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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Preventing ovulation is not terminating a pregnancy by any measure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

When a fertility clinic combines sperm and eggs in a laboratory dish and eggs become fertilized,

who, at that moment, is pregnant with those eggs? The dish?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

When a fertility clinic combines sperm and eggs in a laboratory dish and eggs become fertilized,

who, at that moment, is pregnant with those eggs? The dish?

We aren't in a dish now are we genius. Gee, if its JUST ovulation, then Plan B isn't even needed now is it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The DEA disagrees with you, which means that the official policy of the US government is that pharmacists actually have a duty to second guess physicians.

uhhhhh ....on ethical grounds? since when was the DEA involved with religious beliefs?

i can understand making certain drugs that should not be mixed, or a doctor they repeatedly see prescribing Oxycontin or something of the sort....

bbut, i saw no pharmacist filling michael jackson's and ana nicole's prescriptions on trial....so they probably don't even do what the DEA wants, most of the time....

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?

As usual, you haven't a clue what you're talking about in the first place, and are flagrantly misrepresenting the facts in the process.

Pharmacists do not have any kind of duty to second guess a doctor. What they do have is a responsibility to exercise due diligence in dispensing medications and filling prescriptions. This can mean, for example, contacting a doctor if it appears that a prescription may have been mistakenly written out. Perhaps a normal dosage for a medication 7.5 -12.5 mg, but the doctor's orders indicate 100 mg. The pharmacist has a responsibility to be diligent to clarify these clearly unusual orders. Another example might be to recognize instances where a medication may be contra indicated with something relevant to the patient. If the pharmacist notices his records indicate that the patient also has a regular prescription for X, and that happens to be contra indicated for the new prescription, then the pharmacist must exercise due diligence to ensure that the patient's needs are met. This kind of thing can happen most especially with elderly patients who may see several doctors and specialists, but may not fully inform each doctor of what they've been prescribed by other doctors.

It is not the pharmacists role to second guess the doctor, or to refuse to follow orders simply because the pharmacist thinks he knows better than the doctor regarding the patient's health. The doctor is by far the most knowledgeable and qualified person to make diagnoses and give medical advice to the patient. The doctor always knows more than the pharmacist. The pharmacist has a responsibility to WORK WITH the doctor, not against the orders of the doctor.

 

[saveliberty]

uhhhhh ....on ethical grounds? since when was the DEA involved with religious beliefs?

i can understand making certain drugs that should not be mixed, or a doctor they repeatedly see prescribing Oxycontin or something of the sort....

bbut, i saw no pharmacist filling michael jackson's and ana nicole's prescriptions on trial....so they probably don't even do what the DEA wants, most of the time....

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?

As usual, you haven't a clue what you're talking about in the first place, and are flagrantly misrepresenting the facts in the process.

Pharmacists do not have any kind of duty to second guess a doctor. What they do have is a responsibility to exercise due diligence in dispensing medications and filling prescriptions. This can mean, for example, contacting a doctor if it appears that a prescription may have been mistakenly written out. Perhaps a normal dosage for a medication 7.5 -12.5 mg, but the doctor's orders indicate 100 mg. The pharmacist has a responsibility to be diligent to clarify these clearly unusual orders. Another example might be to recognize instances where a medication may be contra indicated with something relevant to the patient. If the pharmacist notices his records indicate that the patient also has a regular prescription for X, and that happens to be contra indicated for the new prescription, then the pharmacist must exercise due diligence to ensure that the patient's needs are met. This kind of thing can happen most especially with elderly patients who may see several doctors and specialists, but may not fully inform each doctor of what they've been prescribed by other doctors.

It is not the pharmacists role to second guess the doctor, or to refuse to follow orders simply because the pharmacist thinks he knows better than the doctor regarding the patient's health. The doctor is by far the most knowledgeable and qualified person to make diagnoses and give medical advice to the patient. The doctor always knows more than the pharmacist. The pharmacist has a responsibility to WORK WITH the doctor, not against the orders of the doctor.

