| 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: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 09:03:39 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111987495.937192.52680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/
Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate
Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions
So, is this a good thing in your view, IBen?
LC~ If ISP's ever start screening users for stupidity, "J" is off the Net.
"Why is it okay to kill a baby ,but not okay to f*ck him or her?"
From: (Jon Young)
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.0404252034.356729e@posting.google.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank J Warner" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 07:27:25 AM |
|
|
In article <1111987495.937192.52680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 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.
Great idea!
I think grocers should extend this thinking and refuse to sell food to
grossly obese people. Clothing stores should not sell running shoes to
klutzes. Sporting goods stores should remove all boxing gloves from
their inventory.
We've already got laws against sellling booze to obviously intoxicated
people, so we don't need to change anything there. But I see lots of
other places where moral or ethical considerations might get in the way
of normal commerce.
-Frank
--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 12:20:35 AM |
|
|
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.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or religious
beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself at the grocery
store and leave without paying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 12:34:32 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/
Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate
Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions
for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the
medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or religious
beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself at the grocery
store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff shouldn't have
to "violate their morals" by taking orders for *meat, serving it, then
tending to the patrons while it is being consumed.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 01:19:36 AM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/
Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate
Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions
for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the
medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or religious
beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself at the grocery
store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff shouldn't have
to "violate their morals" by taking orders for *meat, serving it, then
tending to the patrons while it is being consumed.
Yeah. If you don't want to do your job, find a new one or shut up.
--
James B, former monkey #4,567,000,000
aa #944
"Hence the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances,
compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion: Hence, it
is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any certain inference in
favour of a man's morals from the fervour or strictness of his
religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere."
-David Hume, "The Natural History of Religion"
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 07:44:47 AM |
|
|
"James" <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:114fbvupsirp78a@corp.supernews.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
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.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or religious
beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself at the grocery
store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff shouldn't
have
to "violate their morals" by taking orders for *meat, serving it, then
tending to the patrons while it is being consumed.
Yeah. If you don't want to do your job, find a new one or shut up.
That sums it up quite well.
-DMc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 09:11:26 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:44:47 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeeehaw9.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<jTT1e.55060$8D.6137@tornado.texas.rr.com> wrote:
"James" <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:114fbvupsirp78a@corp.supernews.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
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.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or religious
beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself at the grocery
store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff shouldn't
have
to "violate their morals" by taking orders for *meat, serving it, then
tending to the patrons while it is being consumed.
Yeah. If you don't want to do your job, find a new one or shut up.
That sums it up quite well.
And if they will not do the job they were hired for fire them on the
spot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 09:46:31 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:44:47 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeeehaw9.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<jTT1e.55060$8D.6137@tornado.texas.rr.com> wrote:
"James" <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:114fbvupsirp78a@corp.supernews.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
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.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or
religious beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself
at the grocery store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff
shouldn't have to "violate their morals" by taking orders for
*meat, serving it, then tending to the patrons while it is being
consumed.
Yeah. If you don't want to do your job, find a new one or shut up.
That sums it up quite well.
And if they will not do the job they were hired for fire them on the
spot.
Walmart supports that policy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 10:21:33 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:46:31 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<DzV1e.66680$6g7.26311@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:44:47 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeeehaw9.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<jTT1e.55060$8D.6137@tornado.texas.rr.com> wrote:
"James" <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:114fbvupsirp78a@corp.supernews.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
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.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or
religious beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself
at the grocery store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff
shouldn't have to "violate their morals" by taking orders for
*meat, serving it, then tending to the patrons while it is being
consumed.
Yeah. If you don't want to do your job, find a new one or shut up.
That sums it up quite well.
And if they will not do the job they were hired for fire them on the
spot.
Walmart supports that policy
Firing them on the spot? I hope so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 10:24:34 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:46:31 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<DzV1e.66680$6g7.26311@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:44:47 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeeehaw9.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<jTT1e.55060$8D.6137@tornado.texas.rr.com> wrote:
"James" <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:114fbvupsirp78a@corp.supernews.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
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.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or
religious beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself
at the grocery store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff
shouldn't have to "violate their morals" by taking orders for
*meat, serving it, then tending to the patrons while it is being
consumed.
Yeah. If you don't want to do your job, find a new one or shut
up.
That sums it up quite well.
And if they will not do the job they were hired for fire them on the
spot.
Walmart supports that policy
Firing them on the spot? I hope so.
Walmart withholds prescribed drugs
sends the customers away to other
pharmacies on religious grounds.
Sorry to have been inclear
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 11:49:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:24:34 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<g7W1e.66884$6g7.2353@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:46:31 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<DzV1e.66680$6g7.26311@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:44:47 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeeehaw9.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<jTT1e.55060$8D.6137@tornado.texas.rr.com> wrote:
"James" <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:114fbvupsirp78a@corp.supernews.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
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.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or
religious beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself
at the grocery store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff
shouldn't have to "violate their morals" by taking orders for
*meat, serving it, then tending to the patrons while it is being
consumed.
