Kroger responds to denied 'morning after' pill request

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or are they allowed not to perform one.

If he worked for a clinic that listed abortions as a service, then maybe.

There's no 48-hour window for abortions though; the two situations are less analogous than they might appear.

Both have people performing acts against their conscience, and as the law stands now you can't compel a doctor to perform an abortion.

Not similar, sorry.

You have much more than a few hours to find a different doctor.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or are they allowed not to perform one.

If he worked for a clinic that listed abortions as a service, then maybe.

There's no 48-hour window for abortions though; the two situations are less analogous than they might appear.

Both have people performing acts against their conscience, and as the law stands now you can't compel a doctor to perform an abortion.

Not similar, sorry.

You have much more than a few hours to find a different doctor.

So asking one medical professional to act against their conscience is "ok" while the other isn't based solely on the time it takes to locate said person?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or are they allowed not to perform one.

If he worked for a clinic that listed abortions as a service, then maybe.

There's no 48-hour window for abortions though; the two situations are less analogous than they might appear.

Both have people performing acts against their conscience, and as the law stands now you can't compel a doctor to perform an abortion.

Not similar, sorry.

You have much more than a few hours to find a different doctor.

So asking one medical professional to act against their conscience is "ok" while the other isn't based solely on the time it takes to locate said person?

There's no such thing as a skin pharmacist, or a children's pharmacist, or anything of the sort - a pharmacist's job is to provide medications prescribed by a doctor. So you see, it would be very hard, not to mention silly, to become an abortion doctor if one isn't willing to perform abortions.

Now, in the case of over the counter medication, there may be age limits or whatever tha apply, but a pharmacist is not in the business of deciding what people need; they are in the business of providing it.

Should a pharmacist be able to refuse you steroids because they object to those? Should you need to research what a pharmacy will and won't provide you, before you get sick?

Your analogy is highly, hopelessly, fataly flawed, and you know it.

I have a much, much better analogy for you:

Should a baseball umpire be allowed to call anyone who tries to steal second 'out' because stealing is wrong?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or are they allowed not to perform one.

If he worked for a clinic that listed abortions as a service, then maybe.

There's no 48-hour window for abortions though; the two situations are less analogous than they might appear.

Both have people performing acts against their conscience, and as the law stands now you can't compel a doctor to perform an abortion.

Not similar, sorry.

You have much more than a few hours to find a different doctor.

So asking one medical professional to act against their conscience is "ok" while the other isn't based solely on the time it takes to locate said person?

There's no such thing as a skin pharmacist, or a children's pharmacist, or anything of the sort - a pharmacist's job is to provide medications prescribed by a doctor. So you see, it would be very hard, not to mention silly, to become an abortion doctor if one isn't willing to perform abortions.

Now, in the case of over the counter medication, there may be age limits or whatever tha apply, but a pharmacist is not in the business of deciding what people need; they are in the business of providing it.

Should a pharmacist be able to refuse you steroids because they object to those? Should you need to research what a pharmacy will and won't provide you, before you get sick?

Your analogy is highly, hopelessly, fataly flawed, and you know it.

I have a much, much better analogy for you:

Should a baseball umpire be allowed to call anyone who tries to steal second 'out' because stealing is wrong?

From my understanding of baseball the Umpire makes calls as he sees fit - thats why he is the umpire. So yes he can.

Now if the umpire, feels he is unable to make that call about "stealing second" he can ask one of the other umpires to do it. That analogy fits are situation too doesn't it?

but a pharmacist is not in the business of deciding what people need; they are in the business of providing it.

The case here is not deciding if the person needs it or not. It has to do with the pharmacist doing something that is direct violation with their conscience.

So according too you a pharmacist is not allowed to refuse to fill a prescription if he knows that the combination he is giving can harm or be leathal to the taker?

...i mean he is just in the business of providing it...not deciding it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or are they allowed not to perform one.

If he worked for a clinic that listed abortions as a service, then maybe.

There's no 48-hour window for abortions though; the two situations are less analogous than they might appear.

Both have people performing acts against their conscience, and as the law stands now you can't compel a doctor to perform an abortion.

Not similar, sorry.

You have much more than a few hours to find a different doctor.

So asking one medical professional to act against their conscience is "ok" while the other isn't based solely on the time it takes to locate said person?

There's no such thing as a skin pharmacist, or a children's pharmacist, or anything of the sort - a pharmacist's job is to provide medications prescribed by a doctor. So you see, it would be very hard, not to mention silly, to become an abortion doctor if one isn't willing to perform abortions.

Now, in the case of over the counter medication, there may be age limits or whatever tha apply, but a pharmacist is not in the business of deciding what people need; they are in the business of providing it.

Should a pharmacist be able to refuse you steroids because they object to those? Should you need to research what a pharmacy will and won't provide you, before you get sick?

Your analogy is highly, hopelessly, fataly flawed, and you know it.

