Pharmacist Denies Anti-Bleeding Medication Because Woman Might Have Had an Abortion

[High_Gravity]

Wow...and to think that I thought you had some logic in you.


Please equate coming to a campus and showing young students INVOLUNTARILY graphic color blow ups of blood and guts (not even clear if appendix or fetus)...with an class that parents must approve on the human body and 'good touch/bad touch'?

I'll bet you're all for handing out condoms at the same schools.

Get a grip.

Condoms handed out at elementary schools?....PROVE it! Anyone here advocating handing out condoms at elementary schools? PROVE it!


Or did you just bear false witness?

She just lost her mind and went on a rage, she went off on me and I didn't even say anything to her. These anti abortion people are fuckin wacked.

 

[bodecea]

I'll bet you're all for handing out condoms at the same schools.

Get a grip.

Condoms handed out at elementary schools?....PROVE it! Anyone here advocating handing out condoms at elementary schools? PROVE it!


Or did you just bear false witness?

She just lost her mind and went on a rage, she went off on me and I didn't even say anything to her. These anti abortion people are fuckin wacked.

Not all of them, not the majority of them...but there are some that will kill you.

 

[High_Gravity]

Condoms handed out at elementary schools?....PROVE it! Anyone here advocating handing out condoms at elementary schools? PROVE it!


Or did you just bear false witness?

She just lost her mind and went on a rage, she went off on me and I didn't even say anything to her. These anti abortion people are fuckin wacked.

Not all of them, not the majority of them...but there are some that will kill you.

Allie is wacked, one minute we are having a peaceful discussion swapping spaghetti recipes and the next minute shes telling me to go **** myself and I didn't even say anything to her it just seems like the people in the anti abortion crowd are on pins and needles and just go the **** off like crazy people off their meds

 

[Immanuel]

I hate to disagree with you, but the way I see it is that someone who is truly pro-life wants to save the life of not only the baby, but also the life of the mother regardless of her sexual proclivity. In my humble opinion, being pro-life is not just about stopping abortion. It is about saving not only the life of the baby or babies, but also the life of the mother.

That is because you are rational and compassionate. Toss is not pro-life, she's just anti-abortion. There is a difference.

I also have my doubts that she is involved in healthcare. Her opinions on hospice are straight out of the 60's. She has no understanding of the HIPAA laws. She's either grossly misinformed or blatantly lying about the organ donation process. And she's about as compassionate as Torquemada. The health care providers I interact with understand that their job is not to judge a patient's actions and the relevant pathology it causes. There job is to care for them as best as they can. At an inner-city hospital, where I am learning medicine, we see all sorts of pathology that is a result of behavior that people consider immoral. Any health care provider that refused to treat Gonorrhea or Chlamydia in a single girl due to the fact that she was a "monkey" or some such bullshit would lose their license. Rightly so. Furthermore, in the course of treating them, if you come across as judgmental at all, you've screwed up already. Sometimes it is hard not to be judgmental, but it is an expected part of the profession.

It's part of being a professional.

For this pharmacist to deny what may or may not have been a life saving drug is simply wrong. As for the abortionist having released the woman before she was medically fit to be released, my understanding is that this happens quite often. Women who have had abortions end up in the hospital either with internal bleeding or infection. The pharmacists, again in my humble opinion, should have provided the necessary services. She was not aiding in an abortion. She may have been saving the life of a victim of a botched abortion.

Or it might have had nothing to do with abortion whatsoever. Despite contrary opinion, Planned parenthood offers the whole gamet of women's care:

Women's Health

The fact that this script was written by a Nurse Practitioner, who couldn't perform a D&C/Abortion procedure, leads me to speculate (so take it for what it's worth) that this might have just been regular gynecological care.

The pharmacist obviously saw the script came from Planned Parenthood and inferred it was for post-abortion care and, erroneously, denied filling the script.

I am not sure what the state has or will do about it, but Walgreens is going to have a huge problem on it's hands if this becomes the norm.

