pharmacist have 1st Amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B

[Care4all]

You don't think breaking the law and going to jail might possible encompass an ethical dilemma between the theoretical patient privacy and the pharmacist not going to jail?

And that has to do with the DEA how?

the DEA will arrest a pharmacist that it thinks allows people to prescription shop or abuse painkillers.

okkkk, so connect the DEA with dispensing Plan B???? Just that pharmacists are asked by the DEA TO LET THEM KNOW IF THEY SUSPECT SOMETHING FISHY GOING on? OOPS on the caps, it was by accident....but how does this relate to dispensing plan B? Certainly Plan B is not a drug the DEA asks pharmacists to follow the dispensing of??? I guess I am just confused?

 

[saveliberty]

He? Did say can, not must.

I have to tell you, that if the government tried to force me to dispense a product, I would object regardless of the product (I'm not even sure if Plan B is an abortifant or a contraceptive or can be both and that I personally would not dispense it despite my religious beliefs) and I would in no way assist anyone to get it. I don't care if the product is bubble gum.

Catholic journal says Plan B does not cause abortions | National Catholic Reporter

Immie

excellent article!!! too bad the women at this pharmacy that refused to dispense it, were not more knowledgeable on Plan B and it NOT causing an abortion.....it would have saved a lot of time and money and much less stress for the pharmacy owner and the women who were fired!

...and just what are these women purchasing Plan B for again? Doesn't cause the loss of a baby, right.

 

[Care4all]

I have to tell you, that if the government tried to force me to dispense a product, I would object regardless of the product (I'm not even sure if Plan B is an abortifant or a contraceptive or can be both and that I personally would not dispense it despite my religious beliefs) and I would in no way assist anyone to get it. I don't care if the product is bubble gum.

Catholic journal says Plan B does not cause abortions | National Catholic Reporter

Immie

excellent article!!! too bad the women at this pharmacy that refused to dispense it, were not more knowledgeable on Plan B and it NOT causing an abortion.....it would have saved a lot of time and money and much less stress for the pharmacy owner and the women who were fired!

...and just what are these women purchasing Plan B for again? Doesn't cause the loss of a baby, right.

No, it doesn't do that, not Plan B....plan B only works well if taken the first 3 days after a rape, as example....to prevent the fertilization of the egg.....if the egg has already been fertilized, then Plan B is ineffective. (Catholic Charities dispense it in their hospitals for Rape victims but they run pregnancy tests to make certain the woman is not pregnant already before giving it to the victim...though that is a waste of money and time, because Plan B DOES NOT WORK if the victim is already pregnant but what ever....) A pregnancy does not occur for the first 7 days after doing the "naughty", plan B has to be taken within the first 3 from what i just read in the article that was put out by some Catholic Church science Paper or magazine or something of the sort...? Read the full article, it is long but it explained a great deal for me and I'm pretty certain it could clear some things up for you as well.... I did NOT know a lot of the stuff in the article....I was misinformed.

RU 486 is another story.... It is a chemical Abortion...but not Plan B....

at least that is what I got out of the article....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And that has to do with the DEA how?

the DEA will arrest a pharmacist that it thinks allows people to prescription shop or abuse painkillers.

okkkk, so connect the DEA with dispensing Plan B???? Just that pharmacists are asked by the DEA TO LET THEM KNOW IF THEY SUSPECT SOMETHING FISHY GOING on? OOPS on the caps, it was by accident....but how does this relate to dispensing plan B? Certainly Plan B is not a drug the DEA asks pharmacists to follow the dispensing of??? I guess I am just confused?

My point was to Ravi, who said she wouldn't use a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription from a doctor. The DEA expects pharmacist to not only report, but not fill prescriptions, if there is a suspicion the patient is breaking a law. This makes the pharmacist responsible for interpreting DEA directives and enforcing federal law. I think that is wrong, and wonder who people who object to pharmacists having ethics not objecting to the government forcing them to have ethics.

 

[saveliberty]

Quick fact check here Care. What do you call a person who has a fetilized egg in them. I always called them pregnant.

Plan B will not terminate a pregnancy that has already begun (the fertilized egg has attached to the uterus).

Plan B (levonorgestrel) Information from Drugs.com

Sounds like we're stopping a pregnancy to me.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Quick fact check here Care. What do you call a person who has a fetilized egg in them. I always called them pregnant.

Plan B will not terminate a pregnancy that has already begun (the fertilized egg has attached to the uterus).

Plan B (levonorgestrel) Information from Drugs.com

Sounds like we're stopping a pregnancy to me.

Seems to me that Care4All agrees with you that Plan B prevents pregnancy, it does not terminate a pregnancy.