The pharmacist usually does know more ( a lot more) than the doctor concerning the medications. My father was frequently on the phone with the doctors explaining better combinations or issues with the script. You playing word games. As far as the rest, you'd better hope the pharmacist is ethical and that is what we are talking about here.

 

[Immanuel]

uhhhhh ....on ethical grounds? since when was the DEA involved with religious beliefs?

i can understand making certain drugs that should not be mixed, or a doctor they repeatedly see prescribing Oxycontin or something of the sort....

bbut, i saw no pharmacist filling michael jackson's and ana nicole's prescriptions on trial....so they probably don't even do what the DEA wants, most of the time....

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?

As usual, you haven't a clue what you're talking about in the first place, and are flagrantly misrepresenting the facts in the process.

Pharmacists do not have any kind of duty to second guess a doctor. What they do have is a responsibility to exercise due diligence in dispensing medications and filling prescriptions. This can mean, for example, contacting a doctor if it appears that a prescription may have been mistakenly written out. Perhaps a normal dosage for a medication 7.5 -12.5 mg, but the doctor's orders indicate 100 mg. The pharmacist has a responsibility to be diligent to clarify these clearly unusual orders. Another example might be to recognize instances where a medication may be contra indicated with something relevant to the patient. If the pharmacist notices his records indicate that the patient also has a regular prescription for X, and that happens to be contra indicated for the new prescription, then the pharmacist must exercise due diligence to ensure that the patient's needs are met. This kind of thing can happen most especially with elderly patients who may see several doctors and specialists, but may not fully inform each doctor of what they've been prescribed by other doctors.

It is not the pharmacists role to second guess the doctor, or to refuse to follow orders simply because the pharmacist thinks he knows better than the doctor regarding the patient's health. The doctor is by far the most knowledgeable and qualified person to make diagnoses and give medical advice to the patient. The doctor always knows more than the pharmacist. The pharmacist has a responsibility to WORK WITH the doctor, not against the orders of the doctor.

A pharmacist who refuses to dispense a product that he believes will kill a human being is NOT second guessing the physician. He knows what the physician is doing and refuses to participate in the killing of a human being. It is as simple as that.

Immie

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

That's not happening now. It's not. Please, don't present the situation in a clearly false manner. And I really don't care whether they have a "religious belief" that it's murder. The first amendment protects rights. It doesn't enable excuses. You can believe whatever you want. But the government is under no obligation to allow exceptions to generally applicable regulations of non-religious activity, under the guise of "religious belief." The factual, indisputable, scientific truth is that Plan B is a medication that can prevent pregnancy from occurring, up to 5 days after unprotected sex.

Let's take another type of potential religious belief. Let's say a doctor has a religious belief that when a person is near death, their soul becomes prepped to reincarnate into another person who will be born at or shortly after the time of the first person's death. Should this be an excuse for such a doctor to refuse to perform life saving treatment on a patient, just because the doctor's religious belief is that doing so might cause the death of a new born who will instead die when the soul is prevented from making the transition? Of course not.

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.

I'm sure you had to walk uphill both ways as well. All of us one day become old enough that we eventually lament that when we were young prices politicians were noble, prices were reasonable, and children respected their elders. Humanity has been singing that requiem for millions of years.

 

[Immanuel]

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

That's not happening now. It's not. Please, don't present the situation in a clearly false manner. And I really don't care whether they have a "religious belief" that it's murder. The first amendment protects rights. It doesn't enable excuses. You can believe whatever you want. But the government is under no obligation to allow exceptions to generally applicable regulations of non-religious activity, under the guise of "religious belief." The factual, indisputable, scientific truth is that Plan B is a medication that can prevent pregnancy from occurring, up to 5 days after unprotected sex.