Thanks for the post and the information.

And for the record, I know and understand that Planned Parenthood performs other services besides abortion. However, they are mostly known for their abortion services and their promotion of abortion/abortion rights.

Immie

 

[High_Gravity]

Nobody is putting a gun to anyones head and making them go to planned parenthood for their abortions, unless people are willing to help these people raise these kids they really need to mind their own business. Rhetoric doesn't pay the bills and put food on the table.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unfortunately for this position there are times and places where your profession does not allow for the complete freedom of denying someone your services. This is akin to a cop not stopping a crime because he does not like the color of your house, a doctor not saving your life because he does not believe in a specific type of medical treatment or a fireman not putting out a fire because his pagan beliefs does not allow him to stop a specific type of wood or object from burning. Fact is, there are times when a pharmacist should have the ability to not carry/dispense a medication and there are times when they should not be allowed that luxury. The times they cannot should pertain mostly to life/immediate harm instances. This instance seems to be one of those and is, therefore, morally reprehensible that the prescription was refused. Even with abortion, there are requirements placed on doctors requiring them to perform the procedure if there is imminent danger and no one else to accomplish it. These are part of entering the field to begin with.

I strongly disagree. Particularly when the woman used a public pharmacy, not a hospital pharmacy for the meds. The liability in this thing happens to be at the feet of the abortion clinic not the public pharmacy. The dirtballs in the abortion clinic had an obligation to provide those meds, kiddo. They have no right to expect any citizen to pony up care in any way in such an abhorrent scenario.

I also disagree that any refusal to participate in the actions of an abortionist is somehow akin to the Police or Fire Departments refusing assistance due to the color of a house or personal preferences. Even in a hospital setting, Professionals most certainly can and do refuse to participate in the actions of abortionists and refuse to participate in the care of such patients. Hospital Boards are also free to refuse abortions and abortion care. As well, Professionals are also free to refuse to provide care in other areas of medical attention as well. For example, Nurses are free to refuse nursing in mental wards.

It is not morally reprehensible that the Pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. It was reprehensible that the abortionist threw his/her patient out in the public sector with a prescription rather than the meds and expected others to be wheedled into the agenda of her care.

The fact is, there is such a thing as strong personal preferences in many matters, and nobody has the right to force anything or any agenda that is regarded as abhorrent on anyone. Even Nurses and Doctors. The fact is, when such strong personal preferences are there, such a Nurse or Doctor is not going to provide the same quality of care to such a patient as a non-abhorrent patient would receive.

So it's really best if the abhorrent seeks help somewhere else. The abhorrent found the abortionist and I'm very sure the abhorrent can sniff out other abhorrents with relative ease.

I absolutely refuse, under any condition and situation, to assist in any way the work of an abortionist and his/her screwing monkey who hired them to murder her baby.

If such a female comes to me, I shall not assist her in any way. Miss Piggy can go elsewhere. I do not have to provide care or treatment and I won't.

And finally, if that woman was bleeding she still required medical care in the abortion clinic. She should have been sent back to the butcher.

God, what are your predictions for the AFC/NFC finals this week?

Whatever they are, put your money on the other team.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I certainly hope you are not in the medical field...for your sake and for everyone else's.

You might want to read a little further and try some comprehension. The Pharmacist did in fact make a call to determine the nature of the prescription. Pharmacists have that right and in fact do this many times a day on a variety of meds. A red flag should have gone up when the so-called Nurse claimed Patient Privacy in the matter. Not once has any Doctor, Nurse, or clinic worker EVER used such an excuse in response to a Pharmacy call, that I can recall UNLESS there is something going on they are trying to hide. There was something way way wrong in this picture and the Pharmacist did the correct thing by not filling that prescription.

That med happens to be a dangerous med and for your information Pharmacists are indeed charged with seeking and supplying information to Patients and have every right to refuse a prescription. Nurses as well have the right to refuse administering a med.

