State finds NO GROUNDS for fallacious complaint filed by PP

[editec]

State: Nampa pharmacist OK in denying drug to woman | KBOI 2 - Boise News, Weather, Sports and Breaking News Boise, Idaho | Local & Regional

"The Idaho State Board of Pharmacy says a Nampa area pharmacist did nothing wrong when they denied filling a woman's prescription medicine last year."

the state board of Idaho???

I'm shocked.

Now there'll be a lawsuit.

*shrug*

Allie read into it what she wanted it to say, Jill.

The State of Idaho has YET to look at the case.

The Idaho State Board of Pharmacy is NOT the state.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sure it is.

It's the STATE pharmacy board.

*state* is right there in the title.

Looks to me like you're reading what you want into it.
They found that the pharmacist didn't do anything wrong. Which means in their eyes the claim is faccacious.

Pretty basic. My thread title is alot more representative than Slobbert's was.

 

[editec]

Sure it is.

It's the STATE pharmacy board.

*state* is right there in the title.

Looks to me like you're reading what you want into it.
They found that the pharmacist didn't do anything wrong. Which means in their eyes the claim is faccacious.

Pretty basic. My thread title is alot more representative than Slobbert's was.

Do you understand what the following means?

The Board has no basis to initiate administrative proceedings and will close our investigation without further action," the letter states.

"NO BASIS" is their cowardly way of saying that they are not the right VENUE to decide.

They washed their hands of the responsibility and guess what?

A court case is likely to follow because a CITIZEN'S RIGHTS (not a pharmacist's responsibilities) is really what is at issue here.

And the COURT is the right place for such an issue to be decided.

Look at it this way...

What if the pharmacist refused to give medicine to a wounded veteran because he didn't believe in WAR?

Would you think that's okay and the pharmacist has the right to make that kind of decision?

Well that's the KIND of decision this pharmacist made as it regards abortions.

And he does not, I suspect, have that right.

His licence demands that he obey the laws of the land.

 

[bodecea]

It sounds as if they reached their decision on procedural grounds, Allie. They sure did not lay out the reasoning behind it.

I dun understand how they could come to this conclusion.

Why are you applauding? Big fan of pharmacists, are ya?

Nobody has laid out anything in this matter. We have known exactly zip from the beginning. And all the ridiculous theorizing and second-guessing was a waste of time and indicative of nothing except the fact that there are a alot of people who have really good imaginations and can't tell pretend from real.

Hey, it's the same bunch that figured a Mien Kampf and Communist Manifesto reading Atheist who hated GWB was driven to madness by Sarah Palin. Critical thinking isn't their strong suit... following the crowd is however.

Really? Name names.

 

[Gadawg73]

Sure it is.

It's the STATE pharmacy board.

*state* is right there in the title.

Looks to me like you're reading what you want into it.
They found that the pharmacist didn't do anything wrong. Which means in their eyes the claim is faccacious.

Pretty basic. My thread title is alot more representative than Slobbert's was.

"didn't do anything wrong" before a licensing board is different that doing something wrong under another set of rules pharmacists and everyone else go by.
Not guilty is not innocent under the law as there is a big difference. Not guilty is that there was nothing under their jurisdicition that applies.
Beyond a reasonable doubt under a state licensing board is far different than preponderance of the evidence in a civil procedure or hearing.
The Rules of Evidence are different in each and Federal Rules may apply with HIPPA and each state has their own Civil Procedure.
Simpletons use simple answers.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sure it is.

It's the STATE pharmacy board.

*state* is right there in the title.

Looks to me like you're reading what you want into it.
They found that the pharmacist didn't do anything wrong. Which means in their eyes the claim is faccacious.

Pretty basic. My thread title is alot more representative than Slobbert's was.

"didn't do anything wrong" before a licensing board is different that doing something wrong under another set of rules pharmacists and everyone else go by.
Not guilty is not innocent under the law as there is a big difference. Not guilty is that there was nothing under their jurisdicition that applies.
Beyond a reasonable doubt under a state licensing board is far different than preponderance of the evidence in a civil procedure or hearing.
The Rules of Evidence are different in each and Federal Rules may apply with HIPPA and each state has their own Civil Procedure.
Simpletons use simple answers.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sure it is.

It's the STATE pharmacy board.

*state* is right there in the title.

Looks to me like you're reading what you want into it.
They found that the pharmacist didn't do anything wrong. Which means in their eyes the claim is faccacious.

Pretty basic. My thread title is alot more representative than Slobbert's was.

