Kansas bill would force pharmacists to fill ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine as off-label COVID treatment

[Theowl32]

I don't give a shit. But no one should be forced to sell it against their will.


I never insisted that.


Nope. Never claimed that.


Nope


WTF?



By all means, continue. It's funny!

The pharmaceutical industry has no ancillary nor monetary motivation to push the vaccines on 7 billion people?

 

[dblack]

The pharmaceutical industry has no ancillary nor monetary motivation to push the vaccines on 7 billion people?

Beats me. I has no bearing on my statement. No one should be forced to sell medication against their will.

 

[theHawk]

Anti-vaxxer's COVID antidote: 'Urine therapy'​

"Urine therapy – where advocates encourage people to drink their own urine to tap into its redemptive properties – is among the latest, and a recent video calling the therapy the next "COVID antidote" was viewed over 366,000 times."
Anti-vaxxer tells supporters the new COVID antidote is in 'urine therapy'
Here's another anti-Covid therapy. You guys are all nut jobs. Good luck with that.

Maybe they should just inject it, like the pro-vaxxers do with mRNA shit.
After all, there isn’t any proof that they are safe and/or effective in the long run.

 

[Theowl32]

Beats me. I has no bearing on my statement. No one should be forced to sell medication against their will.

Yeah? And no one should be bullied, Pressured, Coerced, to take a medication that will NOT give the patients any sort of informed consent. Nor should those patients be perpetually demonized like the nazis did to the Jews in 1939.

The fact that you never ever call out these companies from keeping (deliberately) pertinent information to the patients is all we need to know about you.

Don't worry. Pfizer said they would.....in 55 years.

 

[dblack]

Yeah? And no one should bullied, Pressured, Coerced, to take a medication that will NOT give the patients any sort of informed consent.

Private business can't bully you. They can arrest you. You can tell them go to hell, whenever you want. But that's not good enough for you, is it? You want to use the government to force your will on them. Just another big government statist in action

 

[Theowl32]

Private business can't bully you. They can arrest you. You can tell them go to hell, whenever you want. But that's not good enough for you, is it? You want to use the government to force your will on them. Just another big government statist in action

Sigh

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, I do. A pharmacist has no business getting in between a patient and their doctor. They can offer up all the opinions they like but at the end of the day their job is to fill a legally obtained prescription. Period.

As to why the government should be involved? Well, if it becomes law, that is literally the job of government - to enforce the law.

They can offer up all the opinions they like but at the end of the day their job is to fill a legally obtained prescription. Period.

In accordance with the policies and practices of their employers that is.

 

[Missourian]

What is your point?
Your own experience validates my point.

My experience validates MY point that it us nothing but political posturing.

Let's do a logic problem.

A. Pharmacists dispense prescription drugs both on label and off label with a valid prescription without any consideration of liability.

We know that is a true statement.

B. Pharmacists are not privy to the diagnosis the prescription was prescribed to treat...so ANY medications they dispense may well be for off label treatments.

We also know this statement is true.

Therefore we can conclude that dispensing Invermectin or Hydrocloriquine with a valid prescription WOULD NOT open them up to ANY liability...or they would NEVER fill off label prescriptions.

That leaves us to consider what OTHER motivation a pharmacy may have to deny a valid prescription for proven safe drug with a 50 year track record of reliable treatment?

If it isn't political...then what is the alternative?

...and...

 

[dblack]

Sigh

Sorry, but when it comes to the purpose of government, Trumpsters and liberals fundamentally agree: government is means of telling people how to live. Government decides and mandates conformity.

 

[armadei]

Says who? Maybe they see their job as providing safe drugs.

Yes, yes. The good ole "administrative state". Government should make these decisions for us, on every-damned-thing, and then force everyone to comply.

This is why I think it's such a joke that some Trumpsters pretend they are "libertarians".

Where did I say the government should "make the decisions for us", tard?

If a law is passed that requires pharmacists to fill prescriptions without question, it will be done through the legislature. The legislature is the will of THE PEOPLE, not executive edict. Hence, we the people charge the government with enforcing the law that WE PASSED.

Seriously, do you not understand how a representative republic works?

