Rx refusal bill stalls in Senate

Rx refusal bill stalls in Senate

There are 276 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Jan 24, 2008, titled Rx refusal bill stalls in Senate. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

A bill that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions because of moral reservations failed to pass the Indiana Senate today.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

First Prev
of 14
Next Last
jej

United States

#1 Jan 24, 2008
I think that with all the recent deaths seemingly from combinations of prescribed Rx, someone needs to be cognizant that people hurt themselves whether intentionally or accidentally. The mediations are taking too many lives so maybe someone should say no.
Anison

United States

#2 Jan 24, 2008
I hope that Senate Bill 3 is finally defeated and never revived. The vagueness of the bill's language regarding birth control measure promises undue hardship and distress for women. Sen. Drozda should have better sense.
BU Pharmacy Grad

Circleville, OH

#3 Jan 24, 2008
I'm glad this is a balanced article. I'm also glad our Senate took the action they did. Now hopefully we can put this issue to rest.
Jimbo

United States

#4 Jan 24, 2008
Good. Kill this POS.
TroyM

Clayton, IN

#5 Jan 24, 2008
This is a bill that should never even be talked about. Nothing but a bunch of bible thumping do gooders who have nothing better to do.
Sanity prevails

Indianapolis, IN

#6 Jan 24, 2008
Thank you Senator Simpson and Senator Becker for caring about women's rights to overall health. I am glad to see that women's health issues are a non-partisan issue and both sides of the aisle can come together when women's health is at issue.
Fred Beyne

Greenfield, IN

#7 Jan 24, 2008
Pharmacist went to school to learn to mix and fill prescriptions not to be moral police and if they do not fill a customers legal prescription they should be fired with no recourse! Do the job you were hired to do or become a minister!
I agree

Indianapolis, IN

#8 Jan 24, 2008
Fred Beyne wrote:
Pharmacist went to school to learn to mix and fill prescriptions not to be moral police and if they do not fill a customers legal prescription they should be fired with no recourse! Do the job you were hired to do or become a minister!
Great post Fred!
Not fooled

Louisville, KY

#9 Jan 24, 2008
Who was the "genius" that crafted this ridiculous bill in the first place?

Cpetr13

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#10 Jan 24, 2008
The pharmacist doesn't get to overrule the doctor.
jej wrote:
I think that with all the recent deaths seemingly from combinations of prescribed Rx, someone needs to be cognizant that people hurt themselves whether intentionally or accidentally. The mediations are taking too many lives so maybe someone should say no.

Cpetr13

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#11 Jan 24, 2008
I've known women who went on the pill because they had unusually heavy periods; I've also known some who took it for dermatological reasons. Would a pharmacist have any problem with dispensing these pills for these reasons? If so, doesn't that make him a hypocrite?
Sanity prevails wrote:
Thank you Senator Simpson and Senator Becker for caring about women's rights to overall health. I am glad to see that women's health issues are a non-partisan issue and both sides of the aisle can come together when women's health is at issue.
INDYDEBI

Indianapolis, IN

#12 Jan 24, 2008
I could not have said this any better myself Fred Thank You!!!!!!!!!
If you don't want to do the
J O B spend your money for college on something else.. We have enough people telling us what we can do and can't, this is just dumb.
Norbert

United States

#13 Jan 24, 2008
Legislating morality is always a bad idea.

In this case, the supposed concern the pharmacist has for the customer is just a smoke screen. The prescription is made by a doctor, whose responsibility it is to determine if the medicine is best for the patient. That is not the pharmacist's job.

If your morality does not agree with selling certain types of legal prescription drugs, you should consider changing careers. Imagine if a doctor could refuse to treat someone of a different race on "moral grounds". Or if a fireman believed it was best for "some houses" to burn to the ground. Or if police could decide which crimes to enforce and which not based on their religion or the religion of those involved in the case.

Pharmacists are not law-makers, and they are not physicians. Just count the pills and make sure there are no drug interactions in the database, okay?
abc

Indianapolis, IN

#14 Jan 24, 2008
Fred Beyne wrote:
Pharmacist went to school to learn to mix and fill prescriptions not to be moral police and if they do not fill a customers legal prescription they should be fired with no recourse! Do the job you were hired to do or become a minister!
Can I get an Amen!
Joe

Indianapolis, IN

#15 Jan 24, 2008
TroyM wrote:
This is a bill that should never even be talked about. Nothing but a bunch of bible thumping do gooders who have nothing better to do.
Ah, Troy, we've been discussing this on another thread. The error that many make is equating the anti-abortion movement with "Bible thumpers." The reality is, one does not have to believe in God to be opposed to abortion. Rather, one simply has to believe that life begins at conception. Even atheists can believe that, because when life begins is broader than merely a theological question.
Joe

