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

[Immanuel]

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.

If they have to pay $1000/dose and can only sell it for $4 then they sure as hell are paying for it even if they don't own the pharmacy their salaries are going to be reduced by some amount for the loss to their employer.

I assume that by your statements you also believe that a Catholic OB/GYN must also perform abortions, after all, abortions are legal in this country.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Wow, that almost makes sense.

There are plastic surgeons that require people to undergo a psychological evaluation before they operate. They believe that some surgery is potentially harmful, and prefer to have patients who are not getting surgery for the wrong reasons. If we allowed your POV to dominate these surgeons would be required to perform surgery even when they think it is wrong because there only purpose in life is to serve the patient.

Doctors are not there to serve patients, they are there to make patients healthy. If a pharmacist happens to think that making people healthy prohibits them from dispensing a drug they believe to be harmful they should be able to refuse to dispense it, period, even if the FDA says it is legal. I bet I could find a few people from the 1950s that would now be delighted if their pharmacist elected not to fill a prescription for thalidomide for morning sickness.

The job of a pharmacist is to make sure that people understand exactly what drugs do, their side effects, and to prevent harm to their patients. By allowing the state to force pharmacists to carry all drugs that are legal, and to dispense them to anyone who has a prescription, you remove one of the safety valves in the medical system. That makes things worse, all the time.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

Guns of course have oyher uses then killing people. A better question would be would a gunsmith have the right to not sell hollowpoint bullets just because he chooses to be a gunsmith?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is because you live in a box.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

People do not have a right to medical treatment because it infringes on other people's rights not to get out of bed in the morning. That blows your entire argument out of the water.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Wrong again!

Nurses are legally required to make sure doctors do not kill patients, even if doing so means they disobey the doctor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Huh?

Pharmacists do not second guess doctors, but they should second guess doctors if the prescription is wrong? Does that even make sense to you? Are you just so mad at me that you feel a need to blather when you see a post I make? You should wipe the spittle off your mouth.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Simple question here.

Did the woman who initiated this lawsuit end up having an unwanted pregnancy, or did she indeed find access to Plan B?

 

[Ravi]

If I were a pharmacist I would refuse to fill prescriptions for Republicans because I am morally opposed to their beliefs and actions.

 

[Immanuel]

If I were a pharmacist I would refuse to fill prescriptions for Republicans because I am morally opposed to their beliefs and actions.

That is your right. I'm glad you're on board with us.

Immie

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A law is not neutral if, in practice, it accomplishes a “religious gerrymander.” Id. at 535.
In Lukumi, the Supreme Court addressed three related questions in determining whether the City of Hialeh’s ban on animal sacrifice impermissibly did so: (1) whether the regulation’s burden falls, in practical terms, on religious objectors but almost no others; (2) whether the government’s interpretation of the law favors secular conduct; and (3) whether the law proscribes more religious conduct than is necessary to achieve its stated ends. See id., at 536–38. Here, the answers to these inquiries show that the Board of Pharmacy’s rules similarly accomplish a religious gerrymander.

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stormans-Opinion-from-Judge-revised.pdf

The court merely followed established Constitutional case law, as it should. This is a victory for the rule of law, not ‘religious liberty.’

Washington State lawmakers should have been aware of Lukumi, and refrained from enacting an un-Constitutional law in the first place.

2. Some might be inclined to discredit today’s ruling on the ground that the judge who issued it, Judge Ronald B. Leighton, was appointed by President George W. Bush and therefore might be thought to have, and to have indulged, social-conservative biases. That’s an extremely improbable hypothesis.

The author of the opinion piece should remember the above when a perceived ‘liberal’ judge makes an equally sound ruling the author disagrees with.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

If I were a pharmacist I would refuse to fill prescriptions for Republicans because I am morally opposed to their beliefs and actions.

Umm, that would be discrimination based on current law. Now I agree with you that a person should be able to discriminate in their own business dealings , under current law we can not.