The abortion butcher wanted someone else to take the liability. That's what this is about.

One step further, sugarplum, had that Patient gone to a legit GYN -- rather than an abortion butcher -- she would have been placed in the hospital for a D&C and testing done for that bleeding. I do not know one single OB/GYN who would have sent a Patient home with such a symptom OR been stupid enough to write a prescription like that. Just because it's in the pharmacy doesn't mean it's safe or that other medical things should not have been done. This deal reeked of abortion.

You place more value on the life of a female who allows the murder of her baby than you do the baby, and I disagree strongly with that. Neither do I think such bimbos should have the compassion and all the ideas that what she is doing is acceptable. It isn't acceptable.

It is also unacceptable that abortionists think they can drag the entire medical profession into their killing field -- and drag all women into their heinous crap. I don't buy it now and never have. And won't ever. One step further, you might want to check the history of Planned Parenthood. They are hardly honorable. But, boy they are supposedly experts when it comes to your private parts, eh? That trash should not get one cent of public monies.

You are aware I suppose, that one of the major conflicts in the Democratic Party happens to be the issue of abortion? If you think all Dems support that crap you are very wrong. I'll never forget one of the meetings -- we got a talk from Catholics who assist abortion clinics, and then a talk from a Rabbi who claimed the pre-born aren't humans. And I'll tell you something, if this abortion issue doesn't reek of really disgusting religious bullshit, I don't know what does.

Finally, if I give care it's proper care. I don't kill Patients. If you consider that out of step, I strongly suggest you might want to think about your own mental state.

Wait a minute, Quantum Windbag and Allie CLAIMED THIS EVENT NEVER HAPPENED.
Which is it?

We did no such thing, we pointed out that we only have one side of the story, and even that side is incomplete.

 

[Immanuel]

She just lost her mind and went on a rage, she went off on me and I didn't even say anything to her. These anti abortion people are fuckin wacked.

Not all of them, not the majority of them...but there are some that will kill you.

Allie is wacked, one minute we are having a peaceful discussion swapping spaghetti recipes and the next minute shes telling me to go **** myself and I didn't even say anything to her it just seems like the people in the anti abortion crowd are on pins and needles and just go the **** off like crazy people off their meds

I hate to say it, but I have been in some discussions with some "bat shit crazy" pro-choicers as well who will flip out simply because someone else feels the need to defend human life. Like Bodecea said regarding pro-life people most pro-choicers are not "bat shit crazy" but you can still run across a few here and there.

Although since the Dems took the White House it is a little harder to find them probably because they feel secure for the time being. Most likely they think that liberals will control the government for the rest of eternity. Wait until a conservative returns to power... um, if that ever happens , and they will return in droves.

Immie

 

[Gadawg73]

Lol..nice. You represent the Party of Clueless Jackasses well.

You represent the party of dumb ass ******* *****.

Hey now man. Having played a lot of ball for many years I am used to that and was one of the worst at that in the locker room.
I agree with your position on this issue but she is a lady and even if we disagree with her don't stoop to that level.
I appreciate your informed posts otherwise. We need you here.

 

[AllieBaba]

Are these the kids you all believe in "educating" about their abortion and reproductive rights?

I guess maybe you only want to educate them about SOME aspects of sex and abortion.

Wow...and to think that I thought you had some logic in you.


Please equate coming to a campus and showing young students INVOLUNTARILY graphic color blow ups of blood and guts (not even clear if appendix or fetus)...with an class that parents must approve on the human body and 'good touch/bad touch'?

Isn't it fascinating to see someone SO CONFIDENT of their position in a discussion that they are afraid to answer questions and rather do back alley neg reps on those who ask those inconvenient questions?

It was an Honor, Allie. A distinct Honor.

Don't mention it, dipshitea.

I always wonder at the sort of person it takes to really get down in the trenches, run any risk, mow down any opposition, to support killing babies.

You have to be special, I know that.