 

[saveliberty]

Quick fact check here Care. What do you call a person who has a fetilized egg in them. I always called them pregnant.

Plan B will not terminate a pregnancy that has already begun (the fertilized egg has attached to the uterus).

Plan B (levonorgestrel) Information from Drugs.com

Sounds like we're stopping a pregnancy to me.

Seems to me that Care4All agrees with you that Plan B prevents pregnancy, it does not terminate a pregnancy.

Nope, I say it is terminating a pregnancy. That is why women use it, that is the purpose of the drug.

 

[Care4all]

the DEA will arrest a pharmacist that it thinks allows people to prescription shop or abuse painkillers.

okkkk, so connect the DEA with dispensing Plan B???? Just that pharmacists are asked by the DEA TO LET THEM KNOW IF THEY SUSPECT SOMETHING FISHY GOING on? OOPS on the caps, it was by accident....but how does this relate to dispensing plan B? Certainly Plan B is not a drug the DEA asks pharmacists to follow the dispensing of??? I guess I am just confused?

My point was to Ravi, who said she wouldn't use a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription from a doctor. The DEA expects pharmacist to not only report, but not fill prescriptions, if there is a suspicion the patient is breaking a law. This makes the pharmacist responsible for interpreting DEA directives and enforcing federal law. I think that is wrong, and wonder who people who object to pharmacists having ethics not objecting to the government forcing them to have ethics.

ya know, I think I do agree with you on not liking the DEA forcing Pharmacists to be involved in that kind of matter between the Doctor and Patient but I am not totally convinced yet....it went all as you wish, with the Doctor giving or prescribing Michael J his various drugs and Ana Nicole Smith her drugs and if Pharmacists were paying attention as you say they are required to do, maybe both of them would be alive today?

Yet on the other hand, if I am MJ and I and my doc seem to think doing the drugs is A-OK .... why is it the gvt's business to be involved?

Maybe to prevent Docs from taking advantage of their patients that are hooked in to seeing them all the time....?

soooo, basically, I don't know yet...but I might agree with you on it...just need to read more about it and think some more....

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Quick fact check here Care. What do you call a person who has a fetilized egg in them. I always called them pregnant.

Plan B will not terminate a pregnancy that has already begun (the fertilized egg has attached to the uterus).

Plan B (levonorgestrel) Information from Drugs.com

Sounds like we're stopping a pregnancy to me.

Seems to me that Care4All agrees with you that Plan B prevents pregnancy, it does not terminate a pregnancy.

Nope, I say it is terminating a pregnancy. That is why women use it, that is the purpose of the drug.

Oh I see, I misunderstood your view.

You're wrong by the way.

 

[Care4all]

Quick fact check here Care. What do you call a person who has a fetilized egg in them. I always called them pregnant.

Plan B will not terminate a pregnancy that has already begun (the fertilized egg has attached to the uterus).

Plan B (levonorgestrel) Information from Drugs.com

Sounds like we're stopping a pregnancy to me.

Many eggs get fertilized but NEVER attach to the uterus for the woman to become pregnant. I KNOW THIS, because this is the problem that my husband and I have had for the past 22 years...I am baron, we have no children together...but his sperm, are penetrating my eggs, the eggs just won't attach to my uterus for me to become pregnant. MOST fertilized eggs for even normal women without a problem like mine, DO NOT attach to their uterus....most women do not get pregnant on their first try, not only because their egg was not fertilized, but because the egg never made it to the uterus or never attached to the uterus or primarily because it was not meant to happen, something was physically wrong with the fertilized egg....God is wonderful in the way he designed us....and protects us from going through months of pregnancy only to have your body reject the fetus that was not meant to be from the beginning and have a miscarriage, which does happen, but it would happen a lot more if every egg was allowed to attach.

So, I don't buy in to a new life beginning before the woman is pregnant...life does not begin until the woman is pregnant....otherwise, the hubby and I have killed an awful lot of children with all those fertilized eggs that never attached to the uterus...

and sorry, I simply DO NOT believe that matt and I have had a bunch of babies that died or that our combination has killed, nor do Doctors....nor do Priests or Pastors....

So no, until that egg attaches, there is no human being........ being created....trust me, we'd have a gazillion children together if it was.....

some day, maybe science could grow a baby in the lab, but it hasn't happened yet....

and yes, our fertilized eggs could be put in a surrogate, but we did not want to go that route and could not go that route for many personal reasons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

okkkk, so connect the DEA with dispensing Plan B???? Just that pharmacists are asked by the DEA TO LET THEM KNOW IF THEY SUSPECT SOMETHING FISHY GOING on? OOPS on the caps, it was by accident....but how does this relate to dispensing plan B? Certainly Plan B is not a drug the DEA asks pharmacists to follow the dispensing of??? I guess I am just confused?