Yeah. If you don't want to do your job, find a new one or shut
up.
That sums it up quite well.
And if they will not do the job they were hired for fire them on the
spot.
Walmart supports that policy
Firing them on the spot? I hope so.
Walmart withholds prescribed drugs
sends the customers away to other
pharmacies on religious grounds.
Sorry to have been inclear
One more reason not to shop at Walmart.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 10:44:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:24:34 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:46:31 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<DzV1e.66680$6g7.26311@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:44:47 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeeehaw9.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<jTT1e.55060$8D.6137@tornado.texas.rr.com> wrote:
"James" <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:114fbvupsirp78a@corp.supernews.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/
Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate
Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control
prescriptions
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill
prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying
that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral
or religious beliefs.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or
religious beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself
at the grocery store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff
shouldn't have to "violate their morals" by taking orders for
*meat, serving it, then tending to the patrons while it is being
consumed.
Yeah. If you don't want to do your job, find a new one or shut
up.
That sums it up quite well.
And if they will not do the job they were hired for fire them on the
spot.
Walmart supports that policy
Firing them on the spot? I hope so.
Walmart withholds prescribed drugs
sends the customers away to other
pharmacies on religious grounds.
Sorry to have been inclear
Walmart also supports driving other pharmacies out of business, and so
depriving customers of the option of finding another pharmacy to
fulfil the legal needs of those customers.
Not illegal in many cases, of course, but I wouldn't call it ethical.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 09:33:07 AM |
|
|
James wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/
Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate
Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions
for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the
medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or religious
beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself at the grocery
store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff shouldn't have
to "violate their morals" by taking orders for *meat, serving it, then
tending to the patrons while it is being consumed.
Yeah. If you don't want to do your job, find a new one or shut up.
And yet, that philosophy somehow does not apply to pharmacists.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 09:32:35 AM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
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.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or religious
beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself at the grocery
store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff shouldn't have
to "violate their morals" by taking orders for *meat, serving it, then
tending to the patrons while it is being consumed.
Indeed. A vegan waitperson at a steakhouse has a *moral obligation* to inform
patrons that they are supporting murder when they eat there, and then proceed
to bring everyone a nice soybean salad no matter what they may have ordered.
--
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 |
28 Mar 2005 04:07:06 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42482393.29F25B3@serv.net...
The other Donald wrote:
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff shouldn't
have
to "violate their morals" by taking orders for *meat, serving it, then
tending to the patrons while it is being consumed.
Indeed. A vegan waitperson at a steakhouse has a *moral obligation* to
inform
patrons that they are supporting murder when they eat there, and then
proceed
to bring everyone a nice soybean salad no matter what they may have
ordered.
(Chuckle, chuckle. Tee hee.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 04:50:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:32:35 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
thought hard and said:
The other Donald wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d287nj$jai$1@bolt.sonic.net...
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.
Shrug. Paying for groceries violates my "personal moral or religious
beliefs" so I'm not really stealing when I help myself at the grocery
store and leave without paying.
And all those veagans that work at steak houses as waitstaff shouldn't have
to "violate their morals" by taking orders for *meat, serving it, then
tending to the patrons while it is being consumed.
Indeed. A vegan waitperson at a steakhouse has a *moral obligation* to inform
patrons that they are supporting murder when they eat there, and then proceed
to bring everyone a nice soybean salad no matter what they may have ordered.
Meat is yummy. *proceeds to devour a 12 oz. sirloin*
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 09:31:20 AM |
|
|
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.
--
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: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 10:09:02 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <42482348.A223103D@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
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.
And since when do pharmacists have the "right" to second guess doctors?
That's rather close to practicing medicine without a license...
--
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: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 12:28:26 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In our last episode <42482348.A223103D@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
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.
And since when do pharmacists have the "right" to second guess doctors?
That's rather close to practicing medicine without a license...
Many states require that pharmacists report activity that might be construed as
criminal, such as using multiple doctors to prescribe the same drugs (Rush
Limbaugh, anyone?) or requesting certain drugs be refilled more often that the
prescription allows. Also, many pharmacists are the first line of reference for
potentially dangerous drug interactions. Case in point: my grandmother was put
on one drug by her GP and another by her cardiologist. The two together would
have causes serious, potentially fatal, supression of her central nervous
system. Her pharmacist caught the matter and recommended STRONGLY that she
contact her two doctors and make sure they knew what the other was prescribing.
Under California case law, the pharmacy could have been held legally responsible
for malpractice had they not caught the interaction.
--
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: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 02:32:39 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42484CCA.1D034777@serv.net...
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
And since when do pharmacists have the "right" to second guess doctors?
That's rather close to practicing medicine without a license...
Many states require that pharmacists report activity that might be
construed as
criminal, such as using multiple doctors to prescribe the same drugs (Rush
Limbaugh, anyone?) or requesting certain drugs be refilled more often that
the
prescription allows. Also, many pharmacists are the first line of
reference for
potentially dangerous drug interactions. Case in point: my grandmother was
put
on one drug by her GP and another by her cardiologist. The two together
would
have causes serious, potentially fatal, supression of her central nervous
system. Her pharmacist caught the matter and recommended STRONGLY that she
contact her two doctors and make sure they knew what the other was
prescribing.
