On the "Pro-Life/Pro-Choice" debate

[RuntheDamnBall]

All 'We reserve the right to refuse service' signs should be located, and the guilty should be shut down by the state. If they won't serve someone what they ask for, they should be taken out and shot. I can't be bothered to shop elsewhere; taking my business to somewhere that will sell me what I want is asking too much of me. I trust in the state to monitor all businesses, and employ agents to ensure that stores are selling items the public demands. Business owners should not be allowed to determine what goods and services they provide; that should be a state function.

301396[/snapback]

I understand the gist of your post, but what are people supposed to do when Wal-Mart offers the only pharmacy within a 30-mile radius? Monopolies are not too different than state-dominated functions when you get right down to it. But at least one of them is supposed to be of, for and by the people.

[UConn James]

I understand the gist of your post, but what are people supposed to do when Wal-Mart offers the only pharmacy within a 30-mile radius?  Monopolies are not too different than state-dominated functions when you get right down to it.  But at least one of them is supposed to be of, for and by the people.

301433[/snapback]

 

And when the pharmacist refuses to give back the prescription? B/c those are the most recent marching orders and why these cases are coming up. They know if if they can delay for 72 hours, their beliefs are foisted onto others, yippeeeeee!

 

If they can't stand "doing harm" they should seek another profession. Health care of the body human is all about robbing Peter to pay Paul. See: chemotherapy as only the most obvious example.

 

Houston Chronicle op-ed.

 

The pharmacist who refuses emergency contraception is not just following his moral code, he's trumping the moral beliefs of the doctor and the patient.

 

"If you open the door to this, I don't see any place to draw a line," says Anita Allen, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of The New Ethics. If the pharmacist is officially sanctioned as the moral arbiter of the drugstore, does he then ask the customer whether the pills are for cramps or contraception? If he's parsing his conscience with each prescription, can he ask if the morning-after pill is for carelessness or rape? For that matter, can his conscience be the guide to second-guessing Ritalin as well as Viagra?

 

How much further do we want to expand the reach of the individual conscience? Does the person at the checkout counter have an equal right to refuse to sell condoms? Does the bus driver have a right to refuse to let off customers in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic?

 

Yes, we want people to have a strong moral compass. But they have to coexist with others whose compasses point in another direction.

[Terry Tate]

I understand the gist of your post, but what are people supposed to do when Wal-Mart offers the only pharmacy within a 30-mile radius?  Monopolies are not too different than state-dominated functions when you get right down to it.  But at least one of them is supposed to be of, for and by the people.

301433[/snapback]

Is this hypothetical? Because Wal-Mart doesn't build stores where there are no customers, and if there are enough customers to support a Wal-Mart, there are enough customers to support other businesses. I've lived out in the country, 20 miles from the nearest city with a population of about 13,000 - hardly a metropolis - which had probably a half dozen pharmacies (yes, including one in a 'super' Wal-Mart). If I traveled 20 miles in the opposite direction, I could reach another small town with - you guessed it - more pharmacies.

 

If demand exists, someone will sell the product and do rather well (100% of everyone's business who demands a specific product, including all future prescriptions of any nature, because their competitor refuses to carry it).

 

I find support of state control of this sort preposterous.

[Terry Tate]

And when the pharmacist refuses to give back the prescription? B/c those are the most recent marching orders and why these cases are coming up. They know if if they can delay for 72 hours, their beliefs are foisted onto others, yippeeeeee!

 

If they can't stand "doing harm" they should seek another profession. Health care of the body human is all about robbing Peter to pay Paul. See: chemotherapy as only the most obvious example.

 

Houston Chronicle op-ed.

301474[/snapback]

What sort of fantasy world is this? There are no telephones where these hypothetical customers reside? The doctor's office calls in a prescription to a pharmacy (which any doctor's office with a telephone will do), the pharmacist refuses to fill it, the doctor's office informs the patient, a different pharmacist is contacted who will fill it. Guess where the patient takes all future business?

 

"...does he then ask the customer whether the pills are for cramps or contraception? If he's parsing his conscience with each prescription, can he ask if the morning-after pill is for carelessness or rape?"