Let's take another type of potential religious belief. Let's say a doctor has a religious belief that when a person is near death, their soul becomes prepped to reincarnate into another person who will be born at or shortly after the time of the first person's death. Should this be an excuse for such a doctor to refuse to perform life saving treatment on a patient, just because the doctor's religious belief is that doing so might cause the death of a new born who will instead die when the soul is prevented from making the transition? Of course not.

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.

I'm sure you had to walk uphill both ways as well. All of us one day become old enough that we eventually lament that when we were young prices politicians were noble, prices were reasonable, and children respected their elders. Humanity has been singing that requiem for millions of years.

Bullshit if that is not what is happening now. The state of Washington is insisting that pharmacists who believe that using Plan B is murder commit murder in their eyes. That is flat out wrong.

And as you say, you can believe what you want. That doesn't make your insistance of limiting personal liberties ethical, reasonable or moral.

You can play games with your hypotheticals that do not apply by yourself. I'm sorry, but I am not interested in that game at this time.

I'm sure you had to walk uphill both ways as well.

As a matter of fact, I was barefoot too!

Immie

 

[Care4all]

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

That's not happening now. It's not. Please, don't present the situation in a clearly false manner. And I really don't care whether they have a "religious belief" that it's murder. The first amendment protects rights. It doesn't enable excuses. You can believe whatever you want. But the government is under no obligation to allow exceptions to generally applicable regulations of non-religious activity, under the guise of "religious belief." The factual, indisputable, scientific truth is that Plan B is a medication that can prevent pregnancy from occurring, up to 5 days after unprotected sex.

Let's take another type of potential religious belief. Let's say a doctor has a religious belief that when a person is near death, their soul becomes prepped to reincarnate into another person who will be born at or shortly after the time of the first person's death. Should this be an excuse for such a doctor to refuse to perform life saving treatment on a patient, just because the doctor's religious belief is that doing so might cause the death of a new born who will instead die when the soul is prevented from making the transition? Of course not.



I'm sure you had to walk uphill both ways as well. All of us one day become old enough that we eventually lament that when we were young prices politicians were noble, prices were reasonable, and children respected their elders. Humanity has been singing that requiem for millions of years.

Bullshit if that is not what is happening now. The state of Washington is insisting that pharmacists who believe that using Plan B is murder commit murder in their eyes. That is flat out wrong.

And as you say, you can believe what you want. That doesn't make your insistance of limiting personal liberties ethical, reasonable or moral.

You can play games with your hypotheticals that do not apply by yourself. I'm sorry, but I am not interested in that game at this time.

I'm sure you had to walk uphill both ways as well.

As a matter of fact, I was barefoot too!

Immie

so let me get this straight Immie....

Do you actually believe that the Gun Shop owner that sold a gun legally to a person that then later shot and murdered another person with this gun he was sold, that the person who sold the gun, was the person who committed murder or an accessory to murder ?

If not, then how would the pharmacist who filled a prescription be responsible for the person who chose to take the medication?

Care

 

[Immanuel]

That's not happening now. It's not. Please, don't present the situation in a clearly false manner. And I really don't care whether they have a "religious belief" that it's murder. The first amendment protects rights. It doesn't enable excuses. You can believe whatever you want. But the government is under no obligation to allow exceptions to generally applicable regulations of non-religious activity, under the guise of "religious belief." The factual, indisputable, scientific truth is that Plan B is a medication that can prevent pregnancy from occurring, up to 5 days after unprotected sex.

Let's take another type of potential religious belief. Let's say a doctor has a religious belief that when a person is near death, their soul becomes prepped to reincarnate into another person who will be born at or shortly after the time of the first person's death. Should this be an excuse for such a doctor to refuse to perform life saving treatment on a patient, just because the doctor's religious belief is that doing so might cause the death of a new born who will instead die when the soul is prevented from making the transition? Of course not.



I'm sure you had to walk uphill both ways as well. All of us one day become old enough that we eventually lament that when we were young prices politicians were noble, prices were reasonable, and children respected their elders. Humanity has been singing that requiem for millions of years.

