriacs, and she samples for doctors the way
some people sample restaurants. She remains abjectly foolish
regarding drugs, and she thinks little of withholding pertinent
information from a doctor, the idea being that she will "test"
whether a new doctor's recommendations work better relative to
some previous doctor's. Madness. But she trusts her pharmacist,
whom she's known since childhood. I don't know what she'll do
when he retires.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 01:12:06 AM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cb2b3dfde0f9dc989914@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <Mu52e.54896$hA3.20985@trnddc09>, Susan Cohen said...
Hmm. Here's the sort of thing I'm talking about: I know of
several cases in which a pharmacist's intervention prevented a
patient from taking contraindicated prescriptions medicines. (I
know of these incidents because the people in question never
tire of retelling the stories or of unfairly blaming their
doctors.)
I know of several incidents where an Able Seaman corrected a Ship Captain's
navigation orders - but I wouldn't go to him on a regular basis.
And, if you do an *honest* assessment, you'll find that pharmacists are FAR
more likely to screw up your meds than to catch a doctor's mistake.
Ignoring the more qualified person, in favor of the less qualified person,
has been a signature characteristic of the NeoChristian movement.
It comes from a disrespect of those who pursue academic and intellectual
growth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 09:47:25 AM |
|
|
Walmart supports the right to refuse to fill as
prescription on religious grounds
Gregory Gadow wrote:
J Young wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/
Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate
Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions
A pharmisist fill prescriptions. He has the right -- in many states,
the duty -- to refuse to fill prescriptions if there is a question of
the legality of those prescriptions or if there could be potentially
dangerous side-effects with other medications he knows the person is
taking. He DOES NOT have a right to refuse to fill prescriptions
based on his own religious beliefs. If he is incapable of not being a
judgemental god-bot, he should be required to find other employment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 10:09:45 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <uAV1e.66686$6g7.27750@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Sid9
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Walmart supports the right to refuse to fill as prescription on religious
grounds
Wal-Mart supports a lot of things. Like using illegals as near slaves and
keeping women "in their place."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "beber" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 07:23:48 AM |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2005 22:01:01 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/
Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate
Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions
for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the
medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over
reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing
rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they
consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor
has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in
statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either
to protect pharmacists from being penalized - or force them to carry
out their duties.
Do they refuse to sell condums; spermicidal jellies? I doubt it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 08:17:32 AM |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2005 22:01:01 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/
Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate
Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions
for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the
medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over
reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing
rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they
consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor
has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in
statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either
to protect pharmacists from being penalized - or force them to carry
out their duties.
Or maybe pharmacists that don't want to do their JOBS could pony up
and get new jobs.
Would you support a surgeon who refused to carry out life-saving
operations because of 'religious' convictions? If these pharmacists
can't get their finger out and do the job they signed up for then
maybe they should step aside and let someone competent do it instead.
Should the vegetarian waitstaff be allowed to refuse to serve
customers who order the meat platter?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