Under California case law, the pharmacy could have been held legally
responsible
for malpractice had they not caught the interaction.
My father, a"h, was extremely proficient at being able to catch a fake
prescription. However, none of the activities we describe is the same as
refusing to dispense something just because of NON-MEDICAL beliefs.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 07:54:03 AM |
|
|
Susan Cohen wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42484CCA.1D034777@serv.net...
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
And since when do pharmacists have the "right" to second guess doctors?
That's rather close to practicing medicine without a license...
Many states require that pharmacists report activity that might be
construed as
criminal, such as using multiple doctors to prescribe the same drugs (Rush
Limbaugh, anyone?) or requesting certain drugs be refilled more often that
the
prescription allows. Also, many pharmacists are the first line of
reference for
potentially dangerous drug interactions. Case in point: my grandmother was
put
on one drug by her GP and another by her cardiologist. The two together
would
have causes serious, potentially fatal, supression of her central nervous
system. Her pharmacist caught the matter and recommended STRONGLY that she
contact her two doctors and make sure they knew what the other was
prescribing.
Under California case law, the pharmacy could have been held legally
responsible
for malpractice had they not caught the interaction.
My father, a"h, was extremely proficient at being able to catch a fake
prescription. However, none of the activities we describe is the same as
refusing to dispense something just because of NON-MEDICAL beliefs.
Which is the point I'm making. Pharmacists have an obligation -- in some states,
a legal obligation -- to second guess a doctor's orders when said orders might
be illegal or cause damage to the physical health of the patient. That
obligations does not extend to moral or spiritual matters and, in fact, such
behavior is improper and unprofessional.
--
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: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 04:52:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:09:02 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> thought hard and said:
In our last episode <42482348.A223103D@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
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.
And since when do pharmacists have the "right" to second guess doctors?
That's rather close to practicing medicine without a license...
Pharmacists typically know the drugs better than the doctors.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 05:40:24 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ok2h41hd2hh55mdmds10ecp203in4j8e9o@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:09:02 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
And since when do pharmacists have the "right" to second guess doctors?
That's rather close to practicing medicine without a license...
Pharmacists typically know the drugs better than the doctors.
But are almost *never* as well acquainted with the patient.
Knowing everything in the world about drugs doesn't help - if you don't know
the patient.
That's why Physicians are the ones who issue the orders, and Pharmacists are
the ones who are obligated to follow them.
This points to a fundamental failing of the NeoCon healthcare issue -
they're too focused on treatments, and utterly unconcerned with patient
welfare.
This is good if you're an HMO, but bad if you're a patient.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 07:58:07 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ok2h41hd2hh55mdmds10ecp203in4j8e9o@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:09:02 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> thought hard and said:
In our last episode <42482348.A223103D@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
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.
And since when do pharmacists have the "right" to second guess doctors?
That's rather close to practicing medicine without a license...
Pharmacists typically know the drugs better than the doctors.
And where do you get *that* idea?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
29 Mar 2005 06:02:51 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <peqdnZC9Vdk4KNXfRVn-iA@giganews.com>, Mark Stahl
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ok2h41hd2hh55mdmds10ecp203in4j8e9o@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:09:02 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> thought hard and said:
In our last episode <42482348.A223103D@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
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.
And since when do pharmacists have the "right" to second guess doctors?
That's rather close to practicing medicine without a license...
Pharmacists typically know the drugs better than the doctors.
And where do you get *that* idea?
Well, it is their specialty and there's a lot of ground to cover with the
number of medications out there and being introduced. But if they have
issues with a prescription, that's what phones are for. A pharmacist
substituting his or her judgement for the doctor's is highly questionable.
--
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: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 06:47:40 PM |
|
|
In article <ok2h41hd2hh55mdmds10ecp203in4j8e9o@4ax.com>, Daniel
Kolle said...
Pharmacists typically know the drugs better than the doctors.
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.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 07:05:30 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cb26fb79b9afa6c989908@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <ok2h41hd2hh55mdmds10ecp203in4j8e9o@4ax.com>, Daniel
Kolle said...
Pharmacists typically know the drugs better than the doctors.
In any event pharmacists often know the *patients* better than
the doctors do
That's just dumb.
I go to the pharmacy at least 4 times per month - and the same pharmacist is
rarely there for the whole month.
They have a hard time getting my name right when it's written down in front
of them - so assuming they know *anything* about me is stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 08:06:59 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cb26fb79b9afa6c989908@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <ok2h41hd2hh55mdmds10ecp203in4j8e9o@4ax.com>, Daniel
Kolle said...
Pharmacists typically know the drugs better than the doctors.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 08:12:50 PM |
|
|
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"?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate |
28 Mar 2005 09:27:23 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
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.
This kind of false defense, against a doctored statement, as a way of taking
a stand against Public Health is SOOOO NeoCon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