My point was to Ravi, who said she wouldn't use a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription from a doctor. The DEA expects pharmacist to not only report, but not fill prescriptions, if there is a suspicion the patient is breaking a law. This makes the pharmacist responsible for interpreting DEA directives and enforcing federal law. I think that is wrong, and wonder who people who object to pharmacists having ethics not objecting to the government forcing them to have ethics.

ya know, I think I do agree with you on not liking the DEA forcing Pharmacists to be involved in that kind of matter between the Doctor and Patient but I am not totally convinced yet....it went all as you wish, with the Doctor giving or prescribing Michael J his various drugs and Ana Nicole Smith her drugs and if Pharmacists were paying attention as you say they are required to do, maybe both of them would be alive today?

Yet on the other hand, if I am MJ and I and my doc seem to think doing the drugs is A-OK .... why is it the gvt's business to be involved?

Maybe to prevent Docs from taking advantage of their patients that are hooked in to seeing them all the time....?

soooo, basically, I don't know yet...but I might agree with you on it...just need to read more about it and think some more....

If a doctor over prescribes something and the patient dies there is still malpractice and even criminal law to take care of it, I don't have a problem with that. What I object to is people who need pain pills just to get out of bed not being able to get them because the DEA prefers to act like everyone who takes more than a moderate dosage of a pain killer is breaking the law. Take, as an example, a man who, even though the government admits he did not actually traffic drugs, and that he actually used the drugs he obtained to ease his pain, was sentenced to a 25 years in prison for drug trafficking.

Richard Paey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or Dr William Hurwitz, who was sentenced to prison for writing prescriptions that a few of his patients abused.

William Hurwitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or, the worst example in my opinion, Siobhan Reynolds, whose only crime was speaking up for pain patients through an advocacy group for pain patients.

The Pain Relief Network | Home

Please note that, even though she never prescribed drugs, worked for a pharmacy that distributed them nor actually took any, she was investigated by federal prosecutors, ordered not to discuss the investigation, and was told that she could not even talk about pain medication or how the government controlled access to them by turning everyone from the doctor to fellow patients into narcs.

Pain Patient Advocate Siobhan Reynolds Dies in Plane Crash - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Siobhan Reynolds, RIP | The Agitator

 

[Inthemiddle]

Forcing people OUT of their profession isn't very American in my opinion.

Nobody is being forced out of their profession. They have the choice to either stay in their profession, or not. It's up to them, and they alone are in control over it. Of course, if they feel that God does not want them to be in that profession, then they can take that up with God.

 

[Inthemiddle]

That is the opposite of what I said....are actually trained to do.

In other words, you're just talking, without any purpose or relevance to the point you're actually trying to make. Gotcha.

The government argued that teachers are not ministers because their activities are not inherently religious. The court disagreed, which proves you are wrong.

HOW DOES THAT PROVE ME WRONG? I SAID THAT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS LIMITED TO ACTIVITIES THAT ARE INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS. HOW IS SELECTING MINISTERS NOT AN INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY????????

By the way, the case we are actually discussing in this thread where the court ruled that states don't have a right to force people to violate their religion actually disproves your assertion that the state can force pharmacists to ignore their religion just because they invented licensing requirements for pharmacists in order to protect pharmacists from competition.

STOP LYING, YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT!!!!! I SAID THAT THE COURTS HAVE LONG MAINTAINED THAT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS NOT ABSOLUTE, AND THAT IT DOES NOT EXTEND TO BEHAVIOR THAT IS NOT INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS. YOUR OWN EXAMPLE IS STILL COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THAT, AS WELL AS A PLETHORA OF ADDITIONAL CASE LAW. IF YOU CAN'T HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL HONESTLY TO READ A DAMN DOCUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT IT SAYS, THEN SHUT THE **** UP ALREADY!

 

[Inthemiddle]

3) As far as I am concerned if a pharmacist had a problem selling baby aspirin then they should not be forced to do so. A pharmacy is a private business and has the right to make the decisions as to what products they will sell or not sell. And as stated earlier if the pharmacist is an employee of a pharmacy, the decision as to whether or not he will remain an employee is up to his employer not the state.

Immie

By that line of thought, a doctor who works in the ER of a private hospital should not be forced to provide treatment to a black heart attack patient, if the doctor has a problem with black people. The "if they have a problem with it" argument, essentially would devolve into complete anarchy. If someone has a problem with, say, the speed limit, should they be entitled to reject it? How about murder laws? What if a person's religious beliefs include human sacrifice? Why wasn't Scott Roeder protected by a first amendment defense?