 

No, he can chose to sell it or not.

 

"Does the person at the checkout counter have an equal right to refuse to sell condoms?"

 

Business owners (and by extension of the owner's wishes, cashiers) have the right to refuse service to anyone. Business owners have the right to carry, or not carry, any product. Including condoms.

 

"Does the bus driver have a right to refuse to let off customers in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic?"

 

If it's not a regular stop, yes. If it's a regular stop, no.

 

Any other easy questions?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

No, he can chose to sell it or not.

 

301521[/snapback]

 

Really? Given that the prescription medication industry is a regulated and licensed one, I wouldn't count on that. It may very well be that a licensed pharmacist is required by whoever licenses him to fill all prescriptions as they come in.

 

I don't really know...but my point is, I don't think you do either, and saying that pharmacists have a choice in filling prescriptions is a pretty big assumption to be making.

[Terry Tate]

I don't really know...but my point is, I don't think you do either, and saying that pharmacists have a choice in filling prescriptions is a pretty big assumption to be making.

301531[/snapback]

Then you could have spent the time it took to post that informing yourself, rather than stating your ignorance or assuming mine.

 

CA considering legislation to force sale.

Here's another one for you.

[UConn James]

I guess it's also the contractor's decision to use mortar between the bricks or not. Or to make his workers wear hard-hats or not (even tho in the time I was in the trade, it was with objects where the helmet was wearing you for protection). Shouldn't be surprised when his/her license is revoked tho.

 

I've never had a prescription telephoned into a pharmacy. Saying everyone uses the phone is like saying everyone uses the Laserdisc. And the issue here is that the pharm took the written prescription and refused to return it.

 

If moral/religious concsience excludes a pharm. from doing their job, then the employer should be able to ask that in the job application. Sure, you can believe what you want, but just like the freedom to jump off the roof and fly, there are consequences to freedom of speech. For stores like CVS, Rite-Aid, etc. the pharmacist does not own the store.

 

And additionally, he or she works as a pharm at the liscensure of the state who oversee that customers are served equally across the state rather than the rogue pharmacists who are dictators behind the Sudafed aisle; same principle as common law. This is the law whether you call it "communist" or not.

[Terry Tate]

I guess it's also the contractor's decision to use mortar between the bricks or not. Or to make his workers wear hard-hats or not (even tho in the time I was in the trade, it was with objects where the helmet was wearing you for protection). Shouldn't be surprised when his/her license is revoked tho.

 

I've never had a prescription telephoned into a pharmacy. Saying everyone uses the phone is like saying everyone uses the Laserdisc. And the issue here is that the pharm took the written prescription and refused to return it.

 

If moral/religious concsience excludes a pharm. from doing their job, then the employer should be able to ask that in the job application. Sure, you can believe what you want, but just like the freedom to jump off the roof and fly, there are consequences to freedom of speech. For stores like CVS, Rite-Aid, etc. the pharmacist does not own the store.

 

And additionally, he or she works as a pharm at the liscensure of the state who oversee that customers are served equally across the state rather than the rogue pharmacists who are dictators behind the Sudafed aisle; same principle as common law. This is the law whether you call it "communist" or not.

301566[/snapback]

You just can't stop yourself from the bad analogy, can you? No, building contractors are trained and licensed to perform work within safety standards proscribed by the state. However, in a more accurate analogy --- if a contractor refused to build brick or block homes, and would only build stick-frame constructed houses, in your state-run world, he should be stripped of his license. Because if a customer wanted him to build a block home, he would have to go to a different contractor. The horror!

 

Holy cow, the phone analogy is even worse - stop yourself before you make another one! Saying everyone uses the phone is like saying everyone uses the Laserdisc?! Yeah, because not everyone has a phone, especially doctors and pharmacists. If you ask your doctor's office, they'll phone it in for you. Or, you could get the government to pass a law forcing pharmacies to carry a specific product. Same same.

 

Another lame conclusion - pharmacies should be able to ask religious affiliation. No, all the pharmacy would have to do is fire someone who refuses to do the job they hired them to do, fill prescriptions. Shouldn't be too hard to make that clear on a job interview.