Indianapolis, IN

#16 Jan 24, 2008
Norbert wrote:
Legislating morality is always a bad idea.
In this case, the supposed concern the pharmacist has for the customer is just a smoke screen. The prescription is made by a doctor, whose responsibility it is to determine if the medicine is best for the patient. That is not the pharmacist's job.
If your morality does not agree with selling certain types of legal prescription drugs, you should consider changing careers. Imagine if a doctor could refuse to treat someone of a different race on "moral grounds". Or if a fireman believed it was best for "some houses" to burn to the ground. Or if police could decide which crimes to enforce and which not based on their religion or the religion of those involved in the case.
Pharmacists are not law-makers, and they are not physicians. Just count the pills and make sure there are no drug interactions in the database, okay?
Legislating morality is a bad idea, is it? Let's see ... does that mean that I should be able to "choose" to have sex with a woman who doesn't want to have sex with me? Should I be able to "choose" to shoot someone with whom I disagree? No, of course not! But WHY not? Is it not because, as a society, we have decided those actions are "wrong" (i.e., "immoral")? We legislate morality all the time, my friend. And, be glad about that. Would we want to live in a society where morality were not legislated?

So, the issue is not really legislating morality. Rather, the issue is: should abortion be proscribed as immoral? And to answer that question, don't we have to first answer the question regarding when life begins? Isn't that question foundational?
Joe

Indianapolis, IN

#17 Jan 24, 2008
Cpetr13 wrote:
I've known women who went on the pill because they had unusually heavy periods; I've also known some who took it for dermatological reasons. Would a pharmacist have any problem with dispensing these pills for these reasons? If so, doesn't that make him a hypocrite?
<quoted text>
So, we meet again, on another post!:) Hey, just want you to know that most of us who support the legislation allowing pharmacists to refrain from filling prescriptions for the morning after pill do NOT believe pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. However, I understand that it has been suggested that the law that was proposed would have allowed that. If so, that part of it should be stricken from the law for the simple reason that birth control pills do not cause abortions; rather, they prevent fertilization from occuring.
Joe

Indianapolis, IN

#18 Jan 24, 2008
Norbert wrote:
Legislating morality is always a bad idea.
In this case, the supposed concern the pharmacist has for the customer is just a smoke screen. The prescription is made by a doctor, whose responsibility it is to determine if the medicine is best for the patient. That is not the pharmacist's job.
If your morality does not agree with selling certain types of legal prescription drugs, you should consider changing careers. Imagine if a doctor could refuse to treat someone of a different race on "moral grounds". Or if a fireman believed it was best for "some houses" to burn to the ground. Or if police could decide which crimes to enforce and which not based on their religion or the religion of those involved in the case.
Pharmacists are not law-makers, and they are not physicians. Just count the pills and make sure there are no drug interactions in the database, okay?
Norbert, a few more points: you say that pharmacists are not lawmakers; therefore, they should just count the pills. You should be aware that pharmacists did not introduce this bill; rather, it was lawmakers who did. So, don't blame the pharmacists.

However, that said, let me ask you: why should those who believe that abortion kills a baby not have the right to try to influence legislation? Is it only those who are pro-abortion who have that right?
Outta Touch Drozda

Indianapolis, IN

#19 Jan 24, 2008
Jeff Drozda frequently wastes legislative time pushing his religious agenda. People need to realize this bill would have created a dangerous precedent that has nothing to do with abortion. Once pharmacists are allowed to veto one type of prescription, it won't be long before other types of prescriptions are added to the law.

“Faith is doubt.”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#20 Jan 24, 2008
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Norbert, a few more points: you say that pharmacists are not lawmakers; therefore, they should just count the pills. You should be aware that pharmacists did not introduce this bill; rather, it was lawmakers who did. So, don't blame the pharmacists.
However, that said, let me ask you: why should those who believe that abortion kills a baby not have the right to try to influence legislation? Is it only those who are pro-abortion who have that right?
Don't you think it was the pharmacists' suggestion that this bill be raised?

I think that pharmacists get paid to do a job. Like it or not. If they don't want to do their job, they can find another profession. They are to dispense drugs, not their personal opinions. Period.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 14
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pierceton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Burning Leaves: Legal or Illegal (Mar '09) Nov '17 F_you 31
News Hillary Clinton's pastor plagiarized prayer in ... Aug '17 fingers mcgurke 8
News Hillary Clinton's pastor plagiarized prayer at ... Aug '17 anonymous 2
News Discrepancies Seen In Bronson Testimony Aug '17 stutz239 1
Crime in South Whitley (Sep '06) May '17 0nono 26
Sidney Music Thread (May '17) May '17 Musikologist 4
Brittany Phillips (May '17) May '17 Iknowall 1

Pierceton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pierceton Mortgages