 

[AllieBaba]

You used the plural, idiot. Don't get mad at me because you can't articulate intelligently.

What? is English even your first language you stupid ass *****? **** you and the horse you rode in on you stupid ass ****.

I recommend...

 

[geauxtohell]

I hate to disagree with you, but the way I see it is that someone who is truly pro-life wants to save the life of not only the baby, but also the life of the mother regardless of her sexual proclivity. In my humble opinion, being pro-life is not just about stopping abortion. It is about saving not only the life of the baby or babies, but also the life of the mother.

That is because you are rational and compassionate. Toss is not pro-life, she's just anti-abortion. There is a difference.

I also have my doubts that she is involved in healthcare. Her opinions on hospice are straight out of the 60's. She has no understanding of the HIPAA laws. She's either grossly misinformed or blatantly lying about the organ donation process. And she's about as compassionate as Torquemada. The health care providers I interact with understand that their job is not to judge a patient's actions and the relevant pathology it causes. There job is to care for them as best as they can. At an inner-city hospital, where I am learning medicine, we see all sorts of pathology that is a result of behavior that people consider immoral. Any health care provider that refused to treat Gonorrhea or Chlamydia in a single girl due to the fact that she was a "monkey" or some such bullshit would lose their license. Rightly so. Furthermore, in the course of treating them, if you come across as judgmental at all, you've screwed up already. Sometimes it is hard not to be judgmental, but it is an expected part of the profession.

It's part of being a professional.

For this pharmacist to deny what may or may not have been a life saving drug is simply wrong. As for the abortionist having released the woman before she was medically fit to be released, my understanding is that this happens quite often. Women who have had abortions end up in the hospital either with internal bleeding or infection. The pharmacists, again in my humble opinion, should have provided the necessary services. She was not aiding in an abortion. She may have been saving the life of a victim of a botched abortion.

Or it might have had nothing to do with abortion whatsoever. Despite contrary opinion, Planned parenthood offers the whole gamet of women's care:

Women's Health

The fact that this script was written by a Nurse Practitioner, who couldn't perform a D&C/Abortion procedure, leads me to speculate (so take it for what it's worth) that this might have just been regular gynecological care.

The pharmacist obviously saw the script came from Planned Parenthood and inferred it was for post-abortion care and, erroneously, denied filling the script.

I am not sure what the state has or will do about it, but Walgreens is going to have a huge problem on it's hands if this becomes the norm.

Thanks for the post and the information.

And for the record, I know and understand that Planned Parenthood performs other services besides abortion. However, they are mostly known for their abortion services and their promotion of abortion/abortion rights.

Immie

I know. Which is what most likely prompted this pharmacist to act this way.

 

[AllieBaba]

Then again, there's no way to know since we have zero details about anything. Except that PP filed a *complaint* making certain allegations, which the pharmacy must respond to.

We've all had crazy neighbors who are litigious, now, haven't we?

 

[geauxtohell]

Then again, there's no way to know since we have zero details about anything. Except that PP filed a *complaint* making certain allegations, which the pharmacy must respond to.

We've all had crazy neighbors who are litigious, now, haven't we?

Sure. This is just one side of the story. Granted. It might not be true and there is always another side.

Until that comes out, people are going to discuss it at face value.

Welcome to a message board.

 

[Immanuel]

Then again, there's no way to know since we have zero details about anything. Except that PP filed a *complaint* making certain allegations, which the pharmacy must respond to.

We've all had crazy neighbors who are litigious, now, haven't we?

Sure. This is just one side of the story. Granted. It might not be true and there is always another side.

Until that comes out, people are going to discuss it at face value.

Welcome to a message board.

My guess is that there is another side of the story as you say and that somewhere in the middle of the two stories is where the truth will lie.