Bullshit if that is not what is happening now. The state of Washington is insisting that pharmacists who believe that using Plan B is murder commit murder in their eyes. That is flat out wrong.

And as you say, you can believe what you want. That doesn't make your insistance of limiting personal liberties ethical, reasonable or moral.

You can play games with your hypotheticals that do not apply by yourself. I'm sorry, but I am not interested in that game at this time.

I'm sure you had to walk uphill both ways as well.

As a matter of fact, I was barefoot too!

Immie

so let me get this straight Immie....

Do you actually believe that the Gun Shop owner that sold a gun legally to a person that then later shot and murdered another person with this gun he was sold, that the person who sold the gun, was the person who committed murder or an accessory to murder ?

If not, then how would the pharmacist who filled a prescription be responsible for the person who chose to take the medication?

Care

Go back and read what I said, because you missed an important part. I said that a person who believed that... would not get into that line of work. I didn't say, I believed that was the case.

Again, in regards to the pharmacist, the discussion is what he or she believes, not what I believe. The issue goes on in that I do not feel the state has the right to force a person to do something that is against his/her morals.

I realize that I stand up in opposition to what the laws of this country say, but, at one time the laws of this country stated that a black person was 3/5 of a human being and could be held as a slave. Thank God someone stood up against those laws.

Later in the thread and you commented on this post, I also said that I was not positive that if I were a pharmacist that I would not dispense Plan B. I reserve the right here and now to say that if I were a pharmacist I would understand much more about what Plan B does.

This may be a slippery slope argument, but if this is allowed to stand, what's to say that the State of Washington won't soon be insisting that women with more than two children have their tubes tied? Will Inthemiddle or you stand up then and say "Whoa!"?

We have to take a stand somewhere.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Sorry, Chuckles. People have a right to seek medical care, but they DON'T have a right to receive it from a specific provider, just like they have a right to purchase food, but the supermarket still has the right to refuse service to anyone, and to decide not to carry certain items in their store.

Glad we cleared that up, although I know that, being a liberal, you're going to need this explained again and again and again, because you can't fathom a world where everyone else isn't just a bunch of cardboard cutouts, provided for your personal use and amusement.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Sorry, Chuckles. People have a right to seek medical care, but they DON'T have a right to receive it from a specific provider, just like they have a right to purchase food, but the supermarket still has the right to refuse service to anyone, and to decide not to carry certain items in their store.

Glad we cleared that up, although I know that, being a liberal, you're going to need this explained again and again and again, because you can't fathom a world where everyone else isn't just a bunch of cardboard cutouts, provided for your personal use and amusement.

Excellent point, thank you, a person has the right to medical care and unless it is an emergency situation (which is not the case in regards to this discussion) they do not have the right to insist that Doctor Jones perform the services they desire.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

Bullshit if that is not what is happening now. The state of Washington is insisting that pharmacists who believe that using Plan B is murder commit murder in their eyes. That is flat out wrong.

And as you say, you can believe what you want. That doesn't make your insistance of limiting personal liberties ethical, reasonable or moral.

You can play games with your hypotheticals that do not apply by yourself. I'm sorry, but I am not interested in that game at this time.

As a matter of fact, I was barefoot too!

Immie

so let me get this straight Immie....

Do you actually believe that the Gun Shop owner that sold a gun legally to a person that then later shot and murdered another person with this gun he was sold, that the person who sold the gun, was the person who committed murder or an accessory to murder ?

If not, then how would the pharmacist who filled a prescription be responsible for the person who chose to take the medication?

Care

Go back and read what I said, because you missed an important part. I said that a person who believed that... would not get into that line of work. I didn't say, I believed that was the case.

Again, in regards to the pharmacist, the discussion is what he or she believes, not what I believe. The issue goes on in that I do not feel the state has the right to force a person to do something that is against his/her morals.

I realize that I stand up in opposition to what the laws of this country say, but, at one time the laws of this country stated that a black person was 3/5 of a human being and could be held as a slave. Thank God someone stood up against those laws.