I think the board found that it did not have the authority to enforce HIPPA. Also they could not confirm all of the allegations. Not that the pharmacist didn't do anything wrong.

Personally I think it's wrong for a licensed pharmacist to refuse to fill a persciption written by a licensed doctor.

 

[manifold]

Still don't see what is 'fallacious' about the complaint.

And the state pharmacy board certainly didn't conclude that the allegations were false.

So I have to conclude that Allie either doesn't know what fallacious means or she was being a disingenuous twat in putting it in the thread title.

 

[xotoxi]

Why would anyone applaud denying a prescription?

And we aren't talking just one .

She laid down FIVE s!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"The Board has no basis to initiate administrative proceedings and will close our investigation without further action," the letter states.

Yup. The Idaho State Board of Pharmacy avoided making any finding and dismissed themselves from the hearing.

(read between the lines that editec thinks the Idaho State Board of Pharmacy acted like cowards)

What they did NOT DO was decide whether the pharmacist had that right to deny the script based on his opinion about the morality of the treatment.

This case is headed for a COURT OF LAW, I expect.

And if it does, and if the court is deciding based on the laws of the land and the logic of the laws, too, I suspect that they will hand down a decision that says that pharmacist's DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to deny medicine to patients because they don't approve of the patients' morals or the morality of the treatment procribed, either

That drug dealer's license would be lifted were I adjudicating that case.

I expect you are an idiot. Does that make it true, or do you have to do something else to prove it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure it is.

It's the STATE pharmacy board.

*state* is right there in the title.

Looks to me like you're reading what you want into it.
They found that the pharmacist didn't do anything wrong. Which means in their eyes the claim is faccacious.

Pretty basic. My thread title is alot more representative than Slobbert's was.

"didn't do anything wrong" before a licensing board is different that doing something wrong under another set of rules pharmacists and everyone else go by.
Not guilty is not innocent under the law as there is a big difference. Not guilty is that there was nothing under their jurisdicition that applies.
Beyond a reasonable doubt under a state licensing board is far different than preponderance of the evidence in a civil procedure or hearing.
The Rules of Evidence are different in each and Federal Rules may apply with HIPPA and each state has their own Civil Procedure.
Simpletons use simple answers.

Let me ask you something.

Is it remotely possible that you might be wrong about your interpretation of Idaho law and how it applies to this case?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure it is.

It's the STATE pharmacy board.

*state* is right there in the title.

Looks to me like you're reading what you want into it.
They found that the pharmacist didn't do anything wrong. Which means in their eyes the claim is faccacious.

Pretty basic. My thread title is alot more representative than Slobbert's was.

I think the board found that it did not have the authority to enforce HIPPA. Also they could not confirm all of the allegations. Not that the pharmacist didn't do anything wrong.

Personally I think it's wrong for a licensed pharmacist to refuse to fill a persciption written by a licensed doctor.

Actually, the board found that HIPPA did not apply because the pharmacist did not release any information. In order for anyone to violate HIPPA they have to release information that should be held confidential under it. Asking for information does not violate HIPPA, releasing it does. If it worked the other way around every reported that called asking about Gabriel Giffords would be guilty of violating HIPPA.

 

[JFK_USA]

Nobody has laid out anything in this matter. We have known exactly zip from the beginning. And all the ridiculous theorizing and second-guessing was a waste of time and indicative of nothing except the fact that there are a alot of people who have really good imaginations and can't tell pretend from real.

Hey, it's the same bunch that figured a Mien Kampf and Communist Manifesto reading Atheist who hated GWB was driven to madness by Sarah Palin. Critical thinking isn't their strong suit... following the crowd is however.

Really? Name names.

Well he is a part of the same bunch that convince some psycho to go after a liberal group and shoot them all. But yeah DEMOCRATS are the crazy ones.

 

[AllieBaba]

What the hell are you talking about?

I think your post pretty much proves libs are the crazy ones.

 

[Sheldon]

I just read the PDF letter and couldn't find where they said she made false claims.

They said the pharmacist didn't violate the Idaho Pharmacy Act, and that they don't address HIPPA issues.

They said "if true..." a couple times, but I didn't see where they said her complaint was bogus.

They did address the HIPPA issues. The only way the pharmacist, or anyone else, can violate HIPPA is by releasing information, not by asking for it. Since she did not release any information, and was not accused of having done so, she did not violate HIPPA.

Their release and request of information language was taken from the Idaho Pharmacy Act.

Maybe I should have said they don't have the *authority* to address HIPPA, but whatever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They do not need the authority to address something that did not happen.