 

'Rogue pharmacists', 'dictators', lol. The license is intended to assure proficiency, to provide a level of confidence in the pharmacists ability to fill a prescription without injuring or killing someone. It's not meant to be a vehicle to force business owners to sell a product they do not want to sell.

 

Of course, the 'state knows best' folks are working hard to make them refer customers to another pharmacy (note that not even they resort to your extreme). No doubt you will continue to proclaim your love and belief of 'freedom', though.

[Boatdrinks]

All 'We reserve the right to refuse service' signs should be located, and the guilty should be shut down by the state. If they won't serve someone what they ask for, they should be taken out and shot. I can't be bothered to shop elsewhere; taking my business to somewhere that will sell me what I want is asking too much of me. I trust in the state to monitor all businesses, and employ agents to ensure that stores are selling items the public demands. Business owners should not be allowed to determine what goods and services they provide; that should be a state function.

301396[/snapback]

Terrible post. I'm not walking in without shirt or shoes, I'm getting a prescription filled that was given to me by a doctor. There is NO ISSUE here. Fork over my prescription. That business is licensed by the state and if they are practicing discriminatory policies, should lose their license, plain and freakin' simple. People with the mentality of that Pharmacist and all who agree with him are what is wrong with our society today.

[Terry Tate]

Terrible post. I'm not walking in without shirt or shoes, I'm getting a prescription filled that was given to me by a doctor. There is NO ISSUE here. Fork over my prescription. That business is licensed by the state and if they are practicing discriminatory policies, should lose their license, plain and freakin' simple. People with the mentality of that  Pharmacist and all who agree with him are what is wrong with our society today. 

301696[/snapback]

Seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the pharmacist's role - he is a merchant who sells controlled substances - this requires state licensure in order to provide a level of safety and security that the individual filling the prescription is qualified to do so without endangering the public, and to keep under control access to medicines the state finds cause to control. It does not give the state the power to force a merchant to sell a product he would otherwise choose not to sell (at least not yet).

 

It is not discriminatory to refuse to sell a specific product to everyone. It would be discriminatory if the pharmacist refused to sell to someone because of their race, for example, but refusal to sell a product to everyone can hardly be called discriminatory.

 

I don't know all of 'what is wrong with our society today', but a lack of respect for individual freedoms would be on my list - not merchants refusing to sell a product.

 

BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to come up with the one analogy that directly co-incides with this topic, and we're getting phones and laserdiscs. We're in a 'pro-life/pro-choice' thread, remember? Nobody picked up on it yet?

[Campy]

Seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the pharmacist's role - he is a merchant who sells controlled substances - this requires state licensure in order to provide a level of safety and security that the individual filling the prescription is qualified to do so without endangering the public, and to keep under control access to medicines the state finds cause to control. It does not give the state the power to force a merchant to sell a product he would otherwise choose not to sell (at least not yet).

 

In addition to the Hippocratic Oath that they take, the American Pharmacists Association has the following in their Code of Ethics:

 

"A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients."

 

For a pharmacist to deny the patient/customer with healthcare by failing to fill a properly prescribed perscription is a violation of their own Code of Ethics.

[stuckincincy]

In addition to the Hippocratic Oath that they take, the American Pharmacists Association has the following in their Code of Ethics:

 

"A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients."

 

For a pharmacist to deny the patient/customer with healthcare by failing to fill a properly prescribed perscription is a violation of their own Code of Ethics.

301731[/snapback]

 

 

Only if you feel that a person's relationship with God is on an equal footing with the APA's Code of Ethics...or that 1st Amendment prohibitions against the Government restricting free expression of religion be tossed into the dust bin...

 

 

You can't have it both ways.

[KRC]

Only if you feel that a person's relationship with God is on an equal footing with the APA's Code of Ethics...

301734[/snapback]

 

 

When they recite the Code of Ethics, they agree to abide by it. Seems pretty simple.

[stuckincincy]

 

When they recite the Code of Ethics, they agree to abide by it. Seems pretty simple.

301739[/snapback]

 

Is that a condition of graduation or a condition of employment or both? Sounds like a "loyalty oath"...if you demur, are you ostracized?