Later in the thread and you commented on this post, I also said that I was not positive that if I were a pharmacist that I would not dispense Plan B. I reserve the right here and now to say that if I were a pharmacist I would understand much more about what Plan B does.

This may be a slippery slope argument, but if this is allowed to stand, what's to say that the State of Washington won't soon be insisting that women with more than two children have their tubes tied? Will Inthemiddle or you stand up then and say "Whoa!"?

We have to take a stand somewhere.

Immie

btw, and fyi....the Judge in the State of Washington DID NOT rule that Pharmacists can't be forced by gvt to deliver a drug that is prescribed....what the judge ruled was that in the case of THESE WOMEN, what the State was doing was unconstitutional under equal treatment of the law.... there were many other exceptions to the rule, and these 2 women were the only ones that an exception was not given to.....so the gvt was not consistent...but if they had been consistant, then the judge would have had to rule otherwise.....is my understanding of the case....

you need to read something else on it, other than the link given by quantum with that headline and from someone else other than the law firm/group that won the case's perspective....

and IF Plan B does not kill a baby, WHICH IT DOES NOT DO....then those that are religious NEED to learn the FACTS on what they are rejecting....you can't just let any old wives tale get in the way of someone else's health choices and well being....THAT is unconscionable....

I can understand giving an out for ru486, which does kill a fetus, but bull crap like what is being said and done regarding Plan B can NOT be accepted imho....or you let every person on earth, impose their silly willy and unFACTUAL beliefs upon the freedom of others....and that's bull crud, to say the least.

 

[Immanuel]

so let me get this straight Immie....

Do you actually believe that the Gun Shop owner that sold a gun legally to a person that then later shot and murdered another person with this gun he was sold, that the person who sold the gun, was the person who committed murder or an accessory to murder ?

If not, then how would the pharmacist who filled a prescription be responsible for the person who chose to take the medication?

Care

Go back and read what I said, because you missed an important part. I said that a person who believed that... would not get into that line of work. I didn't say, I believed that was the case.

Again, in regards to the pharmacist, the discussion is what he or she believes, not what I believe. The issue goes on in that I do not feel the state has the right to force a person to do something that is against his/her morals.

I realize that I stand up in opposition to what the laws of this country say, but, at one time the laws of this country stated that a black person was 3/5 of a human being and could be held as a slave. Thank God someone stood up against those laws.

Later in the thread and you commented on this post, I also said that I was not positive that if I were a pharmacist that I would not dispense Plan B. I reserve the right here and now to say that if I were a pharmacist I would understand much more about what Plan B does.

This may be a slippery slope argument, but if this is allowed to stand, what's to say that the State of Washington won't soon be insisting that women with more than two children have their tubes tied? Will Inthemiddle or you stand up then and say "Whoa!"?

We have to take a stand somewhere.

Immie

btw, and fyi....the Judge in the State of Washington DID NOT rule that Pharmacists can't be forced by gvt to deliver a drug that is prescribed....what the judge ruled was that in the case of THESE WOMEN, what the State was doing was unconstitutional under equal treatment of the law.... there were many other exceptions to the rule, and these 2 women were the only ones that an exception was not given to.....so the gvt was not consistent...but if they had been consistant, then the judge would have had to rule otherwise.....is my understanding of the case....

you need to read something else on it, other than the link given by quantum with that headline and from someone else other than the law firm/group that won the case's perspective....

and IF Plan B does not kill a baby, WHICH IT DOES NOT DO....then those that are religious NEED to learn the FACTS on what they are rejecting....you can't just let any old wives tale get in the way of someone else's health choices and well being....THAT is unconscionable....

I can understand giving an out for ru486, which does kill a fetus, but bull crap like what is being said and done regarding Plan B can NOT be accepted imho....or you let every person on earth, impose their silly willy and unFACTUAL beliefs upon the freedom of others....and that's bull crud, to say the least.