I do understand the point you're trying to make. But your position, in a way, amounts to a "one trick horse" kinda approach that doesn't even bother to address the subject matter. Yes, minimizing government intrusion into personal lives, and private business, is preferable when possible. But it's not preferable, at all times, regardless of the situation. We can't simply say one way, all the way, all the time, and expect that we'll have a functional society.

There's a reason why states have enacted "must treat" laws for emergency care facilities. And it's pretty much in line with the reason why pharmacies are required by law dispense. In my opinion, anyone who feels that they are somehow violating their religion by dispensing a medication, either needs to get a grip on reality, or needs to find a new religion. Or, they need to speak to a professional about their grandiose thoughts, because they seem to think they are responsible for a shit load more of the world's happenings than they really are.

One thing that I don't quite understand about the typical conservative thinking nowadays is why, for all the objecting about government intrusion into personal lives and liberty, do conservatives settle for just as much, if not more, intrusion into personal lives by other individuals, by private businesses and employers, etc? I'm not saying that you do this, generally speaking. But I hope you'll understand that what you're advocating in this particular instance really just substitutes one intrusiveness for another. At least the state law has the benefit of casting a uniform rule of general applicability, designed for the benefit of society. Whereas an individual refusing to dispense, even if repeated frequently, is essentially an event directed at the individual seeking the medication, that could just as much be an act of personal conflict as any religious sensitivity.

 

[Immanuel]

3) As far as I am concerned if a pharmacist had a problem selling baby aspirin then they should not be forced to do so. A pharmacy is a private business and has the right to make the decisions as to what products they will sell or not sell. And as stated earlier if the pharmacist is an employee of a pharmacy, the decision as to whether or not he will remain an employee is up to his employer not the state.

Immie

By that line of thought, a doctor who works in the ER of a private hospital should not be forced to provide treatment to a black heart attack patient, if the doctor has a problem with black people. The "if they have a problem with it" argument, essentially would devolve into complete anarchy. If someone has a problem with, say, the speed limit, should they be entitled to reject it? How about murder laws? What if a person's religious beliefs include human sacrifice? Why wasn't Scott Roeder protected by a first amendment defense?

I do understand the point you're trying to make. But your position, in a way, amounts to a "one trick horse" kinda approach that doesn't even bother to address the subject matter. Yes, minimizing government intrusion into personal lives, and private business, is preferable when possible. But it's not preferable, at all times, regardless of the situation. We can't simply say one way, all the way, all the time, and expect that we'll have a functional society.

There's a reason why states have enacted "must treat" laws for emergency care facilities. And it's pretty much in line with the reason why pharmacies are required by law dispense. In my opinion, anyone who feels that they are somehow violating their religion by dispensing a medication, either needs to get a grip on reality, or needs to find a new religion. Or, they need to speak to a professional about their grandiose thoughts, because they seem to think they are responsible for a shit load more of the world's happenings than they really are.

One thing that I don't quite understand about the typical conservative thinking nowadays is why, for all the objecting about government intrusion into personal lives and liberty, do conservatives settle for just as much, if not more, intrusion into personal lives by other individuals, by private businesses and employers, etc? I'm not saying that you do this, generally speaking. But I hope you'll understand that what you're advocating in this particular instance really just substitutes one intrusiveness for another. At least the state law has the benefit of casting a uniform rule of general applicability, designed for the benefit of society. Whereas an individual refusing to dispense, even if repeated frequently, is essentially an event directed at the individual seeking the medication, that could just as much be an act of personal conflict as any religious sensitivity.

I reject the speed limit all the time and I am willing to face the consequences when an officer of the law thinks I went too far over the limit.

As for your insistence that a doctor would have the right to refuse to treat a black heart attack victim, I think you go too far, but you do make a good point. There are reasonable restrictions that the state has the right to make and I support the prohibition of discrimination of any kind. I do not believe that in the case of a pharmacist not wanting to participate in what he/she believes to be a murder, is discrimination, nor do I think the state has the right to force them to participate in what they believe is murder. Granted that is my opinion, but I have the right to hold it and as of today, I still have the right to tell you and anyone else who will listen that I think the state's interference in this matter goes beyond the level of reasonableness.

Scott Roeder committed cold blooded murder (Roeder is the killer of George Tiller the abortionist right?). Again, preventing and prosecuting murder falls under the reasonable responsibilities of the government.