I have a much, much better analogy for you:

Should a baseball umpire be allowed to call anyone who tries to steal second 'out' because stealing is wrong?

From my understanding of baseball the Umpire makes calls as he sees fit - thats why he is the umpire. So yes he can.

Now if the umpire, feels he is unable to make that call about "stealing second" he can ask one of the other umpires to do it. That analogy fits are situation too doesn't it?

but a pharmacist is not in the business of deciding what people need; they are in the business of providing it.

The case here is not deciding if the person needs it or not. It has to do with the pharmacist doing something that is direct violation with their conscience.

So according too you a pharmacist is not allowed to refuse to fill a prescription if he knows that the combination he is giving can harm or be leathal to the taker?

...i mean he is just in the business of providing it...not deciding it.

If the pharmacist's training tells him/her that the combination of prescriptions is dangerous, then generally a call to the doctor is in order; I have had this happen twice - once the doctor agreed that a different combination would be safer, and once he didn't. Both times the doctor made the final call. Raising a valid question about a prescription is not the same as playing doctor - the pharmacist has specific training to help catch these errors, and this is a valuable and potentially life-saving service.

An umpire who refused to call someone safe when stealing a base would be removed from service, without a doubt. Since he is trained and sanctioned according to league rules, and expected to execute them faithfully, this would be appropriate.

As instant as it seems, defering to another umpire is more analogous to telling a woman she needs to see another doctor to get an abortion; in both cases a timely response is possible.

The question you should be asking is whether a doctor could refuse to prescribe emergency contraception, or whether a pharmacy should be allowed to specifically not stock this medication. Making the medications 'over-the-counter' solves the first question, but the second is sticky, though I think the answer is probably 'yes, they can'. In this case, I would imagine a doctor or other business might find a way to fill demand.

Most of these disputed cases involve pharmacists refusing to dispense medications that are in stock and supposed to be provided by their place of employment.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: BoberFett
However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

So what happens to those people in Butfuk Iowa who only have the one pharmacy around for 50 miles (and that pharmacy just happens to employ all far right religious nuts)? You think the "free market" is going to open another pharmacy just to service the people who actually need those drugs?

Sure, a free market would. A free market, though, is fantasy. To work, it requires every person to be intelligent, creative, both civilly and personally responsible, and to have every business of the same type make decisions that way, and to have even regulation (or people of high enough moral standards and communistic tendencies all around that a government hand is not needed) that does not punish a large business nor small business (including helping smaller ones due to entry barriers, etc.). Total pipe dream. Even the best real market is going to get messy if not looked at from a very high (abstracted) POV.

As to the pharmacist in question: the company has a policy. By working there, you agree to follow it. If you think it's wrong, you shouldn't do that job.

 

[dahunan]

Look.. Doctors GIVE ORDERS to Pharmacists..

Pharmacists are not there to diagnose.. only fill the prescription..

They are similar to Librarians ...

Where do pharmacists get off thinking they are above Doctors .. did they make the drugs or something?

 

[SuperFungus]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
You know I read the other day that more babies with Down's Syndrome are aborted than are born. What a terrible message to send to those afflicted...

Add to that the fact that now, 25% of all pregnancies end with an abortion. It's a wonder most of us made it here at all.

75% is still good odds.

What is so shocking about embryos born with a incurable disease that dramatically affects the life of the individual and parents not going to term? I can see an issue if people are aborting children because they have the wrong eye color, but when you start talking about lifelong genetic and developmental problems, you have to see that not everyone wants to deal with that.

I'm sickened that you have such a low view of the disabled. The disabled can be extremely valuable members of society. Case in point, Kim Peek "the Rainman". He was born without a corpus collosum(spelling?), I also believe that he is autistic yet is an invaluable asset for researchers looking into the potential and workings of the mind. He?s what is referred to as a ?mega-savant?. When he was a baby his doctor encouraged his parents to send him away to an asylum and forget about him. What a tragedy it would have been to miss the opportunity to learn from him! Isn?t it similarly arrogant of us to decide whether someone lives or dies based on their genetics before birth? Is your potential defined by your genes? Your argument only proves that abortion is a great convenience, not that it's at all morally acceptable. The fact is a zygote is human life, and in my opinion the value of human life is intrinsic to human life itself; it doesn?t reside in nerve-bundles, or ?consciousness? (whatever that means), or a heart beat or anything other one thing.

That said, the pharmacist who carries a medication he isn?t willing to dispense puts himself in a difficult position, and I don?t have a whole lot of sympathy for him. I do think that the pharmacist should be allowed to advertise that he won?t provide the morning after pill, and then refuse to provide it. I also think that it?s a big pharmacy chain?s prerogative to not hire people who won?t dispense the pill.

What if the pharmacist was asked to fill a questionable prescription which he believed may be used to kill some one? Is he obligated to fill it without argument? For a pharmacist who believes that a human embryo, at any stage, is human life this is exactly the situation they are put in. I don't think this situation is quite so cut and dry as some are suggesting.