Please see post numbers 675 & 676. Those two women had the right to receive the legal product they desired. They did not have the right to compel the pharmacists at Ralph's Thritway to provide it for them.

Nor do you have the right to tell them what the must or should believe in regards to Plan B, for that matter.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You get more ridiculous every time you post.

What are you in the middle of anyway? A menage a trois with Obama and Reid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Editing quotes to make it look like a poster is saying things other than what he did is against the rules.

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????????

How does that prove you wrong? Is teaching children reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic a strictly 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!

You have not provided a single example of a case that said anything even remotely close to what you claim the courts have ruled, despite my repeated challenges to do so. You then take a case where a court ruled that teachers are ministers despite the fact that most of what they do has nothing to do with religion.

For the record, the court did rule that choosing ministers is a religious activity. That is actually a side issue, and one which the government never disputed. They argued that, unless a ministers was actually doing ministry work all the time they were not ministers for the purpose of the ministerial exception. The court disagreed.

You can throw fits all day long, the facts won't change.

 

[Care4all]

Go back and read what I said, because you missed an important part. I said that a person who believed that... would not get into that line of work. I didn't say, I believed that was the case.

Again, in regards to the pharmacist, the discussion is what he or she believes, not what I believe. The issue goes on in that I do not feel the state has the right to force a person to do something that is against his/her morals.

I realize that I stand up in opposition to what the laws of this country say, but, at one time the laws of this country stated that a black person was 3/5 of a human being and could be held as a slave. Thank God someone stood up against those laws.

Later in the thread and you commented on this post, I also said that I was not positive that if I were a pharmacist that I would not dispense Plan B. I reserve the right here and now to say that if I were a pharmacist I would understand much more about what Plan B does.

This may be a slippery slope argument, but if this is allowed to stand, what's to say that the State of Washington won't soon be insisting that women with more than two children have their tubes tied? Will Inthemiddle or you stand up then and say "Whoa!"?

We have to take a stand somewhere.

Immie

btw, and fyi....the Judge in the State of Washington DID NOT rule that Pharmacists can't be forced by gvt to deliver a drug that is prescribed....what the judge ruled was that in the case of THESE WOMEN, what the State was doing was unconstitutional under equal treatment of the law.... there were many other exceptions to the rule, and these 2 women were the only ones that an exception was not given to.....so the gvt was not consistent...but if they had been consistant, then the judge would have had to rule otherwise.....is my understanding of the case....

you need to read something else on it, other than the link given by quantum with that headline and from someone else other than the law firm/group that won the case's perspective....

and IF Plan B does not kill a baby, WHICH IT DOES NOT DO....then those that are religious NEED to learn the FACTS on what they are rejecting....you can't just let any old wives tale get in the way of someone else's health choices and well being....THAT is unconscionable....

I can understand giving an out for ru486, which does kill a fetus, but bull crap like what is being said and done regarding Plan B can NOT be accepted imho....or you let every person on earth, impose their silly willy and unFACTUAL beliefs upon the freedom of others....and that's bull crud, to say the least.

Please see post numbers 675 & 676. Those two women had the right to receive the legal product they desired. They did not have the right to compel the pharmacists at Ralph's Thritway to provide it for them.

Nor do you have the right to tell them what the must or should believe in regards to Plan B, for that matter.

Immie

I was not talking about the women that were getting the plan B, but the women who did not dispense it, as prescribed. and sorry you can not give exceptions for UNFACTUAL reasons...that's just common sense....if the gvt allowed that, then the pharmacists could refuse dispensing a number of drugs for various cures, just because they claim it is murder when IT IS NOT MURDER....you would allow people to make decisions and life more difficult for others based on LIES, just made up lies. If there is absolutely no proof what so ever that plan b kills a baby then FACTS ARE FACTS and decisions made should be made on facts.

there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that facts would show that RU 486 does not kill a fetus....because it does kill a fetus.

but in the case with Plan B, it does NOT kill a fetus, a baby....facts are facts....and to make somone who has gone through the trauma of a rape, and goes to the pharmacy to get Plan B which is offered by the pharmacy but a pharmacist working alone refuses to dispense it, which has to be taken by the victim within 3 days, and make them go through the humiliation by this NON INFORMED pharmacist and sent somewhere else for it, seems like the pharmacist is forcing their NON FACTUAL fairy tale BELIEFS upon another person who is already under a post trauma situation, even more stress.....and THAT is unacceptable....and inhumane imho.