In my opinion, anyone who feels that they are somehow violating their religion by dispensing a medication, either needs to get a grip on reality

The problem here is that when you get right down to it, these pharmacists believe the state is forcing them to commit murder. I am not saying they are right, but that is the gist of their position. My faith very clearly states: "Thou shall not commit murder". You as the advocate for the state in this case, are insisting that these pharmacists commit murder in their minds.

One thing that I don't quite understand about the typical conservative thinking nowadays is why, for all the objecting about government intrusion into personal lives and liberty, do conservatives settle for just as much, if not more, intrusion into personal lives by other individuals, by private businesses and employers, etc?

Examples?

If you are saying what I think you are saying, one example I can give is The Patriot Act. I have to tell you I supported President Bush and I even voted for him twice. I was furious about the Patriot Act among other things. I can't answer what on earth possessed conservatives to back such a piece of shit legislation... enough said on that.

But I hope you'll understand that what you're advocating in this particular instance really just substitutes one intrusiveness for another

No, I am sorry, you are wrong. No one is preventing women from buying Plan B. There are plenty of pharmacies that carry that product.

You are advocating forcing pharmacies to carry products they don't want to carry for whatever reason. Even the reason that carrying the product is not profitable for them.

How does society benefit when people are forced to assist in what they consider to be murder?

This issue is beyond reasonableness on the responsibility of the state and all it does is move us closer to a complete control of our lives by the government.

Immie

 

[Inthemiddle]

the state of washington law passed in 2007, so its been 5 years.

and anyone selling prescription drugs, should no go into that line of work. same argument.....

I think that most people really are over complicating the issue when talking about whether a person has a problem dispensing this medication, and whether they should have known they would have to one day. It's not about this particular medication. Anyone who works in the health care field, whether it be as a doctor, nurse, an emergency tech, in dispensing medication, right down to the receptionist at the dentist's office......any and all of these people need to decide BEFORE they enter the field whether or not they have any objections to PATIENT DECISION MAKING AND INFORMED CONSENT.

All of these jobs are done for one person...the patient. If you have a problem with letting the patient guide and direct their own medical issues, then you should not be in your line of work. If you have a problem humbling yourself to the will of the patient, then you should not be in the health care field in any capacity whatsoever. If you have a problem with making WHATEVER your concerns, desires, etc, become subservient to the patient, then you should not be in that line of work. YOU are there for THEM, their health, their decisions, their goals. PERIOD. If you think it's up to them to satisfy your own religious scruples, then you are dead wrong, and are not fit for that line of work.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Conservative panel? The same "conservative" judge who ruled against DADT ruled against the state here. That throws your conservative panel argument out the window.

Be it noted that the Windbag's position is that ruling in favor of free speech demonstrates a liberal bias, and cannot possibly be a conservative point of view.

 

[Immanuel]

the state of washington law passed in 2007, so its been 5 years.

and anyone selling prescription drugs, should no go into that line of work. same argument.....

I think that most people really are over complicating the issue when talking about whether a person has a problem dispensing this medication, and whether they should have known they would have to one day. It's not about this particular medication. Anyone who works in the health care field, whether it be as a doctor, nurse, an emergency tech, in dispensing medication, right down to the receptionist at the dentist's office......any and all of these people need to decide BEFORE they enter the field whether or not they have any objections to PATIENT DECISION MAKING AND INFORMED CONSENT.

All of these jobs are done for one person...the patient. If you have a problem with letting the patient guide and direct their own medical issues, then you should not be in your line of work. If you have a problem humbling yourself to the will of the patient, then you should not be in the health care field in any capacity whatsoever. If you have a problem with making WHATEVER your concerns, desires, etc, become subservient to the patient, then you should not be in that line of work. YOU are there for THEM, their health, their decisions, their goals. PERIOD. If you think it's up to them to satisfy your own religious scruples, then you are dead wrong, and are not fit for that line of work.

Who on God's green earth would have thought forty years ago that our government would insist that private citizens participate in murder?

I don't know how old you are but this country was a hell of a lot different and better to live in forty years ago. Hell, even thirty years ago. But now we have a government that has forgotten who the employers are and has gotten to big for those employers to do a damned thing about.

Immie

 

[Inthemiddle]

A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another.

For example, religious freedom. You have the right to religious freedom. But people also have the right to medical treatment. So, your religious freedom becomes limited at the point where it infringes upon another person's right to medical treatment. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Inthemiddle]

PS nurses are usually fired if they don't follow a doctor's orders but that has to do with their EMPLOYER having the right to tell them they must follow orders

Actually, no. Nurses are legally required to follow the orders of the doctors, and refusal to do so can result in sanctions on their license, suspensions, or revocations, along with criminal charges, and civil liability.