[Terry Tate]

In addition to the Hippocratic Oath that they take, the American Pharmacists Association has the following in their Code of Ethics:

 

"A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients."

 

For a pharmacist to deny the patient/customer with healthcare by failing to fill a properly prescribed perscription is a violation of their own Code of Ethics.

301731[/snapback]

I don't agree it is an ethical violation to refuse to sell 'morning-after' pills. 'Self-determination' and encouraging patients to 'participate in decisions about their health' is precisely what may direct them towards a pharmacist who will sell them a 'morning-after' pill. It is possible to respect personal and cultural differences, and still not sell a 'morning-after' pill.

 

Still no takers on the most obvious analogy.

[KRC]

It is possible to respect personal and cultural differences, and still not sell a 'morning-after' pill.

301785[/snapback]

 

Only if they offer a viable alternative (another Pharmacist in the same facility who is willing to provide the prescribed medication, another Pharmacist in a different pharmacy who is willing to provide the prescribed medication, etc.).

[Terry Tate]

Only if they offer a viable alternative (another Pharmacist in the same facility who is willing to provide the prescribed medication, another Pharmacist in a different pharmacy who is willing to provide the prescribed medication, etc.).

301789[/snapback]

Precisely what some proposed state legislation would demand (NB: in legislatures that have already recognized that they lack the ability to FORCE pharmacists to sell this product, something that hasn't become apparent to some readers here at PPP yet). If they wanted to be a jerk about it, handing the customer a phone book would fulfill this obligation.

 

But honestly, how many times would this happen? Would the OB-GYN's in town keep sending rx's for 'morning-after' pills to this pharmacist thinking 'maybe they'll fill it this time? No, again? Dang!'

[aussiew]

It amazes me that so many here who have never (or will never) face the pain of making this heartbreaking decision, can be so sure their opinion is the right one.

 

1. The pain of adoption: Having been raised in the time of the "back alley abortionists of the 50s and 60s, I faced this dilemna when my first love (and first lover) was killed in Viet Nam only 4 weeks after arriving. Later, learning of my pregnancy (yes, we used condoms), and being afraid to seek a dangerous (and illegal) termination of my pregnancy, I endured months of loathing from my parents, 2 months in an "unwed mothers home" in another state (where we were treated like lepers) and that awful "secret" delivery in a strange place. I held and nursed my daughter for the next few days while my mother managed to convince me of my selfishness, stupidity and irresponsibility in thinking I could take care of this child. So I signed the papers, kissed her goodbye and promised myself that her sweet face would be forever etched on my brain. After months of emptiness, the pain gradually found a corner of my heart where it would emerge every year on her birthday. It's a long story, but we searched for (and found) each other after 21 years and it has been a positive, beautiful experience, developing a relationship with her, meeting her adoptive parents and becoming an "extended" family.

2. The pain of Abortion: About two years after my divorce, I was in a loving relationship with a nice guy. I was a single mom with 3 kids at home, he was a single dad with dual custody of 4 children and whopping child support payments.

I was taking birth controls pills. I became pregnant. I was devastated. Money was tight - I had to work to take care of my children. I agonized over the decision to have an abortion because I felt it was wrong (and still do). But somehow I knew it was the right decision for my family at the time. Do I regret it? Yes, absolutely. The pain of ending my pregnancy will probably always be with me. Would I do it again? In the same circumstances, yes I would.

 

I've written this to point out that not all women are "irresponsible" with birth control. So many women are faced with these gut wrenching decisions in their life. There is no right answer. This issue will never be put to rest because there is no "right" decision - but I'm glad that my daughters live in a time when they at least have a legal choice about something that will affect them for a lifetime.

[stuckincincy]

Still no takers on the most obvious analogy.

301785[/snapback]

 

 

For one, a seller of alcohol in any State can refuse sales. The do not have to suspect drunkeness. They can simply refuse a sale - no questions asked - backed 100% by the State.

[Terry Tate]

For one, a seller of alcohol in any State can refuse sales. The do not have to suspect drunkeness. They can simply refuse a sale - no questions asked - backed 100% by the State.

301807[/snapback]

Not bad, but it only represents one aspect of it. There's a better, more obvious one.