I can accept that a pharmacy should not have to carry all drugs, especially if they make exceptions for not carrying other emergency drugs, then they should be able to have Plan B as just another exception of what they do not carry. but at some point, I can accept the government not licensing them to be a pharmacy, if they refuse to carry a great deal of the drugs prescribed by doctors....there will reach a point where what the pharmacy owner chooses not to carry, will hurt the community and should not be licensed as a drug dispenser any more....

 

[Immanuel]

btw, and fyi....the Judge in the State of Washington DID NOT rule that Pharmacists can't be forced by gvt to deliver a drug that is prescribed....what the judge ruled was that in the case of THESE WOMEN, what the State was doing was unconstitutional under equal treatment of the law.... there were many other exceptions to the rule, and these 2 women were the only ones that an exception was not given to.....so the gvt was not consistent...but if they had been consistant, then the judge would have had to rule otherwise.....is my understanding of the case....

you need to read something else on it, other than the link given by quantum with that headline and from someone else other than the law firm/group that won the case's perspective....

and IF Plan B does not kill a baby, WHICH IT DOES NOT DO....then those that are religious NEED to learn the FACTS on what they are rejecting....you can't just let any old wives tale get in the way of someone else's health choices and well being....THAT is unconscionable....

I can understand giving an out for ru486, which does kill a fetus, but bull crap like what is being said and done regarding Plan B can NOT be accepted imho....or you let every person on earth, impose their silly willy and unFACTUAL beliefs upon the freedom of others....and that's bull crud, to say the least.

Please see post numbers 675 & 676. Those two women had the right to receive the legal product they desired. They did not have the right to compel the pharmacists at Ralph's Thritway to provide it for them.

Nor do you have the right to tell them what the must or should believe in regards to Plan B, for that matter.

Immie

I was not talking about the women that were getting the plan B, but the women who did not dispense it, as prescribed. and sorry you can not give exceptions for UNFACTUAL reasons...that's just common sense....if the gvt allowed that, then the pharmacists could refuse dispensing a number of drugs for various cures, just because they claim it is murder when IT IS NOT MURDER....you would allow people to make decisions and life more difficult for others based on LIES, just made up lies. If there is absolutely no proof what so ever that plan b kills a baby then FACTS ARE FACTS and decisions made should be made on facts.

there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that facts would show that RU 486 does not kill a fetus....because it does kill a fetus.

but in the case with Plan B, it does NOT kill a fetus, a baby....facts are facts....and to make somone who has gone through the trauma of a rape, and goes to the pharmacy to get Plan B which is offered by the pharmacy but a pharmacist working alone refuses to dispense it, which has to be taken by the victim within 3 days, and make them go through the humiliation by this NON INFORMED pharmacist and sent somewhere else for it, seems like the pharmacist is forcing their NON FACTUAL fairy tale BELIEFS upon another person who is already under a post trauma situation, even more stress.....and THAT is unacceptable....and inhumane imho.

I can accept that a pharmacy should not have to carry all drugs, especially if they make exceptions for not carry other emergency drugs, then they should be able to have Plan B as just another exception of what they do not carry. but at some point, I can accept the government not licensing them to be a pharmacy, if they refuse to carry a great deal of the drugs prescribed by doctors....there will reach a point where what the pharmacy owner chooses not to carry, will hurt the community and should not be licensed as a drug dispenser any more....