How come so many on this board are incapable of comparing apples to apples?

 

[Cuyo]

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

What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.



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.

Well, I can't imagine why "full-time" should matter to anyone. Many small churches can't afford to pay their minister enough for him to make it his full-time job, so in order to meet his calling to pastor that flock, he has to get an outside job. Doesn't make him any less a minister.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Wow, that almost makes sense.

There are plastic surgeons that require people to undergo a psychological evaluation before they operate. They believe that some surgery is potentially harmful, and prefer to have patients who are not getting surgery for the wrong reasons. If we allowed your POV to dominate these surgeons would be required to perform surgery even when they think it is wrong because there only purpose in life is to serve the patient.

Doctors are not there to serve patients, they are there to make patients healthy. If a pharmacist happens to think that making people healthy prohibits them from dispensing a drug they believe to be harmful they should be able to refuse to dispense it, period, even if the FDA says it is legal. I bet I could find a few people from the 1950s that would now be delighted if their pharmacist elected not to fill a prescription for thalidomide for morning sickness.

The job of a pharmacist is to make sure that people understand exactly what drugs do, their side effects, and to prevent harm to their patients. By allowing the state to force pharmacists to carry all drugs that are legal, and to dispense them to anyone who has a prescription, you remove one of the safety valves in the medical system. That makes things worse, all the time.

My gynecologist flatly refuses to prescribe implanted birth control devices to his patients. He considers them to be an extremely bad idea, with far too many potential side effects. They're legal, but he still won't work with them. If a patient insists on having one, he will be more than happy to refer her to another doctor for her gynecological care.

Should he be required to provide these devices because those women have some divine, uninfringable right to receive whatever prescriptions and medical services they want from him, regardless of his own opinions and desires on the subject, or is it completely reasonable of him to say, "In that case, you should find another doctor whose thinking about your medical care is more in line with yours"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Guns of course have oyher uses then killing people. A better question would be would a gunsmith have the right to not sell hollowpoint bullets just because he chooses to be a gunsmith?

Every single business on the planet makes choices about what goods and services they will and won't provide, based on a variety of factors. Why is this such a new and shocking concept to liberals?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?

What are you three and incapable of keeping your arguments somewhere in the realm of reality?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?

Which would be relevant if we were talking about a pharmacist whose beliefs prohibited him from ever giving ANY medication to ANYONE. Since we aren't, perhaps you could find an analogy that means something.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

Guns of course have oyher uses then killing people. A better question would be would a gunsmith have the right to not sell hollowpoint bullets just because he chooses to be a gunsmith?

Every single business on the planet makes choices about what goods and services they will and won't provide, based on a variety of factors. Why is this such a new and shocking concept to liberals?

To be honest, I don't think it's a liberal /conservative thing. I think it's a selfish person thing. And yes some conservatives can be selfish as well as not all liberals are selfish.

It's like I said, if I want a particular product that a store doesn't carry I go to another store. It's that simple. I don't stand there and stamp my feet that I have a RIGHT to buy whatever product I want wherever I want, nor do I sue.

Honestly, this case should not have survived a summary judgement. A judge should have said "are you crazy?" to the plaintiff then fined them for wasting everyone's time.

When I was kid me and my siblings fought a LOT. At first we ran to mom and dad when we thought one of us wronged the other, but then as we grew older we began to realize that running to mom and dad every time we didn't get our own way sometimes had far reaching consequences that weren't necessarily what we wanted, so we began to work things out amongst ourselves more often. Like the adults we were growing into.

Unfortunately many people aren't growing up, they are just getting older.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?

Which would be relevant if we were talking about a pharmacist whose beliefs prohibited him from ever giving ANY medication to ANYONE. Since we aren't, perhaps you could find an analogy that means something.

Actually, it would only be relevant if the Pharmacy were a public utility, which most of us, I'm not sure you were in the thread then?, have already stated must play be different rules, and DO come under the government's authority.