Immie

 

[Gadawg73]

Facts NOT in dispute:
1. The drug was prescribed by a legal health care provider.
2. The pharmacist would not fill the prescription.
3. The State Board of Pharmacy has acknowledged that a complaint was filed by this woman against the pharmacist for NOT filling a legal prescription.The ONLY way a pharmacist can not fill a prescription is to invoke the conscience clause.
4.The pharmacist was NAMED in the complaint. You can not file a complaint UNLESS someone is named.
How in the hell can the facts of this "be somewhere in the middle"?
Spin is rampant these days.

 

[AllieBaba]

Then again, there's no way to know since we have zero details about anything. Except that PP filed a *complaint* making certain allegations, which the pharmacy must respond to.

We've all had crazy neighbors who are litigious, now, haven't we?

Sure. This is just one side of the story. Granted. It might not be true and there is always another side.

Until that comes out, people are going to discuss it at face value.

Welcome to a message board.

Ad hominimemenemenemenemn and completely irrelevant.

Just pointing out that the claims that "this" or "that" happened are based upon nothing.

And allow me to welcome you to the message board, since I failed to do so when you joined. I just didn't notice you.

 

[Immanuel]

Facts NOT in dispute:
1. The drug was prescribed by a legal health care provider.
2. The pharmacist would not fill the prescription.
3. The State Board of Pharmacy has acknowledged that a complaint was filed by this woman against the pharmacist for NOT filling a legal prescription.The ONLY way a pharmacist can not fill a prescription is to invoke the conscience clause.
4.The pharmacist was NAMED in the complaint. You can not file a complaint UNLESS someone is named.
How in the hell can the facts of this "be somewhere in the middle"?
Spin is rampant these days.

Actually, we do not know that those are the facts. Number 2 for instance, is not certain. All that we know is that the pharmacist made a phone call to the Planned Parenthood office and that the NP at PP would not answer the question. We are told in the OP that the Pharmacist refused to fill the prescription, yet we have not been given the pharmacists side of the story. It is possible that the pharmacist questioned the patient and the need for the prescription and the patient got frustrated and left the pharmacy believing that the pharmacist would not have filled the prescription.

I know that I have had pharmacists who will question what the prescription is for, what other prescription (and non-prescription) medication I am currently on etc. I believe that they can be held as liable as the doctor is if they fill a prescription that does harm to the patient.

So, we do not know "the facts" of the case. We have alleged facts and nothing more than that.

Hell, we don't know for sure that #1 is a fact!

And yes, you seem to be quite adept at spinning "facts".

Immie

 

[Gadawg73]

Then again, there's no way to know since we have zero details about anything. Except that PP filed a *complaint* making certain allegations, which the pharmacy must respond to.

We've all had crazy neighbors who are litigious, now, haven't we?

Sure. This is just one side of the story. Granted. It might not be true and there is always another side.

Until that comes out, people are going to discuss it at face value.

Welcome to a message board.

Ad hominimemenemenemenemn and completely irrelevant.

Just pointing out that the claims that "this" or "that" happened are based upon nothing.

And allow me to welcome you to the message board, since I failed to do so when you joined. I just didn't notice you.

"based on nothing".
Walgreens admits that a complaint was filed, a patient filed a claim that her prescription was not filled, the only way a legal prescription is not filled is for the pharmacist to invoke the conscience clause, Walgreens sent their pharmacist to answer the named pharmacist complaint, the prescription was written by a legal health care employee, the State requires that a legal written prescription was written and not filled before they accept this complaint and the employer of that health care employee validated the prescription was written.

How is that "claims based upon nothing"?

Obviously, you have not done any homework and research once again.

 

[AllieBaba]

You truly are retarded.

Once again.
Slooowwwwlllyyyy...

A complaint was filed by PP CLAIMING an unnamed woman didn't get her med.

Walgreen's answered the complaint, as they must, or admit that the complaint is truthful.

Is this sinking in????

Walgreen's has neither admitted nor denied the complaint; they have simply responded legally, as they have to.

Nobody's named.
No details, other than the ones in the ALLEGATIONS within the complaint, have surfaced.

Get it? Huh? Get it? Huh? Get it?