I do hope that you as a Catholic realize that there are still people, I am not one of them, who are opposed to such things as the birth control pill for reasons of faith. The little bit of liberal, that is trying to rear its ugly head in you at the moment seems to think that you can force your beliefs upon these people. That is one thing that I oppose.

I would allow pharmacists to work in a free market sense where they can determine what products they will carry. A pharmacist should not be forced to carry a cancer drug that costs them $1000/dose but they can only sell it for $4, should they? If fact, you and the government are saying that they should. Nor should a pharmacist be forced to carry Plan B whether there reasons for not wanting to carry it is market driven or belief driven.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

By that line of thought, you are a moron.

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.

Either something is always preferable, or it is never preferable. If you support the government intruding into private lives to tell people what they have to buy you support them telling people what to eat, wear, and when to sleep or have children. You are the one who is trying to use a one trick pony, forgetting that once the camel is in the tent it is harder to get it out. I would rather keep the nose out of the tent because I hate living with camels.

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.

Do you think the reason is that idiots like you think doctors would refuse to treat blacks? If so, then you are completely wrong.

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.

You are confusing progressives with conservatives. Not surprising, you probably think you are a liberal.

 

[Care4all]

Please see post numbers 675 & 676. Those two women had the right to receive the legal product they desired. They did not have the right to compel the pharmacists at Ralph's Thritway to provide it for them.

Nor do you have the right to tell them what the must or should believe in regards to Plan B, for that matter.

Immie

I was not talking about the women that were getting the plan B, but the women who did not dispense it, as prescribed. and sorry you can not give exceptions for UNFACTUAL reasons...that's just common sense....if the gvt allowed that, then the pharmacists could refuse dispensing a number of drugs for various cures, just because they claim it is murder when IT IS NOT MURDER....you would allow people to make decisions and life more difficult for others based on LIES, just made up lies. If there is absolutely no proof what so ever that plan b kills a baby then FACTS ARE FACTS and decisions made should be made on facts.

there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that facts would show that RU 486 does not kill a fetus....because it does kill a fetus.

but in the case with Plan B, it does NOT kill a fetus, a baby....facts are facts....and to make somone who has gone through the trauma of a rape, and goes to the pharmacy to get Plan B which is offered by the pharmacy but a pharmacist working alone refuses to dispense it, which has to be taken by the victim within 3 days, and make them go through the humiliation by this NON INFORMED pharmacist and sent somewhere else for it, seems like the pharmacist is forcing their NON FACTUAL fairy tale BELIEFS upon another person who is already under a post trauma situation, even more stress.....and THAT is unacceptable....and inhumane imho.

I can accept that a pharmacy should not have to carry all drugs, especially if they make exceptions for not carry other emergency drugs, then they should be able to have Plan B as just another exception of what they do not carry. but at some point, I can accept the government not licensing them to be a pharmacy, if they refuse to carry a great deal of the drugs prescribed by doctors....there will reach a point where what the pharmacy owner chooses not to carry, will hurt the community and should not be licensed as a drug dispenser any more....

I do hope that you as a Catholic realize that there are still people, I am not one of them, who are opposed to such things as the birth control pill for reasons of faith. The little bit of liberal, that is trying to rear its ugly head in you at the moment seems to think that you can force your beliefs upon these people. That is one thing that I oppose.

I would allow pharmacists to work in a free market sense where they can determine what products they will carry. A pharmacist should not be forced to carry a cancer drug that costs them $1000/dose but they can only sell it for $4, should they? If fact, you and the government are saying that they should. Nor should a pharmacist be forced to carry Plan B whether there reasons for not wanting to carry it is market driven or belief driven.

Immie

These pharmacists refusing are NOT taking the drug and are NOT paying for the drug, therefore it does NOT impose on their religious beliefs or the sanctity of themselves imo....but if you can show an example from the Bible that might support your contentions, then i reserve the right to change my opinion on it.

NOTE

I SAID PHARMACISTS, not pharmacy