 

[dblack]

Where did I say the government should "make the decisions for us", tard

That would right here:

If a law is passed that requires pharmacists to fill prescriptions without question, it will be done through the legislature. The legislature is the will of THE PEOPLE, not executive edict. Hence, we the people charge the government with enforcing the law that WE PASSED.

Seriously, do you not understand how a representative republic works?

 

[armadei]

That would right here:

Read it again.

Where did I say the government should "make the decisions for us", tard?

If a law is passed that requires pharmacists to fill prescriptions without question, it will be done through the legislature. The legislature is the will of THE PEOPLE, not executive edict. Hence, we the people charge the government with enforcing the law that WE PASSED.

Seriously, do you not understand how a representative republic works?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

My experience validates MY point that it us nothing but political posturing.

Let's do a logic problem.

A. Pharmacists dispense prescription drugs both on label and off label with a valid prescription without any consideration of liability.

We know that is a true statement.

B. Pharmacists are not privy to the diagnosis the prescription was prescribed to treat...so ANY medications they dispense may well be for off label treatments.

We also know this statement is true.

Therefore we can conclude that dispensing Invermectin or Hydrocloriquine with a valid prescription WOULD NOT open them up to ANY liability...or they would NEVER fill off label prescriptions.

That leaves us to consider what OTHER motivation a pharmacy may have to deny a valid prescription for proven safe drug with a 50 year track record of reliable treatment?

If it isn't political...then what is the alternative?

...and...

Derp..
You said none of the corporate chains would fill your script. You had to go to an independent. I told you why.

 

[eagle1462010]

Derp..
You said none of the corporate chains would fill your script. You had to go to an independent. I told you why.

Because of fks like you backing the FDA murderers not allowing their use. And it has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Why are you Murdering Americans with Lies?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Because of fks like you backing the FDA murderers not allowing their use. And it has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Why are you Murdering Americans with Lies?

Yep. That’s what I related to Missourian.

 

[dblack]

Read it again.

No. I read it fine the first time. Nothing you said contradicts the fact that you want government to decide and force any dissenters to comply. It makes no difference whether it's an "executive edict" or the will of THE PEOPLE, it's still the state coercing conformity.

 

[armadei]

No. I read it fine the first time. Nothing you said contradicts the fact that you want government to decide and force any dissenters to comply. It makes no difference whether it's an "executive edict" or the will of THE PEOPLE, it's still the state coercing conformity.

Fine, let's have it your way. If pharmacists should be able to deny prescriptions based on their personal beliefs then we should let doctors deny life saving care on the same basis.

Oh you got shot while robbing the liquor store? Too bad. Die.
You weren't wearing the proper safety harness when scaling that tower, and fell? Well, you're an idiot and you deserve it. Die.
Sustained a critical injury in a car accident, but the ER doctor has seen you post some viewpoints to Facebook he disagrees with? Oh well. Die.

And why stop there? How about firefighters? Should we let them decide which homes or neighborhoods they respond to, based on personal beliefs? EMTs? Police?

This is the kind of society you want?

 

[dblack]

Fine, let's have it your way. If pharmacists should be able to deny prescriptions based on their personal beliefs then we should let doctors deny life saving care on the same basis.

As long as they're not contracted to provide emergency services, that works for me. But they usually are. There's also EMTALA - but I think that's an overstep.

And why stop there? How about firefighters? Should we let them decide which homes or neighborhoods they respond to, based on personal beliefs? EMTs? Police?

Because they are contractually obligated to provide emergency services.

This is the kind of society you want?

Nope. It's a strawman.

 

[armadei]

As long as they're not contracted to provide emergency services, that works for me. But they usually are. There's also EMTALA - but I think that's an overstep.

Because they are contractually obligated to provide emergency services.

Nope. It's a strawman.

You think medication wouldn't or shouldn't fall under "emergency services"? Really?

You're flailing.

 

[dblack]

You think medication wouldn't or shouldn't fall under "emergency services"? Really?

Sometimes it would. Not sure what your point is.

You're flailing.

Yeah? How so? I'm just not a fan of government dictating to business. We're not socialists. Not yet anyway.