So once a company establishes a policy, it is above reproach, and bears no more scrutiny on moral grounds?
So once a company establishes a policy, it is above reproach, and bears no more scrutiny on moral grounds?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Actually, something like that just happened here in W Michigan. One of the largest chains (Meijer's) fired a lady for refusing to work on a Sunday (religion). She sued and won.
We used to have this nut that worked for my company. He would refuse to do certain jobs because of his religion. I wish they would have fired his ass for it.
i thought they handed out morning after pills at abortion clinics [or planned parenthood, or whatever theyre called]
Is there a law that says that he has to fill every script that comes across his desk?
I dont think so. Instead of pickiting the store the, nothing beter to do, crowd might look into the idea of forming a watch group and help stop the next rape. Get a life, go to another store and fill the script. A drug like that should not be at the local wallgreens anyway. Keep this stuff at the doctors.
I dont think so. Instead of pickiting the store the, nothing beter to do, crowd might look into the idea of forming a watch group and help stop the next rape. Get a life, go to another store and fill the script. A drug like that should not be at the local wallgreens anyway. Keep this stuff at the doctors.
in china, they make you give birth to your 2nd baby, then right after the baby comes out they shove a needle into the baby's head and fill it with fluid usually poison, and they make the mother watch all this so that she "learns" her lesson.
it's an "after birth" abortion
it's an "after birth" abortion
seriously, what type of doctor can go around all day puncturing babies' skulls with needles? guess they don't take the medical oath over there. let's hope their robots follow asimov.
I would argue that they are linked. Protesting aginst something is quite often done by ignoring it or disregarding it. Doing so would certainly bring "it" under scrutiny and quite possibly vice versa.
For the record I am not saying I agree or disagree with what he did.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
I usually agree with most you say.. BUT .. What if a KKK Member was a Doctor or a Radical Muslim were a doctor and the KKK member refused treatment to Blacks and the Muslim refused treatment to anyone with blue-eyes or christians? Those are their beliefs and they are allowed to feel that way if they wish.. but they cannot practice it in the workplace... they can walk past a dying black, blue eyed person or christian in their private life but never when they are supposed to be fulfilling their employment obligations.
Not sure, but I do know that China practices gruesome forms of Abortion. I.e. banging a baby's head on a metal table to crack it's skull. I've not a link for this, but Reader's Digest around 95 had an article about it. I think they are fairly credible.
No. Since when was equal protection passed on to those wanting to abort a fetus or take a morning after pill? In short -- it isn't and will never be.
No, it's about a woman that had been raped and was trying to fill a prescription for a "day after pill" to hopefully rid herself of anything leftover from her experiance. Yes she filled it at a different pharmacy, but it speaks volumes about the character of the pharmacist at the first place.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
His character is not in question either.
His right to make a personal moral choice is.
And as I am Pro-Choice (which you editted out), I see this as a similar personal moral choice to a woman's right to have an abortion in the first place. It's just a wee bit hypocritical to fight for a woman's individual right to choose to have an abortion and then fight against a doctor's or pharmacist's individual right to choose not to provide one, don't you think?
I don't believe so, not when you're in that type of position.
Dispensing valid, approved medications to people in need should be paramount, not interjecting your personal beliefs onto others. I'm all for people having any and all morals they like, but when they affect other people in need, then they need to look past it and do their job, or find another.
Not that it should matter, but I'm pro-choice as well.
Dispensing valid, approved medications to people in need should be paramount, not interjecting your personal beliefs onto others. I'm all for people having any and all morals they like, but when they affect other people in need, then they need to look past it and do their job, or find another.
Not that it should matter, but I'm pro-choice as well.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I just watched 'The Green Mile' the other day. I have a pretty good idea what my answer to your question would be.
I'm just glad I didn't have to make that sort of decision.CkG
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
His employer's rules are different than the laws which govern his pharmacist license, and I would have no issues if they decided to terminate his employment over this.
I think I already posted such in this thread.
I would think it a shame if the only reason they did it was to kow-tow to public pressure.
Physicians . . . well some physicians lie (or fudge) b/c if they don't some patients will not get the services they need. Lying is certainly always unethical but in these cases the rules do not serve the patient . . . they serve some system. Denial of necessary (but not emergent) care is immoral but our healthcare system has a variety of rules that make such denial of care . . . ethical.
Plan B . . . I forget the name of the other one in the US
Medicine . . . and in particular . . . pharmacology is an evolving (yet inexact) science. Even if you believe life begins at fertilization, Plan B is still most likely acting as conception control NOT birth control (abortifacent). Assuming all of the above actions occur with Plan B, then by his actions . . . the pharmacist actually INCREASED the odds that Plan B would induce an abortion instead of being conception control.
EDIT for clarity: Plan B activity:
1) Delays ovulation: No egg . . . no fertilization . . . no pregnancy.
1') Prevents fertilization: Mucking up the physiological changes necessary to make the egg receptive to sperm penetration . . . no fertilization . . . no pregnancy.
2) Inhibits implantation: Now it gets interesting. Plan B impairs implantation. No implantation leads to loss of zygote. It's an open debate about whether that's an abortion. My understanding is that most OB/Gyns do NOT consider failed implantation to be an abortion/miscarriage. But for anyone guided by their religious principle of conception . . . clearly this would probably qualify as abortion.
3) Plan B is NOT an abortifacent per se: If the egg is fertilized and implants in the endometrium. You be pregnant. You will get all the side effects of taking Plan B but it will not change the natural history of pregnancy. Unlike RU-486 (mifepristone) which is indeed a straight up abortifacent.
The dramatic (time-dependent) fall off in efficacy for Plan B favors 1 and 1' as the primary mechanisms of action. #2 cannot be ruled out but that just makes a case for making Plan B OTC. If you are not opposed to other forms of contraception then VERY early use of Plan B is nothing controversial.
The take home message is that this pharmacist should be quided by knowledge, his ethical responsibility to serve patients in need, and his morality. IMHO, his lack of knowledge is the problem not his morality. Granted, he helps highlight the issue of why pharmacists should have minimal control over prescription drug utilization.
Studies of Plan B
ahhh, i have been gone a long time(playing lots of cal of duty and working)
did you notice the irony/self contradiction of your statement? of course not...your to busy pushing your ideas on others yourself to notice.
i suppose it also goes unnoticed by the baby killing whackos that murdering a baby just because the mother was raped is somehow "morally acceptable" and the idea is pushed on others by people who say you should not push your morals on soemone else... the baby did not do anything, why kill it? is it somehow the baby's fault and thus deserving the death penalty?
why not look at it from the pharmacists point of view?(or as usual just do not and call yourself "open minded" anyway) maybe he did not want to be what in his mind an accomplice to murder...but then again why should his idea of morality be important when we have PC to be morality instead to be pushed on the masses.
to date almost 50 million babies have been murdered, and only 1% were actually "medically neccesary" to preserve the life of the mother.
kudo's to the pharmacist for not letting himself to be forced to act against his moral beliefs in the name of political correctness and the nazi hypocrites who try to force it on everyone else.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter