Pharmacists' job is to fill legal prescriptions

The Indiana General Assembly is considering a bill that would give pharmacists the legal right to refuse to fill any prescription for emergency morning-after contraception, and for other similar medications ... Full Story
First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Mike

Cincinnati, OH

#105 Jan 23, 2008
Jerry wrote:
Mike,
Sorry to accuse you of being a fundamentalist.
You're right about people taking responsibility and having more forethought. But that's in a perfect world.
First, I appreciate the apology as you sure don't get this much in these forums.

You are right, this is in a perfect world. I sure don't have the answer to make people more responsible and accountable but if we continue to cater to them, when will it ever change?

That is part of the problem with the world today, we sue someone because we make a stupid decision (I always love the McDonalds coffee lady as the perfect example since I have never seen a cup of coffee that wasn't hot but she sued McDonalds for it).

We all pay a higher cost for products because we have so many people who cannot make good decisions and when they make a bad decision, they sue or try to force the government to put yet another law in place.

When and where will it end, your guess is as good as mine.
Just the facts

United States

#106 Jan 23, 2008
So some pharmacists have a conscience and don't want the blood of the unborn on their hands. And some of you don't like it. Those lower down are always trying to tear down those they envy. Those pharmacists have standards and you don't like it.

“was Bill in Chicago”

Since: Nov 07

Marysville, OH

#107 Jan 23, 2008
Joe wrote:
Actually, Mr. Wilson, a bookseller has the legal right to refuse to stock the Bible if he is opposed to it. Nothing requires him to sell it, other than his desire to make a profit. Similarly, a pharmacist should have the right to follow her conscience. Forcing her to dispense medication that she believes will kill human life is simply wrong.
The pharmacist is putting herself above caring for her patient. Tell me: if a pharmacist is a Scientologist, should they have the right to refuse anti-depressant prescriptions?
Joe

Carmel, IN

#108 Jan 24, 2008
billman wrote:
<quoted text>
The pharmacist is putting herself above caring for her patient. Tell me: if a pharmacist is a Scientologist, should they have the right to refuse anti-depressant prescriptions?
Now THAT, my friend, is a good question. What we are really asking is, "should one have the right to refuse to do something which violates his conscience, without losing his job because of it?" And, I acknowledge, the query is not without difficulty. On the one hand we can easily present examples where one would think the answer should be "no."

However, we can also come up with examples where we would say that someone following the dictates of his conscience should be applauded. For instance, consider what transpired in the horror that was Nazi Germany. Are we to say that those Germans who disobeyed the law to report on their Jewish neighbors were "wrong" to do so? Is not one like Oskar Schindler rather to be commended? And the churchmen like Bonhoeffer, who opposed Hitler and paid with their lives, are they not also to be applauded?

You see, your analysis fails to convince me because I believe you have started with the wrong question. You are asking whether a pharmacist have the right to refuse to dispense the proper medicine? When the question is framed that way, of course the answer is "no, the pharmacist should not have that right." However, I suggest to you that your question is similar to this one: Should a German citizen have had the right to break the Nuremberg Laws? When posited that way, of course the answer is "no."

However, if we first ask primary questions, namely, "were the Nuremberg Laws right and just?", and, "is the so-called medicine 'good and helpful?'", we may arrive at different answers. There are many doctors who would say, "I took an oath to 'do no harm,' yet the morning after pill harms babies. This is not proper medicine." Similarly, many pharmacists would say, "How can I dispense something that will bring harm to people? That is not good medicine."

Yes, if we ask that primary question, we may then have a different answer for whether a pharmacist is doing wrong by refusing to dispense this so-called medicine.

“was Bill in Chicago”

Since: Nov 07

Marysville, OH

#109 Jan 24, 2008
Joe,

Your analogy is a poor one. The pharmacist is not harming or killing the patient. The pharmacist dispensing that medication is not harming a person. A fetus != a person, first and foremost.

Secondly, the morning after pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. So does a birth control pill. I suppose a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to fill birth control pills, too, right?

What about Viagra? God clearly made the men impotent. Who are we to question His wisdom? That's what the whole abortion debate comes down to, right?
Joe

Carmel, IN

#110 Jan 24, 2008
billman wrote:
Joe,
Your analogy is a poor one. The pharmacist is not harming or killing the patient. The pharmacist dispensing that medication is not harming a person. A fetus != a person, first and foremost.
Secondly, the morning after pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. So does a birth control pill. I suppose a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to fill birth control pills, too, right? What about Viagra? God clearly made the men impotent. Who are we to question His wisdom? That's what the whole abortion debate comes down to, right?
Well, you have a lot in here that I want to respond to.

FIRST, I would ask you to define "person" and explain why you say that a fetus is not one. SECOND, I would ask you to clarify when "life" begins. That is really the foundational question: if life begins at conception, then the morning after pill destroys life: i.e., it KILLS.

Beyond that, I think you have your facts wrong. What is popularly known as "the Pill" does not in fact prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Rather, the Pill prevents fertilization from occuring. That is why non-Catholics have no objection to the Pill, or to condoms---they prevent fertilization, and so there is no issue with destroying life.

As for your final statement about viagra, I'm not sure I understand. However, I repeat what I have said previously: the anti-abortion movement is not tied to religion. Atheists can be against abortion, as certainly as theists can be. The issue, really, comes down to when one believes life begins. If she believes it begins at conception, then she should oppose abortion, regardless of her religious views or lack thereof.

“was Bill in Chicago”

Since: Nov 07

Marysville, OH

#111 Jan 26, 2008
Joe,

You are incorrect. The pill works in 2 ways. It prevents ovulation from occurring - not fertilization. As a back-up, it prevents implantation. That said, the pill can fail at both of these.

As for a person, first and foremost a person is one that exists outside the womb. A fetus is not a person - it has the potential to be a person, but it is not a person.

The question "when does life begin" is probably not the question to be asked. There is not a definition of what "life" is.

The anti-abortion movement is overwhelmingly tied to religion. Indeed, the vast majority of arguments are couched in the belief that "only God can take life."
Jon

Seattle, WA

#113 Feb 3, 2008
Is this saying that a patient can be refused his/her prescribed medication, or that a pharmacist is allowed to let someone else fill the prescription if it goes against his/her personal beliefs to do so himself/herself?
BU Pharmacy Grad

Springfield, IL

#114 Feb 4, 2008
Yes, if its for aboortion or assisted suicide. Also, the employer can't discipline the pharmacist for doing so.
Joe

Carmel, IN

#115 Feb 14, 2008
Indianapolitan wrote:
<quoted text>
Here here! I have repeatedly asked for anti-abortionists and Christianists to name names on this one. Which non-religious or non-Christian figures support their positions and intentions explicitly?
The answer comes in one of two ways: None given usually, followed by small snippets of misinterpreted quotes. Just because a Buddhist says that life is sacred and that killing is wrong (in the context of what happened in Burma recently) does not allow you to make a leap for them that they did not intend, for example (as was done by "Dr." Laura S. in a TV appearance.)
And why all the Bible quotes when this issue comes up? Please note that God, Old testament version, has absolutely no problem with killing children, in or out of uteri. In fact, He COMMANDS it to be done!
There is even a ritual for causing an abortion described in the Old Testament, which is to be performed on women accused of adultery! Pro-Life, eh?
How do you answer this, Christianists? And show me where in the Bible abortion is explicitly condemned. Chapter and verse, please.
While we are on this subject, have you guys even been looking at the comments on this thread that were posted by Pharmacists?? How many times do you people need to be told that this is a non-issue?
It is not being pushed by Pharmacists. It is being pushed by Christianists, under the table so as to avoid real debate on this issue. This is typical of their cowardly methods of ramming their agenda down our throats and stands as an excellent example of why they need to be stopped.
I'm curious ... why do you insist on calling "Christians," "Christianists"? I've read a number of your posts, and see that is your standard term. I'm just curious: what are you trying to accomplish by doing that?
Joe

Carmel, IN

#116 Feb 14, 2008
billman wrote:
Joe,
You are incorrect. The pill works in 2 ways. It prevents ovulation from occurring - not fertilization. As a back-up, it prevents implantation. That said, the pill can fail at both of these.
As for a person, first and foremost a person is one that exists outside the womb. A fetus is not a person - it has the potential to be a person, but it is not a person.
The question "when does life begin" is probably not the question to be asked. There is not a definition of what "life" is.
The anti-abortion movement is overwhelmingly tied to religion. Indeed, the vast majority of arguments are couched in the belief that "only God can take life."
Not sure if you are still following this thread or not, but I thought I'd respond anyway.

1. The fact that the pill prevents implementation makes it an abortive. For those of us who oppose abortion, that is sufficient to lead us to oppose the pill.

2. You state that a person is one who exists outside the womb. On what basis do you make that statement? What is the authority for making it?

3. You state that there is not a definition of what "life" is. Actually, that is one of the crazy things about this whole debate. There actually IS a definition, that is applied in every circumstance except with regard to whether a fetus is alive. Scientists have a list of characteristics that allow them to say whether an organism is living or not. Interestingly, that list is applied everywhere else, except to a HUMAN fetus, because of the desire to avoid the conclusion that the human fetus is alive.

4. You are correct: most anti-abortionists are religious (though not necessarily Christian; but, even there, the vast majority of us are Christians). But, even admitting that, I suppose we must ask the following: May one's religious views not inform his policy choices? I know, many people say that they can't, because letting my religious views inform my policy choices risks me forcing my religious views on others. But, how is that different than a naturalist "forcing" naturalism on others, or an anti-religious "forcing" his views on others? It seems that what we are really saying is that religious people must never allow their religious thoughts to inform their policy choices. But that is preposterous; for, we all arrive at our policy choices based on a complicated analysis of all that we believe, including our religious beliefs.

And, even admitting that most anti-abortions are Christians, we must also ask: so what? Does that somehow make their view less important? Or, put another way, does that mean that the view of non-Christians is to be preferred over the view of Christians?

“I know you are, but what am I?”

Since: Dec 06

That way...

#117 Feb 16, 2008
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious ... why do you insist on calling "Christians," "Christianists"? I've read a number of your posts, and see that is your standard term. I'm just curious: what are you trying to accomplish by doing that?
From Andrew Sullivan:

"Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

Thatís what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesnít. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. Itís time the quiet majority of believers took it back."
Cannot fix stupid

Evansville, IN

#118 Feb 19, 2008
Just the facts wrote:
So some pharmacists have a conscience and don't want the blood of the unborn on their hands. And some of you don't like it. Those lower down are always trying to tear down those they envy. Those pharmacists have standards and you don't like it.
You are completely wrong. We are talking about a few cells multiplying here not a fetus. Not even a zygote. There is no blood of the unborn on anyones hands. It is way to soon. A typical overreaction. If the pharmacist does not wish to dispense certain medications they need to be in a practice where there are multiple pharmacists so this issue never arises. Stop sticking your religious views in our faces. You don't have to agree with it. What happened to live and let live?
Pharm D

Lawrence, KS

#119 Feb 26, 2008
I am a pharmacist with a doctorate degree. Yes, most pharmacists that currently practice are doctors, and within 15-20 years all pharmacists will have their doctorate as all pharmacy schools now only offer the Pharm.D.(Doctorate of Pharmacy) However the responses on this board shows how far we as a profession have to go. I went to school for 8 years, 4 of which was pharmacy school, where I learned about medicine exclusively. I would challenge any physician about drug knowledge. My job is not to count pills from a big bottle to a little bottle. I have ultimate responsibility to dispense a medicine that will not be harmful to my patient,(notice I did not say customer). I dispense
Plan B because it is a suped up version of birth control, which I have no problem with. However if a pharmacist refuses to dispense a medication, that is their choice. Must all MD's perform abortions? I think not, it is professional judgement. The state grants us authority to dispense, not ignorant posters on the internet who refer to us 'druggists'. Please feel free to respond.

“was Bill in Chicago”

Since: Nov 07

Marysville, OH

#120 Mar 4, 2008
Pharm D wrote:
However if a pharmacist refuses to dispense a medication, that is their choice. Must all MD's perform abortions? I think not, it is professional judgement. The state grants us authority to dispense, not ignorant posters on the internet who refer to us 'druggists'. Please feel free to respond.
I am not a pharmacist, but I am married to one, and have other R.Ph.'s in my family...

You attempt to draw a parallel between doctors and pharmacists by saying all doctors don't have to perform abortions. That is true, but the doctors that work at abortion clinics do.

If a pharmacist does not want to dispense birth control, plan B, etc., then they need to remove themselves from public pharmacies and work for Catholic hospitals, etc.. The pharmacist does not have the right to impose their beliefs upon their patients, and those that refuse to dispense said medications do just that. They are putting their mores above that of their patients.
Joker

United States

#121 May 8, 2008
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't think spelling has anything to do with a person's ability to do their job in an ICU unit or many other jobs for that matter.
Oh, by the way, sentences start with a capital letter, Please, not please.
Also, grammar is spelled with an a (grammar), not grammer.
Maybe you should brush up on your own grammar and spelling prior to throwing rocks from your glass house.
For those of you who can't read between the lines let me point something out. Did it occur to you that the comment from Tyra was intentional !! She is trying to make her point by being sarcastic. Please think a little before posting your comments. r u seaing the pointe.
Joker

United States

#122 May 8, 2008
I really think this will entertain me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
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.

Indianapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
K-mart's shutting down 1 hr jack 20
Why do most Blacks hate Whites? (Jul '13) 1 hr Learn to Read 305
jack cottey deceased 2 hr Blackology 8
Could Terry Curry Be 1st Democratic 2-Term Pros... 2 hr Blackology 1
Mike Brown screams Mr Wilson 3 hr Blackology 1
William montez 3 hr Mr Wu 4
Cop arrested on third DUI (Mar '07) 21 hr advocate in IL 136
Indianapolis Dating
Find my Match

Indianapolis Jobs

Indianapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Indianapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Indianapolis

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]