I think some of it comes from the fact that this woman was victimized once by the rapist, and again by the Pharmacist by refusing her the medication to prevent conception. Why the need to humiliate her further?
Its worse than just humiliation. There is a limited window of opportunity for the 'morning after' pill to work. If she had not been able to get the pill within that window, she would be at risk of becoming pregnant as a result of the rape.
G-d forbid if she lived in a place like South Dakota at that point.
G-d forbid if she lived in a place like South Dakota at that point.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
But... once again, she was able to get the prescription well within the required timeframe from another provider. Were this a civil lawsuit, she would be unable to sue because of a lack of actual damages.
And... what about the pharmacies that didn't every carry the drug?
I like to keep my politics as free from hypocrisy as possible. I believe that a woman should have the right to choose, on her own, if she wants an abortion or not, so I also believe that a doctor (or a pharmacist, as is becoming more and more the case, as shown here) should have the right to choose, on their own, whether or not they wish to provide one or not.
Seems to me that a lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too.
And... what about the pharmacies that didn't every carry the drug?
I like to keep my politics as free from hypocrisy as possible. I believe that a woman should have the right to choose, on her own, if she wants an abortion or not, so I also believe that a doctor (or a pharmacist, as is becoming more and more the case, as shown here) should have the right to choose, on their own, whether or not they wish to provide one or not.
Seems to me that a lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too.
Nitemare that is fine and good, but you have to realize that they are not giving out any info as to when he took the job, how long he was a pharmacist...etc for all we know he could have started last week or twenty years ago when the morning after pill wasn't even reality....
To this guy, and I am sure to many others they see it as or at least along the lines of promoting murder...
to use an extreme example, I wonder how many wartime civilians during a genocide said: I would rather that soldier do his job and kill more people then try to dictate their moral beliefs by letting them go free...remember when the soldier signed up for the battle, roasting people wasn't part of the plan, only later did it come into the equation..would you spite him if he had a moral dilemma yet his life/lively hood depended on his military career?..how did this guy know that someday he might have to start dispensing after the fact medicine? maybe he would have been more sympathetic if he was privvy to the knowledge that it was a rape case and not just some girl he thought went and had reckless unprotected sex, but then a billion people will chime in here saying that he shouldn't have to know why she wants the medicine as that is doctor patient privlidge, his job is only to dispense.but how was he to know that someday his career and his livelyhood would be dependant on handing out medicine that he didn't agree with to people in situations that he might or might not sympathize with??....quite the conundrum.
It's not his judgement to make, if he objects that much he should have showed some balls and quit. His job is to fill prescriptions, most people get fired when they refuse to do their job.....
Except that if you refuse to do your job, you don't go to the gas houses...you find another job.
Not quite the same comparison...
I think a license allows people to do things, not requires. I dont believe a pharmacist take a Lasagne oath or anything.
Originally posted by: burnedout
Austin. After I complete my masters, I'll probably move back to KY and become, as phillyTim might say, a "hick, bearded, rifled nationalist" again.Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: burnedout
I'm not either. Just out here on extended vacation.Originally posted by: Genesys
lol. ill agree with that, but im not a native texan
lol, me too, im outta this state as soon as possible.
where do ya live?
Don't get me wrong. TX is OK. There are good and bad people or policies everywhere in this world. In some respects, TX seems more progressive than KY or TN. Just ain't home.
never been to either KY or TN, although I wanna go to the Corvette museam in Bowling Green. I moved here from Cali, so its nice to be among somewhat normal people for a change.
Oh well, well have to meet up next time im in Austin and grab a beer or two [i seem to get there 3 or 4 times a year for some reason or another.]
Well since you put it that way . . . OK . . . I concur. Per norm, I think there are a lot of apples, oranges, and ugli fruit arguments in this thread.
My point:
This guy should be fired b/c he's a poor pharmacist. Plan B and Preven are essentially hormonal conception control NOT abortifacents like mifepristone (RU-486). I doubt many people outside of the fanatical believe women do not have a right to control conception . . . despite the fact that a significant minority believe women do not have the right to control birth. I'm not challenging this guy's (or his colleagues) right to make moral decisions in the course of fulfilling their pharmacy duties. I'm saying he is a piss poor pharmacist for substituting his judgment (moral) for the clearly superior judgment of the physician that prescribed Plan B or Preven.
Pharmacists call doctors all the time to clarify prescriptions . . . typically off-label use, wrong dose, illegible, etc. This is a vital function of the pharmacy b/c MANY doctors are tools and have little concept of how particular medications work. But in this case even if the doctor did not know how the drug worked it was still the proper application while the pharmacists clearly did NOT know how the drug worked.
On the broader issue (now delayed by the FDA) about allowing Plan B/Preven to go OTC . . . I'm kinda on the fence. I'm not sure women should be allowed to have six boxes of Plan B in the medicine cabinet. My opposition has NOTHING to do with a woman's right to control conception. My issue is that no one really knows what will happen if you use Plan B as your primary means of conception control. IMHO, pharmacists should dispense it without a prescription, counsel women on its use, and TRACK how often it's been used . . . preferably in a record that Minister Arsecroft cannot access. Obviously, rape victims need a hospital but the majority of failed contraception and no contraception cases could be handled quite well by a knowledgeable and compassionate pharmacist.
The point of the license is to ensure that people can get drugs they need safly. He failed to provide the serive he was licensed to do when the costumer meet the prerequisits and the pharmace had the drugs in stock. The pharmacist should have quite when he found out that Eckerds was stocking the drugs.
SO, you're saying that anyone licensed to do any job but refuses should lose thier license ? Is this a special case for the anti lifer in you?
I know a dentist that refuses to do a root canal unless the tooth is completely unsalvagable, should he lose his license for not wanting to destroy healthy tissue?
By who? The women denied by Eckerds? Probably.
The fired employee? Id like to see him try that stunt. Texas is an At Will state, you can and are fired for any reason, even a "professional". Eckerds had a legit reason for firing him.
This wouldnt be an issue, if the FDA had already made the morning afterpill an OTC drug. Its going to happen soon, last I heard, the hearings were over and the recommendations made, it just hasnt happened yet.
The drug wouldnt be used for the primary means of conception, unless the women decided to not follow the directed use. In which case the women would be stupid, and lose all rights to sue.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
No I'm saying you should not have the right to call your self a pharmacists if you refuse to fill a presipition from a doctor when the drug is stocked at the pharmacy.
Your example is no where near the ball park. A dentist is in charge of a patenties health but a pharmacists is just a pill counter who's rule is secondarly.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Wrong, but sounds good.
Drs just write prescriptions, and dentists just pull teeth and pharmacists just count pills.
Here is a better anlogoy. Lets say someone breaks your arm so you go to the ER when you got to get X-rays of your arm the guy working there refuse because he doesn't work sundays. Sure you can drive to a different ER and hope you arm hasn't set wrong. Should that guy still be lincensed?
NEWS FLASH . . . doctors prescribe medications for non-approved uses all the time. Granted, we occasionally have a reasonable rationale to do so. For instance, if it wasn't for off-label use we would have just a handful of drugs to treat children.
There's absolutely NO guarantee that Plan B/Preven would not be used as primary conception control. Accordingly, I'm marginally biased towards NOT allowing it to go OTC unless pharmacies can track access. In a perfect world, women would call their doctor as well.
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
I think a more accurate analogy would be someone was stabbed by someone else of a certain religion. The doctor refuses to treat you because he agrees with the faith of the person who stabbed you and think's that it is Gods doing, and by him treating you it would go against Gods will. Health Care has no reason to enter the realms of religious beliefs.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter