Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
Emergency Contraceptive.

(And no, I don't need any, thanks for asking. I'm a planner by nature.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12691418/

“Women of reproductive age should get an advance prescription for emergency contraception to keep in case they ever need it, the nation's largest gynecologist group advised Monday.”

I don't think this will help any in the debate.

1) There's the obvious “if you can plan well enough in advance to have a prescription laying around, simply go to the store beforehand and BUY SOME CONDOMS” aspect of it

2) If I were a doctor, I would hesitate to give a prescription out to a woman whose general health could change and affect whether or not I would recommend that prescription for her.

3) If I were a doctor, I would be scared poo-less that the prescription would be filled and used on another person.

4) If I were a doctor or pharmacist, I would be concerned that, if it were filled many months prior to use, instructions would be forgotten or not followed precisely, leading to unintended side effects.

I understand the underlying premise – that it is a very time-sensitive prescription, and many women would be riding on the edge of it's efficacy if they waited until Monday to see their regular doctor for it. A better approach, IMHO, would be to have one of the on-call docs willing to call the script in to a pharmacy during the weekend, with a follow-up visit that Monday.

(And of course, this is excluding issues of rape/incest/etc. where emergency contraceptive is desperately needed, fast, whether or not it comes from the primary GYN.)

Discuss.

impolite


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1) There's the obvious “if you can plan well enough in advance to have a prescription laying around, simply go to the store beforehand and BUY SOME CONDOMS” aspect of it

Agreed, though there is a shelf life I would imagine. Could always do a poll to see who buys the bulk box from Costco.

2-4: I would be concerned with ANY medication prescribed being used for the person it was presribed for.

“Women of reproductive age should get an advance prescription for emergency contraception to keep in case they ever need it, the nation's largest gynecologist group advised Monday.”

Again with the shelf life and it's effectiveness.

Odee
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3

1) There's the obvious “if you can plan well enough in advance to have a prescription laying around, simply go to the store beforehand and BUY SOME CONDOMS” aspect of it

2) If I were a doctor, I would hesitate to give a prescription out to a woman whose general health could change and affect whether or not I would recommend that prescription for her.

3) If I were a doctor, I would be scared poo-less that the prescription would be filled and used on another person.

4) If I were a doctor or pharmacist, I would be concerned that, if it were filled many months prior to use, instructions would be forgotten or not followed precisely, leading to unintended side effects.

I understand the underlying premise – that it is a very time-sensitive prescription, and many women would be riding on the edge of it's efficacy if they waited until Monday to see their regular doctor for it. A better approach, IMHO, would be to have one of the on-call docs willing to call the script in to a pharmacy during the weekend, with a follow-up visit that Monday.

(And of course, this is excluding issues of rape/incest/etc. where emergency contraceptive is desperately needed, fast, whether or not it comes from the primary GYN.)

Discuss.

impolite


OK, I'll bite.

1) there's the obvious: we were drunk and didn't use condoms. There's : the condom broke, leaked, fell off, or whatever. There's also, not quite rape, but call it date rape, or not totally willing sex, where condoms were not used. I'll bet that covers quite a few instances.

2) Not an expert, but within a year or so, what would change so that a woman could no longer use a contraceptive?
Anyway, isn't this true of many prescriptions - those of the take-as-needed variety. I have preceriptions more than a year old... for pain, for allergies... that I take only if I need them.

3) Again, this is no different than any other prescription. Pain pills, sleeping pills, etc. can get passed around.

4) I dunno, aren't the directions printed on the bottle ? Again, no different than many other prescriptions...

My 2 cents.

I'm sure someone with a medical background has some insightful things to add.

Cheers,
-gs


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1) there's the obvious: we were drunk and didn't use condoms. There's : the condom broke, leaked, fell off, or whatever. There's also, not quite rape, but call it date rape, or not totally willing sex, where condoms were not used. I'll bet that covers quite a few instances.

Hence the "emergency" part of it (and rape/incest/etc. were covered already....this is pure consensual sex). I don't see how an on-call doc calling in the script over the weekend would delay the process.

2) Not an expert, but within a year or so, what would change so that a woman could no longer use a contraceptive? Anyway, isn't this true of many prescriptions - those of the take-as-needed variety. I have preceriptions more than a year old... for pain, for allergies... that I take only if I need them.

Well, women that are smoking or have a history of blood clots aren't supposed to use hormone-based birth control. Neither are those with a history of high-blood pressure. Any of those could happen/begin to occur in a year's time.

3) Again, this is no different than any other prescription. Pain pills, sleeping pills, etc. can get passed around.

I agree. But who would they get passed to? Girls that wouldn't take them correctly? Would the women/girls that used them without the script get the recommended follow-up care, disclosing that they used them?

4) I dunno, aren't the directions printed on the bottle ? Again, no different than many other prescriptions...

Same as above.

I still think it's not going to help bring more people over to the light to recommend that women get a pre-emptive script for the stuff. It simply reinforces the <wrong, I'll grant you, but still> idea that the women using this are irresonsible, morally loose and unable to control themselves.

My *ideal* would be for this to be available either OTC with follow-ups (either by the pharmacy or the regular OBGYN), or using on-call docs calling the prescription in during non-business hours with a required follow-up. I also would want there to be stocks of it at clinics, emergency rooms and yes, even doctor's offices, so that more girls and women in delicate situations (rape/incest/etc.) do not have to face yet another hurdle in obtaining it.

impolite
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

“Women of reproductive age should get an advance prescription for emergency contraception to keep in case they ever need it, the nation's largest gynecologist group advised Monday.”

I don't think this will help any in the debate.


The debate about what? Seriously?

My guess is that this is being recommended because doctors are seeing patients who did NOT use birth control correctly - for whatever reason, and are hoping that if a woman has something in her medicine cabinet other than condoms it will end up getting used. On the theory that it's better to 'seek forgiveness' than 'permission', it's better to use a contraceptive after sex than not at all. And why not just use a condom? Because, well, condoms are kind of slutty*, and they require the active participation of the male half of the equation. All things considered it might be easier for some women to go the medicine cabinet and take a pill the next morning than to face the fact that they're sexual beings and do the adult thing the night before. Sad but true.

*no i don't really think that
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
“Women of reproductive age should get an advance prescription for emergency contraception to keep in case they ever need it, the nation's largest gynecologist group advised Monday.”



It seems to me if a group of doctors are recommending it, they have thought through some of the implications.

Also, the morning after pill is simply a larger dose of regular birth control medication.
If you have high blood pressure or have taken up smoking, it's still just one dose, not the same as being on birth control for an extended period.

Probably less dangerous than going thru a full pregnancy and delivery, all things considered.
And preferable to an abortion, IMHO.

I agree with imp that having it available over the counter would be ideal, but I see that as unlikely to happen. So this proposal may be the most practical, given current realities.

-gs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
If I were a woman who was having sex that could result in pregnancy, I would feel better having a prescription in my medicine cabinet.

I live in the Bible belt--Arkansas, with Walmart and Target as two of the major prescription dispensing stores in town. Target does not require a pharmacist to dispense medication against his/her moral belief and makes no provision for having another pharmacist on staff fill it. I'm not sure what Wally-world's stance is on it either--I think they have changed it in places where Wal-mart is the only game in town, but I am not sure. I don't know what Kroger's (where I do get my scripts filled) policies are, nor Wal-greens.

I'd rather find out my pharmacist refuses to fill my script BEFORE I have need for my script.

b
waiting for the day when my depression can be/should be "cured" by prayer and my pharmacist refused to fill my welbutrin script.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Many people who have Herpes or Gout or other diseases that can unpredictably "flare" have a prescrtiption on their file, or in their possession for the medication needed. Some folks even have it filled before they need to use it.

Other people have Epi-pens even if they never use them. (Paying to replace them when they go out of date)

I believe that a woman who is cautious can still have an error with birth control. Condoms do break, diaphragms dislodge, and not everybody can plan for everything.

Plan B is one type of the "morning after" medication. It is a little package not unlike the Z-Pack or other punchout packs of pills. The shelf life would be a couple of years, under controlled room temperature.

Super-cautious women would have one filled ahead of time. Others might choose to keep one on file at their pharmacy, or carry the paper prescription in their wallet. (Most Rx's in my state are good for 1 year from date of writing)

----------------

I would rather have a doctor that I know write the rx ahead of time for me, instead of calling some on-call person over a weekend, then going to a pharmacy and hoping that they even have the med (and will fill it--that's ANOTHER topic!)


85
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think I'd not only get the prescription, but fill it. I travel a lot and you never know
* if you can find a doctor quickly outside an emergency room (your doctor can't prescribe outside his/her state)
* whether the pharmacy will have the medication
* how long it would take to do all of this in unfamiliar situations




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How much does the prescription cost, assuming you have to pay the full amount out of pocket? I haven't bought birth control pills for about 15 years, but I recall them running less than $50 per month. If the morning after pill cost about that much, and if the pill(s), properly stored, had a shelf-life of a year or so, I'd say it would be money well spent.

And I bought birth control pills for the same reason I bought tampons-my wife asked me to.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
I used the morning after pill once. I am very responsible when it comes to safe sex but years ago I had a "slip up" at the tail end of a heartwrenching break-up the day before I was leaving him to travel for many weeks.

I was so stressed and confused about so many things I felt very overwelmed. Luckily a close girlfriend of find convinced me to call the dr. and get a last minute rx for the morning after pill.

Glad she did because otherwise I would have spend much of my vacation obsessing about what I would do if I was pregant with his baby.

If she hadn't been there though ,due to the rush I was under getting ready to leave and just the general feeling of being overwelmed by relationship issues, I would have been likely to blow off the notion, and convince myself that (if only momemtarily) that the chances of pregnancy was slim.

There are a lot of emotional reasons why even going to fill a perscription can sometimes feel like a big deal.

I don't see anything wrong with prefilling the rx if it offers peace of mind. I brought yeast infection medicine into the rain forrest with me on the off chance I would experience a problem. Somebody who is likely to abuse the pills is probably going to find a way to do it (or something equally as damaging) anyway.

jez
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
* if you can find a doctor quickly outside an emergency room (your doctor can't prescribe outside his/her state)

Is this true? Is it recent?

My experience is that doctors CAN write 'scrips across state lines.

It takes longer. It involves paperwork. However, I have travelled enough and found myself in unfortunate situations enough to know that I can call my doctor and get a scrip.

Most famously was the time I attended the 50th Bike Week in Daytona, Florida, where I slipped and broke three ribs. The ERs were stacked to the gills.

One phone call and a few hours later, I had T3s in my hot little hands. Doc was actually willing to 'scribe me some ... gads can't remember now... but something that I knew would knock me out. Told him no way 'cuz a Harley was my only transportation for the entire vacation. I just needed something to take the edge off the pain for a day or two.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How did the pill make you feel?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How did the pill make you feel?

I can't remember it doing anything noticeable. Maybe I was a little queasy?

jez
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Considering the high degree of likelihood that you will get refused emergency contraception by a Christian Fundamentalist pharmacist when you really need it (like you got raped, for example) I think this is a great idea.

http://www.saveroe.com/node/1714

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
Considering the high degree of likelihood that you will get refused emergency contraception by a Christian Fundamentalist pharmacist when you really need it (like you got raped, for example) I think this is a great idea.

http://www.saveroe.com/node/1714




I think they are missing the bigger picture here by going after Target. This is an issue for individual employers to tackle.

Pharmacists are licensed by the state. If a pharmacist refuses to fill an authentic prescription written by a licensed doctor for ethical reasons, then that pharmacist should have his/her license revoked by the state for failing to perform the duties of their profession.

Not only would that prevent such an activist pharmacist from working at Target, but it would also keep them out of other pharmacies in the state.



RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

I think they are missing the bigger picture here by going after Target. This is an issue for individual employers to tackle.


OCD: This is NOT an issue for individual employers to tackle.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I used the morning after pill once.

I did it once too.

I was a college freshman and the condom broke one night with my boyfriend (now DH.) Looking back, I was probably safe. I used to have crazy-long-strange cycles and was most likely annovulatory for a long time there but heck if I was going to take that chance at 18.

After freaking out for a couple of hours, we went to bed and I called Planned Parenthood the next morning. They wouldn't write a script without seeing me first, so I went in, had my first GYN exam and got the emergency contraception. It probably turned out to be a good thing - it got me going in for regular exams and I got on regular BCP's.

BTW, the "morning after pill" from them was just 8 regular low-dose BCP's. You took 4 as soon as possible (within 72 hours of the incident IIRC) and 4 more 12 hours later. They gave an extra 4 in case you puked up one of the doses within 1 hour of taking it. (I puked up the 2nd dose but it had been 2 hours so I didn't take the extras.)

A few months later the same thing happened to my best friend. She freaked, I told her I'd been through it, and I loaned her 8 pills from my BCP's (same brand, dose, etc - I even still had the instructions on the emergency way to take them.)

Looking back, I'm not sure about the wisdom of all that but I think I did the right thing for myself and my friend at the time and am glad the option was there. I don't know about having a script on hand but maybe it's not a bad idea. If I'd had the wherewithall to go to the doctor beforehand, I'd have been on the pill already and probably avoided the situation anyway.

sjfans
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
think they are missing the bigger picture here by going after Target. This is an issue for individual employers to tackle.

That was an old article and not probably the best example. There are many and there are groups PP, NARAL and others who are working hard to make it illegal for a pharmacist to impose his or her religious views on the dispensing process. If a doctor says a person needs a medicine it is the pharmicists job to fill the prescription, not decide if it is okay.

My point was simply that if I were fertile and I could get my hands on emergency BC to keep around "just in case" I would do it in a heartbeat. Accidents happen and you can't count on anything to help you out these days - the anti-choice coalition knows no bounds.

And tera - it has nothing to do with having doctors or the state save me from myself. A woman can't always control when sperm will find its way up her va-jayjay.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And I bought birth control pills for the same reason I bought tampons-my wife asked me to.

And because you're a really good guy. :-)


--Booa
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yeah, on reflection, I think the whole "fill it ahead of time" is a good thing. At the end of last school year the pharmacist refused to fill our prescription, not for any religious reason, but because of the way my son's doctor wrote the instructions for him to take it. (It was a time-release capsule and the doctor wanted us to open it and shake out half of the contents and then close it up and give it to the my son--he metabolizes medicine slowly and would have gotten no sleep on the full dose, and they don't make a smaller dose.)

The pharmacist wouldn't fill it, and wouldn't give me the 'scrip back. She wanted to hear from his doctor. Oh, you mean, the doctor who is impossible to call? Grr. So I left the doctor a message on the call center, and sure enough, three weeks later, the pharmacist called me to come pick up the prescription. Sigh. Good thing we had other meds to give him in the meantime (these were anti-hyper kind of things). The bad thing was, there wasn't time before the end of the school year to see how he'd do on the new medication for a month or so, so we just didn't try it.
<shakes tiny impotent fist of rage at pharmacist>


--Booa (who now goes to a different pharmacy)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I work for a hospital owned by a Catholic corporation. We do have pharmacists who refuse to dispense emergency contraception, but I don't think there has ever been a problem because they aren't the only ones who work there. We have automated drug dispensing machines in the ER, and it is stocked with Plan B. So the limiting step is neither hospital management nor pharmacy. And I know for a fact that the docs will dispense it upon request. So please understand, not everywhere is so closed-minded about the issue. I'm kind of proud of that particular setup. We take care of the patients.

Thanks for listening.
Randy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I like to think so. But you never get to hear her side.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If a pharmacist refuses to fill an authentic prescription written by a licensed doctor for ethical reasons, then that pharmacist should have his/her license revoked by the state for failing to perform the duties of their profession.

Yeah, we cant have those sominabeeches having ethics. And lets disbar lawyers who withdraw from representation because their clients are going to purger themselves. Stupid ethics.

eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Yeah, we cant have those sominabeeches having ethics. And lets disbar lawyers who withdraw from representation because their clients are going to purger themselves. Stupid ethics.


Sounds like you have a warped definition of "ethics."

RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Actually, the unethical action for a pharmacist is refusing to fill a legitimate, legal prescription for personal religious reasons. There is nothing remotely unethical about filling any legitimate prescription.

No one has the right to impose his own religious beliefs on anyone else's health. If a person knows he will not fill a prescription for Drug X because he thinks Drug X is immoral according to the tenets of his religion, then he needs to find another career. He is not fit to be a pharmacist.

It's analagous to a Jehovah's Witness becoming an MD and then refusing to give a person a blood transfusion. That's criminal. If you think certain modern medical procedures are prohibited by God, then don't become a doctor.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
There is nothing remotely unethical about filling any legitimate prescription.


Wrong.

Let us say that I have prescription for Drug A and I have to go to a different doctor for another issue and for whatever reason, that doctor gives me a scrip for Drug B.

Let us imagine I go to the same pharmacy that I use to fill Drug A every month. The pharmacist looks at his computer and discovers that Drug A and Drug B taken together are deadly.

The pharmacist approaches me and informs me of his discovery. Being in a hurry, tired, an antsy five year old at my side and generally bitchy, I tell him "yeah whatever... I'm sure my doctor knows what he's doing, give me the pills".

In this instance the pharmacist does have the ethical obligation to withhold the prescription. I believe dispensing this drug would open the pharmacist to negligence charges (though I could be wrong).

Granted this is completely different than "personal religious reasons", but it is a counterpoint to your statement above.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sounds like you have a warped definition of "ethics."

why?

eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Been there.
Done that.
Got yelled at.

Didn't give the patient the rx until the doctor was contacted.
(Patient had to wait until morning)

MD for drug B changed rx.
Patient saved an unpleasant or life-threatening situation.

(They were still mad about waiting overnight)
For an antibiotic for their acne.


Jeesh!!




85
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There is nothing remotely unethical about filling any legitimate prescription.

Wrong.

Let us say that I have prescription for Drug A and I have to go to a different doctor for another issue and for whatever reason, that doctor gives me a scrip for Drug B.

Let us imagine I go to the same pharmacy that I use to fill Drug A every month. The pharmacist looks at his computer and discovers that Drug A and Drug B taken together are deadly.


Yes. Part of a pharmacist's job is making sure none of the prescriptions they fill for you are dangerous if taken in combination with one another. That is just basic stuff and was supposed to be implicit in my statement.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Actually, the unethical action for a pharmacist is refusing to fill a legitimate, legal prescription for personal religious reasons. There is nothing remotely unethical about filling any legitimate prescription.

No one has the right to impose his own religious beliefs on anyone else's health. If a person knows he will not fill a prescription for Drug X because he thinks Drug X is immoral according to the tenets of his religion, then he needs to find another career. He is not fit to be a pharmacist.


Now look, I remember being forced to go to a pre-marriage retreat where some proponent of natural family planning explained that using birth control pills caused "mini-abortions" after eggs were implanted and I rolled my eyes an giggled with the best of them. I think the science was pretty solid that the pill impedes ovulation & implantation in the very unlikely even ovulation occurs. Suffice it to say that I'm not one of those.

However, the question is who is imposing their beliefs on who? I don't expect a priest to give rides to abortion clinics. I don't expect to force lawyers to assist in some act that is technically legal but wrong, unfair, against the spirit of the law. I don't expect doctors to be forced to assist suicides when they think it's morally objectionable.

Why should I force a pharmacist to do something he thinks is wrong? Aren't you just imposing religious (technically the lack of them) beliefs on him? And if his ethical objections arise out of something other than religion? Then is it OK?

eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why should I force a pharmacist to do something he thinks is wrong?

---------

Ummm, because it's his chosen profession? It isn't a priests job to give rides to folks, especially abortion clinics. As for the lawyer reference, I believe that most folks pay lawyers to figure out how to bend the law to suit their needs. I can't imagine them not doing something they chose to do and get paid for just because it is "unfair" if it is legal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 93
Why should I force a pharmacist to do something he thinks is wrong? Aren't you just imposing religious (technically the lack of them) beliefs on him? And if his ethical objections arise out of something other than religion? Then is it OK?

No. It is not ok, ever.

A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. Period. As was just mentioned a few posts ago, there are accompanying duties such as checking to make sure that scrips coming from different doctors aren't dangerous when taken in combination. But that's objective, scientific evaluation necessary for the health of the customer.

Pharmacists don't get to make any subjective value judgments of any kind about what prescriptions to fill and why. Not based on religion, not based on instinct or intuition or TV viewing habits. Pharmacists must fill any prescription requested unless there is a scientifically justified objective reason for not doing so.

If a person is unwilling to accept that role, he should not become a pharmacist. Period.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
I hereby delegate Bonhoeffer as my offical spokesman for the rest of this debate.


RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Granted this is completely different than "personal religious reasons", but it is a counterpoint to your statement above.


I think it was implicit in the statement that "prescription that causes death" isn't legitimate. Pharmacists should fill any precription that isn't going to have some kind of safety issue for the patient (incorrect dosage prescribed, interactions, etc)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Let us imagine I go to the same pharmacy that I use to fill Drug A every month. The pharmacist looks at his computer and discovers that Drug A and Drug B taken together are deadly.

The pharmacist approaches me and informs me of his discovery. Being in a hurry, tired, an antsy five year old at my side and generally bitchy, I tell him "yeah whatever... I'm sure my doctor knows what he's doing, give me the pills".

In this instance the pharmacist does have the ethical obligation to withhold the prescription. I believe dispensing this drug would open the pharmacist to negligence charges (though I could be wrong).



It's also a pharmacists job to double check all drug interactions. They are the last line of defense before the customer potentially takes a deadly drug combo.

It's not their job to impose their religious or reproductive beliefs on anyone else. Could you imagine a pharmacy not stocking condoms because they promote promiscuity?

DizChick
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Regardless what the patient/customer thought, you did the right thing.

Maybe situations like this are why we have a shortage of pharmacists, maybe people don't want to be the unappreciated last line of defense.

DizChick
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, we cant have those sominabeeches having ethics. And lets disbar lawyers who withdraw from representation because their clients are going to purger themselves. Stupid ethics.

eag


Eag likes to live dangerously.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. Period.
. . .
Pharmacists must fill any prescription requested unless there is a scientifically justified objective reason for not doing so.

If a person is unwilling to accept that role, he should not become a pharmacist. Period.

It just disturbs me. I guess consciencious objectors get to get out of their deal altogether, and you think pharmacists should do the same. In my profession, we can withdraw from a particular case without giving up the practice, which just makes more sense to me. You can do the good of your profession without those parts that you think are wrong. You have a right to counsel, but not necessarily me.

In your view, should any professional be required, by force of law, to fulfill or provide any service that is legal and desired by a client?

I found this which seems to just provide more fodder for argument:

http://www.ashp.org/bestpractices/ethics/Ethics_End_Code.pdf

"III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

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."

I think the other side would go with this one:


VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individual patients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at times extend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly.


eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't expect a priest to give rides to abortion clinics.

How about a bus driver?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Pharmacists don't get to make any subjective value judgments of any kind about what prescriptions to fill and why. Not based on religion, not based on instinct or intuition or TV viewing habits. Pharmacists must fill any prescription requested unless there is a scientifically justified objective reason for not doing so.

One of the things that bugs me about (this) is that women take birth control medications for other reasons than birth control.

When I was not sexually active I still took birth control pills because they improved my medical condition in a number of ways.

Someone (doing this) would be making a number of unwarranted assumptions about me and depriving me of a medicine that I and my doctor feel is necessary for my continued well-being? Not acceptable in any way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't expect a priest to give rides to abortion clinics.

How<> about a bus driver?


OK, that one was pretty shakey. Must've had a big breakfast that made me sleepy.

eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That is just basic stuff and was supposed to be implicit in my statement.

Nice back pedaling, there.



Your statement was: There is nothing remotely unethical about filling any legitimate prescription.


See those words I've bolded? You've pretty much excluded the scenario I painted by the use of these words. You left out any possibility of "implicit" by the use of those words.

The prescription was legitimate. It is not for the pharmacist to decide which is more important, Drug A or Drug B. Both 'scrips are valid. Still the pharmacist has an ethical decision to make.

I guess my metapoint is this: "any" and "nothing" need to be avoided in topics such as this.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Lawyers and pharmacists aren't even remotely alike. Making an analogy between them is pointless.

The problem is that you see the pharmacists not as someone whose job it is to help their patients, but rather as an agent of your political desires. Guess what, someone's medical care should not be subject to your politics!

Your addition to the ethics code is disgusting. Sometimes we have to throw individual patients under the bus to advance some BS societal policy you want to set?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I hereby delegate Bonhoeffer as my offical spokesman for the rest of this debate.


RJ
breezy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
You're being retardedly pedantic. I stand by every word i've typed in this thread and do not accept your chastisement.

Tera, pedantic? That can't be right.

-CH
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
That is just basic stuff and was supposed to be implicit in my statement.

Nice back pedaling, there.



Your statement was: There is nothing remotely unethical about filling any legitimate prescription.


See those words I've bolded? You've pretty much excluded the scenario I painted by the use of these words. You left out any possibility of "implicit" by the use of those words.

The prescription was legitimate. It is not for the pharmacist to decide which is more important, Drug A or Drug B. Both 'scrips are valid. Still the pharmacist has an ethical decision to make.

I guess my metapoint is this: "any" and "nothing" need to be avoided in topics such as this.


I don't believe any backpedaling took place at all. I think you are assuming the existence of an "ethical" question where none exists. I don't imagine anyone believes any pharmacist is faced with a moral quandary when he/she becomes aware in the course of discharging his/her professional duties that the various drugs prescribed to a particular patient could, when combined and taken as directed, cause a harmful result. What pharmacist would have to think about such a thing at all? Do you imagine a druggist calling his priest and asking "If I dispense these two medications then the patient will die. What should I do?" To do otherwise than decline to immediately fill the prescription would be not mere negligence but a conscious decision to do harm. There is not an "ethical" objection to filling the prescription, because there is no real choice to be made. It may seem like I am splitting hairs here, but I believe the distinction between "ethical" questions and "professional" questions is an important one. So I think the poster to whom you are replying was absolutely correct in his assertion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You're being retardedly pedantic.

OMG what a mistake I've made! I got into a pissing contest with someone who's biggest claim to fame is what kind of beer he drinks.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
OMG what a mistake I've made! I got into a pissing contest with someone who's biggest claim to fame is what kind of beer he drinks.


I can think of worse things to be remembered for....


RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
OMG what a mistake I've made! I got into a pissing contest with someone who's biggest claim to fame is what kind of beer he drinks.

Now you're acting like a 10 year old.

<piss piss piss piss>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
PS - my biggest claim to fame is coining the term "beerlicious" on national television, FYI
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Lawyers and pharmacists aren't even remotely alike. Making an analogy between them is pointless.

Well I was trying to explore for a professional who may have an ethical reason to not do something for a client which would be legal for them to do. That specific circumstance occurs in both cases.

The problem is that you see the pharmacists not as someone whose job it is to help their patients, but rather as an agent of your political desires. Guess what, someone's medical care should not be subject to your politics!

Guess what, you don't know what my political desires and politics are! I don't think I want to government to force professionals to do things those professionals, who are charged with exercising independent jusgment, consider inappropriate. No matter what the politics of those professionals are.

Your addition to the ethics code is disgusting. Sometimes we have to throw individual patients under the bus to advance some BS societal policy you want to set?


Oh, great. I'm responding to a hysterical rant from someone who can't read. Please read the link again. I added nothing.

eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Eag,

It is tough to discuss complicated questions that may have shades of gray somewhere in them with some folks.

Good luck to you.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
PS - my biggest claim to fame is coining the term "beerlicious" on national television, FYI

Since you've already accused me of being "retardedly pedantic", let me correct you here, too.

You did not coin the term. You may be the first one to have used it on television but you did not "coin" the term.

Have a nice day.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
PS - my biggest claim to fame is coining the term "beerlicious" on national television, FYI

This is true Tera...I have no memory of what types of beer they were discussing, but beerlicious is pretty damn vivid still.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It is tough to discuss complicated questions that may have shades of gray somewhere in them with some folks.

Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking suggesting that forcing a woman to become pregnant by denying her medication because of your political beliefs isn't ethical? Clearly its just a shade of grey...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is true Tera...I have no memory of what types of beer they were discussing, but beerlicious is pretty damn vivid still.

Where and when was this?

-CH
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Main Entry: 2coin
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to make (a coin) especially by stamping : MINT b : to convert (metal) into coins
2 : CREATE, INVENT <coin a phrase>


I can honestly say i'd never heard it before. I "created" it, or "invented" it on the spot. So technically, i coined it. It's certainly possible (even probable) that someone somewhere had previously thought of the word and used it, but since i was unaware of any such usage and had never heard the word before, i coined it.

Tera, you're pedantilicious.

See what i did there? I just coined a word. Maybe someone i've never heard of and know nothing about thought of that one before me, too? I haven't Googled it yet.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Where and when was this?

http://www.freethehops.org/newsArchive.php

Top link.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What was I thinking suggesting that forcing a woman to become pregnant by denying her medication.

Forced her to become pregnant?! Oh, now what the pharmacist raped her? What planet are you on? Of all the bizarrely dopey things I've seen on this forums, this may be the worst that I recall.

Maybe we should stick to computer games. :)

eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
2 : CREATE, INVENT <coin a phrase>

I can honestly say i'd never heard it before. I "created" it, or "invented" it on the spot.


Not even close. Once it's created or invented, it's too late. You can't invent it again, although you have a shot at invent def #2:

cre·ate Audio pronunciation of "create" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-t)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates

1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

in·vent Audio pronunciation of "invent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vnt)
tr.v. in·vent·ed, in·vent·ing, in·vents

1. To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.
2. To make up; fabricate: invent a likely excuse.


eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mind if I ask how old you are (or a range)? You look about 19 in that video.

-CH
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
27.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Now look, I remember being forced to go to a pre-marriage retreat where some proponent of natural family planning explained that using birth control pills caused "mini-abortions" after eggs were implanted and I rolled my eyes an giggled with the best of them. I think the science was pretty solid that the pill impedes ovulation & implantation in the very unlikely even ovulation occurs. Suffice it to say that I'm not one of those.

That bolded part would be what the NFP person considers a mini-abortion.

And some pharmacists would agree.

I definitely think that birth control should be legal and readily available.

I also think that compromising what you hold most dear should not be required for pharmacists to practice their skills. (Heck, I'm an attorney and while I definitely believe in due process and representation for all, there are potential clients I would not want to touch with a ten-foot pole.)

I have a hard time figuring out how to reconcile the two. I was intrigued with what pharmerboy was saying about automated dispensers.

KrissyLou
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ah
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Not even close. Once it's created or invented, it's too late. You can't invent it again, although you have a shot at invent def #2:

That's absurd. Let's say in 1973 a guy named Bob living in Springfield, MO invents a drink consisting of gin, whiskey, merlot, chardonnay, apple juice, milk, and paprika and calls it a Flaming Bob and serves it to all his buddies but it never gets published or makes it outside of Bob's circle of friends (because it's nasty). Then in 1985 a guy name Guido living in Naples invents a drink with exactly the same ingredients and calls it a Gay Guido.

Both Bob and Guido "invented" the same drink. Neither copied the other. Each was original.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Gay Guido!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I have a hard time figuring out how to reconcile the two.

It honestly seems to be that you can't. So if you know that dispensing certain products will cause you a problem then it seems like it's time to look for a new career.

I'm an accountant and I exercise my moral choices in the jobs I choose. There are certain industries that I would never want to work in - I'd just never apply to any companies within those industries.

What about you krisslou - can you point blank refuse to represent someone or do you have to follow the 'innocent until proven guilty' line?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
This debate was settled once and for all on the Simpsons.

"He may have come up with the recipe, but I came up with the idea of charging $6.95 for it."



RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
krisslou

I'm sorry - krissylou
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Forced her to become pregnant?! Oh, now what the pharmacist raped her? What planet are you on? Of all the bizarrely dopey things I've seen on this forums, this may be the worst that I recall.

Refusing to give someone legally precribed birth control is forcing them to become pregnant (especially when the prescription is highly time sensitive). I know a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that, but its the truth. Deal with it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's absurd.
Both Bob and Guido "invented" the same drink. Neither copied the other. Each was original.


I didn't say anything about copying or making an original. Did you see this part:

1. To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.


I think the work your looking for is reinvent? You can reinvent the wheel, but it's far too late to invent it.

eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Can we quit it with the semantics pissing contest please?

-CH
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yeah really. It's definitely time to get back to some semi-oogy internet mating dances.

Hey imp, *smoooooooooooooches*


RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You keep using that word "forcing."

I do not think it means what you think it means.

eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
forcing them to become pregnant

PS, I think it was Col. Mustard with the penis in the conservatory.

eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think the work your looking for is reinvent? You can reinvent the wheel, but it's far too late to invent it.


Are you on crack? he said he "created or invented" it. You posted definitions for those words which perfectly fit what he said then said "not even close".

Lets start with create:

1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1. Arguable, but potentially yes
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir. Definitely yes
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint. Not applicable
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role. definitely yes


Now invent:

1. To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination. He didn't previously know it, nor did you or I. So yeah, it fits
2. To make up; fabricate: invent a likely excuse.Since he made it up on the spot this one also clearly fits


His words were accurate under almost all of your definitions.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
You keep using that word "forcing."

I do not think it means what you think it means.


Maybe you can lay it out for me. A woman doesn't want to become pregnant. She is not yet pregnant. She has a prescription for medication that will prevent pregnancy. You have this medication and it is your job to dispense it based on the prescription. You refuse to take it off the shelf and hand it to her. As a result she becomes pregnant. You are the reason she is now pregnant and you used your power to ensure that she became that way in direct violation of her wishes. Sounds like force to me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Are you on crack? he said he "created or invented" it.

Actually, he said he "coined" it, and that is the context for the whole discussion. I don't entirely agree with pedant #1's choice of definitions for coined, so here's more appropriate context:

tr.v. coined, coin·ing, coins

1. To make (pieces of money) from metal; mint or strike: coined silver dollars.
2. To make pieces of money from (metal): coin gold.
3. To devise (a new word or phrase).


PWNWTFBBQ

eag

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Maybe you can lay it out for me. A woman doesn't want to become pregnant. She is not yet pregnant. She has a prescription for medication that will prevent pregnancy. You have this medication and it is your job to dispense it based on the prescription. You refuse to take it off the shelf and hand it to her. As a result she becomes pregnant. You are the reason she is now pregnant and you used your power to ensure that she became that way in direct violation of her wishes. Sounds like force to me.


The pharmacist did not force her to become pregnant. The pharmacist did not do that which would block/stop/prevent her pregnancy, which was going to result (or not) from actions which had already occured.

eag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yeah really. It's definitely time to get back to some semi-oogy internet mating dances.

Hey imp, *smoooooooooooooches*


RJ


Hey there, sexy.

I hope you left the whip by the bed....I just hate when we have to look for it right in the middle of things.

impolite
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
:P
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tease.

impolite
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tease.


Never, and you know that.


RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Never, and you know that.


RJ


So you'll be driving to KC tonight, then?

impolite
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10

Every profession can raise ethical dilemmas, if the products or services that are part of the job conflict with your moral values. And, this can happen regardless of whether your moral values spring from religion, philosophy, political beliefs, or some other source.
Because we often have no choice about doing a particular thing in a particular career, most people try to pick a job with a low frequency of morally repugnant demands.

That's why some criminal lawyers gravitate towards prosecution and others towards criminal defense: some feel a greater moral repugnance at defending criminals, while others are more troubled by prosecuting people for acts they don't think should be criminalized, or who may be innocent.

I guess a pharmacist can also face a moral dilemma, if she's asked to fill a prescription that she knows will be used to facilitate behavior the pharmacist finds reprehensible, or to cause a result (birth control) that the pharmacist considers sinful. They ought to find a different career if this is a big problem, IMHO.

If a pharmacist has information about possible side effects, combinations of medications, or other physical problems that might be caused by the prescription, this is not an ETHICAL problem, it is a morally neutral aspect of dispensing medications.

Obviously, the refusal to fill a birth control, or morning after, prescription does not directly cause pregnancy, much less "force" it. Sex causes the pregnancy. But, if the particular woman is without other resources for getting the prescription, and if her life is such that she cannot avoid having sex, then the result may feel the same to her as if she had been forced.

It is the responsibility of a person's physician to assess whether a given prescription is appropriate, both in terms of their medical history, their emotional make-up, and any other factors. Presumably, before the doctor writes the prescription, he/she has considered the concerns about the patient giving the scrip to someone else, using it instead of - not as an emergency backup to - birth control, using it at a future date when their health had changed, etc., etc.

The phrase "coin a phrase" is a well-known common phrase for coming up with a new word or phrase. The word "invent" means to create something yourself, rather than copying it from someone else. Unless you are the patent bureau, it doesn't matter two pins which of two people invented the Flaming Bob or Gay Guido first. That is a technical use of the word invent.

Retarded, pendantic, pissing contest, back-pedaling, BS, moron, idiot, irrelevant attacks on a person's "claim to fame," "acting like a 10 year old" are examples of incivility.

"Pedantic" might also be a good word for someone who becomes so irritated reading a thread that she writes a response to everything in the whole thread.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking suggesting that forcing a woman to become pregnant by denying her medication because of your political beliefs isn't ethical? Clearly its just a shade of grey...


Well, that'd be one way to put it.



Seriously, now, we aren't quite as far apart as you may think. I've done a little googling, and I've spent some time at the website of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and I think I agree with you that pharmacists should dispense Plan B when presented with a proper prescription for it, absent sound scientific justification for declining. Basically, unless the patient is already taking a drug that will interact in a serious and harmful way with the Plan B, the prescription should be filled promptly and without fuss. Given the world we live in, if I were a women who were able to become pregnant, I'd probably have a supply of the drug handy and properly stored. Stuff happens, and time is very important with this particular medication.

All that having been said, right now I thought we were discussing the strict morality of certain actions in certain specific circumstances. In such a conversation, I think it is best to avoid using terms like "force" when one really means "fail to aid" or "be negligent". "Force a woman to become pregnant" makes me think of an armed man in an alley, or a twisted stepfather with a little girl in his basement. It doesn't really describe the action of one who simply declines to provide emergency contraception. I guess my perspective comes a little bit from my age, and from thinking that ten and twenty and thirty years ago when a lot of pharmacists were choosing their professions and investing in their educations and futures and businesses that the drug in question didn't exist. Let's have some calm discussion about some important changes in what is now possible, and realize that the folks some are saying "just shouldn't be pharmacists if they don't want to dispense plan B" made the decision to be pharmacists a long time before Plan B existed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
ex causes the pregnancy. But, if the particular woman is without other resources for getting the prescription, and if her life is such that she cannot avoid having sex, then the result may feel the same to her as if she had been forced.

I'm kind of irritated by the whole "you could just not have sex" argument for why pharmacists should be able to withhold birth control too. I don't personally think anyone should have to avoid sex if they don't want to, but this is especially true of say married people.

Anyone want to explain to me why a married woman should not have sex on the off chance that some douchenozzle phamacist will suddenly up and withhold their birth control which they need within 72 hours? I haven't even brought up the cliched rape victims, because really we don't even need to go there. There are plenty of regular day-to-day cases where withholding birth control is inappropriate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Only if he can get directions.

How does Goliath fit in an Accord, anyway?


My labrador used to love to stick his nose out of the sunroof when we went for a drive. I sure miss him. I'm probably going to change careers sometime soon so I can have a job that will allow me a dog.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm kind of irritated by the whole "you could just not have sex" argument for why pharmacists should be able to withhold birth control too.

I didn't see anyone making that argument, but maybe I just missed it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So you'll be driving to KC tonight, then?


Yep, right after my final.


RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hold up....I see what you just did there. Maybe in a few days???

;)

RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hold up....I see what you just did there. Maybe in a few days???

;)

RJ


*snort*

impolite
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
uh huh - someone's been sharing his password, I see.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
uh huh - someone's been sharing his password, I see.


Is that a euphamism?

RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Is that a euphamism?

Sure it is - a raally dirty, sexy one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
PineFresh: "Obviously, the refusal to fill a birth control, or morning after, prescription does not directly cause pregnancy, much less "force" it. Sex causes the pregnancy. But, if the particular woman is without other resources for getting the prescription, and if her life is such that she cannot avoid having sex, then the result may feel the same to her as if she had been forced."

Proximate cause - think tort law.

And if the pharmacist was negligent in refusing to fill the prescription, then tort damages should be available - direct damages (costs to raise the child) plus other compensatory damages (both special and general).

Regards, JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
PineFresh: "Obviously, the refusal to fill a birth control, or morning after, prescription does not directly cause pregnancy, much less "force" it. Sex causes the pregnancy. But, if the particular woman is without other resources for getting the prescription, and if her life is such that she cannot avoid having sex, then the result may feel the same to her as if she had been forced."
Proximate cause - think tort law.
And if the pharmacist was negligent in refusing to fill the prescription, then tort damages should be available - direct damages (costs to raise the child) plus other compensatory damages (both special and general).
Regards, JAFO


Exactly, I just didn't think Palsgraf needed airing right now.
My point was simply that, while the word "force" is not accurate, there is a causal connection - it's a link in the chain.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

The morning after pill's not that recent an invention - it must be getting on 20 years since I had cause to take it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah really. It's definitely time to get back to some semi-oogy internet mating dances.

Hey imp, *smoooooooooooooches*


I'll take that over this any day. At least that has the prospect or turning into something dirty.

-CH
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'll take that over this any day. At least that has the prospect or turning into something dirty.

-CH


Time for some sex jokes about pharmacists.

http://www.extremefunnypictures.com/funnypic50.htm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What about you krisslou - can you point blank refuse to represent someone

Yup. Happens all the time. Back when the tobacco companies were getting sued right and left it was very common for associates in big law firms to say "I'll represent any of this firm's clients EXCEPT Big Tobacco." The employer would have the legal right to fire an associate who did that (associates are employees at will so they could fire for any reason or no reason) but such actions would have exposed them to such social stigma they'd have a hard time getting new little associates each year (even among lawyers who themselves would have no problem representing the tobacco companies).

Even if the law firm fired that associate, there is no way that their license to practice law would be in danger.

There is an idea that everyone should have representation and each lawyer should do his/her part to see that those who can't pay/are generally reprehensible/whatever else makes it hard for them to get a lawyer. But that's totally unenforced.

KrissyLou
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I didn't even know you were a lawyer.
What kind of firm are you at now?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Used to be at Big Evil Law Firm (well, it's better by far than most big evil firms, but still ...). Was miserable.

Now in legal aid. Poorer but much happier.

Pine, I know you're a career law clerk which is different from the one-or-two-year thingies but isn't it pretty common for clerks to get hired on with the understanding that they Will Not Do death penalty cases? (Obviously you wouldn't hire *all* your clerks that year with that understanding, but if you have two clerks it would be OK to agree that any death case arising that year would go to the other.)

KrissyLou
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
short answer - I'm at the court of appeals which does everything EXCEPT death row cases. They are done at the state supreme court, which only does them and a few appeals from here, cases with a dissent. Mostly they do death row cases and "per curiams" as far as I can tell.
I wouldn't do death penalty cases, not only because of my own moral dilemmas (ha!), but there would be a conflict (personal and professional) with my husband's work.
make sense?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have a hard time figuring out how to reconcile the two.


I am, too, actually.

And i came up with the idea of religious pharmacies, for lack of a better term, wherein all these objectionable drugs would not be dispensed.

It ain't perfect and i have no idea how viable such an idea is, but there you go.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My experience is that doctors CAN write 'scrips across state lines.

It varies from state to state, as far as I can tell.

Even if I can get it filled elsewhere, I'd rather avoid the time it takes and just get the scrip filled in advance.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Why should I force a pharmacist to do something he thinks is wrong? Aren't you just imposing religious (technically the lack of them) beliefs on him? And if his ethical objections arise out of something other than religion? Then is it OK?

So should someone become a fireman (or be allowed to do so) if they have a moral or religious objection to rescuing, hmm, women or Muslims or Eagles fans? It's the same thing. There are requirements for a job, and if your religion precludes you from fulfilling that job, then you shouldn't do that job.


--Booa
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
PS, I think it was Col. Mustard with the penis in the conservatory.


Only if he is on Viagra. Haven't you seen his pic on the game card? Dude, he is *old.*
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You did not coin the term. You may be the first one to have used it on television but you did not "coin" the term.

Out of curiosity, where was the term used before Bon used in on TV? I mean, just because someone might possibly have used the word before doesn't mean that someone actually did, correct? So who does get the credit for coining it?

pix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That was awesome. Way to go, Bon-bon.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
Hey, Bon's got Rice University on his side!

From the Rice University Neologisms Database:


Beerlicious adj.
Having the quality of being both delicious and alcoholic. Formed by blending.
[beerlicious. beer, from Middle English ber, from Old English beor, from Latin bebire 'to drink'. delicious, Late Latin deliciosus, 'pleasing', from Latin delicia, 'pleasure'. beer + delicious.]
"It is quite beerlicious." -The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, segment with the Alabama Beer Guy, on Tue Oct 18, 2005
Beerlicious was used during a Daily Show segment on Alabama. The segment featured a beer activist petitioning the government to relax the state's beer laws. During the interview the activist claimed that the different types of liquor that can be imported can be “quite beerlicious”. This blend of “beer” and “delicious” was used to humorous effect, though the word itself was not scripted by the Daily Show writers. The adjective “beerlicious” is not likely to develop into a long lasting neologism because of its specificity. For an item to be “beerlicious” it must first be delicious and must also be an alcoholic beverage. Because the word is so specific, it will probably remain in use only for humorous effect.

http://esa4.rice.edu/~ling215/browse.php?l=b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
HOLY CRAP!

I'm the "Alabama Beer Guy," capitalized.

God i'm cool.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hey, Bon's got Rice University on his side!

And Google!

Top entry for entering "beerlicious":

http://www.cafepress.com/freethehops.36281816

You heard it first on The Daily Show, now wear it. 'Beerlicious' is cool.

pix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have one of those.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You should get it signed "Alabama Beer Guy."

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have one of those.

I would hope so. You coined the word!

pix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
{{No one has the right to impose his own religious beliefs on anyone else's health. If a person knows he will not fill a prescription for Drug X because he thinks Drug X is immoral according to the tenets of his religion, then he needs to find another career. He is not fit to be a pharmacist.}}



This should be up to the business. There should be no law preventing a business from setting up a Christian pharmacy in which the business can choose which products to sell based on what the owners feel are ethical to sell.

Now I know that there will be lots authoritarians who blow a gasket if anyone chooses to live their life differently than them. These authoritarians will try to force the christian pharmacies to sell products that the authoritarian would choose to sell if the authoritarians had chosen to start a pharmacy.

c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
{{I think they are missing the bigger picture here by going after Target. This is an issue for individual employers to tackle.

Pharmacists are licensed by the state. If a pharmacist refuses to fill an authentic prescription written by a licensed doctor for ethical reasons, then that pharmacist should have his/her license revoked by the state for failing to perform the duties of their profession.}}


Why is that pharmacies and pharmacists must obey your sense of right and wrong? Why should it be illegal for a christain pharmacy to be started that only sell drugs which the business feels are ethical to sell?


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
{{If a person is unwilling to accept that role, he should not become a pharmacist. Period.}}


It is interesting and scary being exposed to the thought process of an authoritarian person. Such people are so totally convinced that they are right that they blow a gasket if anyone makes an ethical decision differntly than they would.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
{{It's not their job to impose their religious or reproductive beliefs on anyone else. Could you imagine a pharmacy not stocking condoms because they promote promiscuity?}}

I can imagine such a pharamcy and fail to see what the big deal would be if such a pharmacy existed.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14

It is interesting and scary being exposed to the thought process of an authoritarian person. Such people are so totally convinced that they are right that they blow a gasket if anyone makes an ethical decision differntly than they would.



C-man, try to view it from the other side for a second. Do you not see christian pharmacists refusing to sell birth control as authoritarian and imposing their views on society?

If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it. Rufusing to make it available...what could be more authoritarian?


RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
{{What was I thinking suggesting that forcing a woman to become pregnant by denying her medication because of your political beliefs isn't ethical?}}


What a sickening statement. How dare you compare a pharmacist to a rapist.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
{{It honestly seems to be that you can't. So if you know that dispensing certain products will cause you a problem then it seems like it's time to look for a new career.

I'm an accountant and I exercise my moral choices in the jobs I choose. There are certain industries that I would never want to work in - I'd just never apply to any companies within those industries.}}


A pharmacist who has ethical objections to dispensing certain medications would not work for companies that require all medications be dispensed and instead would choose to work with a company that does not require that or does not stock all medications.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
{{Maybe you can lay it out for me. A woman doesn't want to become pregnant. She is not yet pregnant. She has a prescription for medication that will prevent pregnancy. You have this medication and it is your job to dispense it based on the prescription. You refuse to take it off the shelf and hand it to her. As a result she becomes pregnant. You are the reason she is now pregnant and you used your power to ensure that she became that way in direct violation of her wishes. Sounds like force to me.}}



Here is another great example of authoritarian thinking. This poster can not stand that another person would make an ethical decision differently that he or she would. Therefore the poster attempts to make vicsous smears against those would choose differently. Any ration person can see that the attack is completely illogical. But authoritarians do not let logic and reason get in their way of forcing pharmacists to act as the authoritrain desires.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
{{There are requirements for a job, and if your religion precludes you from fulfilling that job, then you shouldn't do that job. }}


I think you have this backwards.

There are many authoritarians who think that no person should have any job unless they do everything exactly as the authoritrian wants.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
{{Do you not see christian pharmacists refusing to sell birth control as authoritarian and imposing their views on society? }}


I would if and only the christian pharmacists were shredding every single prescription they saw that they felt would be unethical to fill. There is a huge difference between being an authoritarian by forcing others to make the same ethical decision that you would make compared to being a conscienscious objector by simply not acting in a way that would violate your ethics.

In this debate it comes to down conscienscious objectors and authoritarians.

c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21
In this debate it comes to down conscienscious objectors and authoritarians.

Boy, you must be able to use the cheapest cameras available because everything is only black & white for you, isn't it?

pix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
In this debate it comes to down conscienscious objectors and authoritarians.

Conscientious objectors are not sent into combat.

Through history, they've often been jailed for their beliefs, or lost their livelihoods.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
cattleman,

While I appreciate your concern for the rights of Christian pharmacists and others to set ethical limits in their work, I must agree with Pix that you are characterizing these issues in a simplistic manner.

The question is simple: "May a pharmacist refuse to dispense or stock a lawfully prescribed medication (or OTC product), because the use of the medication conflicts with the pharmacists ethics or beliefs?"

But the answers are not simple, and most assuredly do not reduce to an either/or question of EITHER we allow pharmacists to follow their beliefs, OR we are being dictatorial.

The issue is complicated because there are many rights at issue, not just the rights of pharmacists. Consider for a moment:

1. The pharmacist's right not to stock a medication he finds sinful.

2. The patient's right of privacy to have a prescription filled without inquiry by a pharmacist about the purpose of the medication.

3. A patient's right of access to lawfully prescribed medications. Because prescription drugs implicate serious health concerns, the decision not to stock a given drug is very different from, say, a restaurant that does not serve pork for religious reasons.

4. The legitimate government interest in assuring availability of lawfully prescribed medications. If pharmacists are allowed to opt out of selling birth control, then what?
Do we want a system where Pete's Pharmacy won't stock pain killers because Pete believes pain is a test from God, and Betsy's Drug Store won't stock antibiotics because Betsy believes that taking the life of even a bacterium is sinful, and Willie's Corner Store doesn't stock psychiatric medication for some other religious reason? Of course not.
So, there is a legitmate government interest in NOT risking the health or life of a hypothetical patient who can't get their medication in time because it's hard to find a drug store that stocks it.

5. The store owner's right to decide what to sell in her store.

6. The physician's right to be able to count on the availability of lawfully prescribed medications in her treatment decisions.

7. The 9,000 other competing rights I'm overlooking.

Any decision about this involves consideration and balancing of all these different rights.

Here's a blog with a dialogue on this question:
http://tinyurl.com/m74l4

And here is a good summary of the legislative churning in this area, with some states passing laws allowing refusal, and others barring it.
http://tinyurl.com/ks7nc

Finally, here's a thoughtful debate on the subject:
http://tinyurl.com/gde78

cattleman, the ONLY point I'm really making here is that it ain't that simple. As far as where to draw the line, we might disagree. I would absolutely require every pharmacist to fill every lawful prescription, given the medical implications and the "slippery slope" problem. You, on the other hand, might land on a different square. That's what makes a horse race.

to quote tconi,
Peace and Prescriptions,
Pine
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This should be up to the business. There should be no law preventing a business from setting up a Christian pharmacy in which the business can choose which products to sell based on what the owners feel are ethical to sell.

Sure - if you are a small independent and you make your position clear then sure. The issue is that in many rural areas the only place to get a prescription filled IS Walmart (since they often put the smaller operators out of business) and if they won't fill your prescription then you are out of luck and that's wrong.

If you take an oath to fill prescriptions then that's what you should od regardless of how you feel about it. It isn't your business as a pharmacist to prevent people from getting medicine they need.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This should be up to the business. There should be no law preventing a business from setting up a Christian pharmacy in which the business can choose which products to sell based on what the owners feel are ethical to sell.
---------

I agree with this in theory. But there has to be a pharmacy that is just as accessible and offers the full range of drugs to patients. The business should have a choice, but so should the patient who needs the prescription filled.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
There should be no law preventing a business from setting up a Christian pharmacy in which the business can choose which products to sell based on what the owners feel are ethical to sell.

Is there such a law? I would be surprised to find that there is (although I would think a Christian Scientist pharmacy would not be in business for very long.) It would only be fair that they make their policies clear, though, wouldn't you agree?

I think there should be no law preventing a vegetarian McDonald's so that vegans don't have to serve meat to people who want a hamburger.

pix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think there should be no law preventing a vegetarian McDonald's so that vegans don't have to serve meat to people who want a hamburger.

Me too. But burgers don't have the medical issues that prescriptions do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
and instead would choose to work with a company that does not require that or does not stock all medications

That would be peachy fine by me. Does such an organisation exist? If not it seems that the objecting pharmacists need to start their own company rather than trying to twist the will of other organisations.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Here is another great example of authoritarian thinking. This poster can not stand that another person would make an ethical decision differently that he or she would. Therefore the poster attempts to make vicsous smears against those would choose differently. Any ration person can see that the attack is completely illogical. But authoritarians do not let logic and reason get in their way of forcing pharmacists to act as the authoritrain desires.

How you liken the example you took to an example of authoritarian thinking is beyond me. A pharmacist is the conduit between the doctor and the patient. Their job is to dispense medicine not to make moral judgements. If they don't want to dispense medicine then it seems pretty clear that they've chosen the wrong career. If they want to be selective about which medicines they do dispense then they either need to find a sympathetic employer or start their own business.

Taking your point of view to an extreme - let's say you went to a restaurant and ordered a steak. The waiter is a vegetarian and refuses to serve you it. How would you feel then?


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
No you did NOT just play the beef card!

*snort*


RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

No you did NOT just play the beef card!

Phbt.

Can if I want to.

Just tell me how it's different - you, you authoritarian you*.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
{{2. The patient's right of privacy to have a prescription filled without inquiry by a pharmacist about the purpose of the medication.}}


I do not think this right exists. Pharmacists are duty bound to ensure that medications are used in the proper fashion. It is unethical for a pharmacist to fill a prescription that will be used incorrectly. The only way a pharmasict can ethically fill a prescription is if they know how the drug will be used.




{{3. A patient's right of access to lawfully prescribed medications. Because prescription drugs implicate serious health concerns, the decision not to stock a given drug is very different from, say, a restaurant that does not serve pork for religious reasons. }}


I do not think this right exists. I grew up 30 miles from the nearest pharmacy? Was my right to access to a drug denied? If a person is prescribed a drug that the nearest pharmacy does not carry and instead they must travel 10 miles to reach a pharmacy that does stock that drug, was that person's right to access denied?



{{4. The legitimate government interest in assuring availability of lawfully prescribed medications.}}


I do not see that this is a legitimate government interest.



{{ I would absolutely require every pharmacist to fill every lawful prescription,}}

I would accept this if and only if it was illegal for anyone in any profession to opt out of doing something because they felt it would be unethical to do. You can not cherry pick which people and which professions do not get the option of declining to do something because they feel it is unethical.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
{{I agree with this in theory. But there has to be a pharmacy that is just as accessible and offers the full range of drugs to patients. The business should have a choice, but so should the patient who needs the prescription filled.}}


Then you believe that people have a right to have pharmacy located near them? Was my right denied because I was 30 miles from the nearest pharmacy when I was growing up?



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
{{Taking your point of view to an extreme - let's say you went to a restaurant and ordered a steak. The waiter is a vegetarian and refuses to serve you it. How would you feel then?}}


That is easy. I would leave and choose not to do business with that restaurant again. I certianly would not advocate for government force to ensure that every restaurant serves any food that I want it to serve.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 40
I do not think this right exists. Pharmacists are duty bound to ensure that medications are used in the proper fashion. It is unethical for a pharmacist to fill a prescription that will be used incorrectly. The only way a pharmasict can ethically fill a prescription is if they know how the drug will be used.

Did you know there's a difference between the words "HOW" and "WHY"?

What you're saying is the pharmacist has a duty to know how.

If a woman is prescribed birth control pills, there are actually several reasons why she could be prescribed them.

It ain't none o' the pharmacist's bizness if the 'scrip is for...

... birth control

... hormone regulation

... acne reduction

... weight gain

... migraine prevention

... menorrhagia

... Catamenial epilepsy

or any other reason, for that matter.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Then you believe that people have a right to have pharmacy located near them? Was my right denied because I was 30 miles from the nearest pharmacy when I was growing up?

----------

No. What I do believe is if the only pharmacy you have access to is 30 miles away, that pharmacy should fill ALL perscriptions unless there is another in the same location that does. If I have to travel 30 miles to get medication the doctor ordered for me and I get there and they refuse to fill it and there is no other pharmacy around, then my rights are being violated.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
{{Taking your point of view to an extreme - let's say you went to a restaurant and ordered a steak. The waiter is a vegetarian and refuses to serve you it. How would you feel then?}}


That is easy. I would leave and choose not to do business with that restaurant again. I certianly would not advocate for government force to ensure that every restaurant serves any food that I want it to serve.
------------

But the restaurant should know that the waiter is refusing to serve something that is on the menu so they can fire his butt for driving business away.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
How dare you compare a pharmacist to a rapist.


Um.

Whuh?




PS - c-man's posts for today were brought to you by the word "authortarian".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
2. The patient's right of privacy to have a prescription filled without inquiry by a pharmacist about the purpose of the medication.}}
I do not think this right exists. Pharmacists are duty bound to ensure that medications are used in the proper fashion. It is unethical for a pharmacist to fill a prescription that will be used incorrectly. The only way a pharmasict can ethically fill a prescription is if they know how the drug will be used.


I was obviously not referring to a pharmacist's legitimate medical concerns, and a patient certainly DOES have a right to be free of questions that are based on nosing into the patient's "morals." If there is a valid health or medical issue, of course that can/should be asked about.

{{3. A patient's right of access to lawfully prescribed medications. Because prescription drugs implicate serious health concerns, the decision not to stock a given drug is very different from, say, a restaurant that does not serve pork for religious reasons. }}
I do not think this right exists.


Well, neither you or I decides what rights "exist" do we? That - as I was patiently trying to express - is a complicated matter of balancing various competing interests.

I grew up 30 miles from the nearest pharmacy? Was my right to access to a drug denied?

Look, don't be a horse's patootie. OF COURSE that's not what I meant. In no way has this been a discussion about some imaginary "right" to be located near a drug store. Don't play dumb.

If a person is prescribed a drug that the nearest pharmacy does not carry and instead they must travel 10 miles to reach a pharmacy that does stock that drug, was that person's right to access denied?

YES Dognabbit it, IF the reason the prescription is unavailable is that the pharmacist decided it would be "sinful" for the patient to have access to this prescription.

{{4. The legitimate government interest in assuring availability of lawfully prescribed medications.}}
I do not see that this is a legitimate government interest.


Well, I do, you don't, and the US Supreme Court has the last word.

{{ I would absolutely require every pharmacist to fill every lawful prescription,}}
I would accept this if and only if it was illegal for anyone in any profession to opt out of doing something because they felt it would be unethical to do. You can not cherry pick which people and which professions do not get the option of declining to do something because they feel it is unethical.


OF COURSE we get to so-called "cherry pick" which professions are subject to different regulations. The OBVIOUS reason for this is that different situations are more important, more serious, more significant, have a greater impact on a person's life, or have greater health and safety impact than others.

The greater the health and safety implications, the more highly regulated an area is. That's why doctors, pilots, dentists, and others have to pass tests to be licensed, but anyone can take in washing without much scrutiny.
We also have laws to enforce SOCIAL values. So, I can open a restaurant that doesn't serve meat because ultimately it DOESN'T MATTER one way or the other. I can't open a restaurant that only serves white "Christians" because we, AS A SOCIETY, have decided this DOES matter.

I'm irritated, because I took a lot of time to think about this from a number of different angles, but you've responded by "playing dumb" ("Are my rights violated if there isn't a nearby drugstore?") and refusal to even acknowledge that there are competing interests.

We just disagree, and that doesn't make either of us devils or dictators. I weigh and balance the various aspects, and conclude that it is much more important to guarantee readily available, standardized, and predictable access to ALL legally prescribed medications.

You, however, conclude it's more important to respect the personal morals of the individual pharmacist, even if that results in diminished access to validly prescribed medications.

It's fine to disagree.
But, I'd appreciate it if you'd make a teeny bit more of an effort to acknowledge the reality that these questions are not resolved with blanket generalizations. Thanks, Pine
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
PS - c-man's posts for today were brought to you by the word "authortarian".
---------

And the number 666.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
{{It's not their job to impose their religious or reproductive beliefs on anyone else. Could you imagine a pharmacy not stocking condoms because they promote promiscuity?}}

I can imagine such a pharamcy and fail to see what the big deal would be if such a pharmacy existed.




There are reasons to use condoms (BC pills, etc) that don't involve promiscuity.

DizChick
Not going to continue, as I feel this has probably run its course ....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
cattleman22: "In this debate it comes to down conscienscious objectors and authoritarians."

Real consciencious objectors know that they are violating the rules and take their punishment, instead of whining about how they are persecuted!

JAFO






Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why should a consciensious objector be punished at all?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You can not cherry pick which people and which professions do not get the option of declining to do something because they feel it is unethical.

Why not? It would seem to me that cerry-picking would be desirable - you only want to compel behavior where there is a compelling public interest to do so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
{{Did you know there's a difference between the words "HOW" and "WHY"?

What you're saying is the pharmacist has a duty to know how.

If a woman is prescribed birth control pills, there are actually several reasons why she could be prescribed them.

It ain't none o' the pharmacist's bizness if the 'scrip is for...}}

Your statement is incorrect in regard to pharmacists needing to know why. Ror example, if a person comes in with a prescription for oxycontin and the pharmacists suspects that the only reason WHY is to sell them illegally, then the pharmacist is duty bound not to fill that prescription.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Let it die man
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
{{No. What I do believe is if the only pharmacy you have access to is 30 miles away, that pharmacy should fill ALL perscriptions unless there is another in the same location that does. If I have to travel 30 miles to get medication the doctor ordered for me and I get there and they refuse to fill it and there is no other pharmacy around, then my rights are being violated.}}


So then if a person lives 40 miles from the nearest pharmacy, then that person's rights are being denied because there is no pharmacy within 30 miles?


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
{{But the restaurant should know that the waiter is refusing to serve something that is on the menu so they can fire his butt for driving business away.}}


But what if it is the businesses' policy to allow servers to make such ethical decision? Why should I as a customer desire to use the force of government to deprive the server of that option? As a customer I would not want to do so.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That is easy. I would leave and choose not to do business with that restaurant again.

And if that's the only restaurant in town? And there's only one waiter? You really wouldn't think it's curious that someone would choose a job that conflicted directly with their personal moral choices?

I'm not sure that I'm suggesting that government per se intervenes. Just that I expect a pharmacist to dispense in line with a doctor's prescription, a doctor to treat regardless of personal beliefs, an ambulanceman to be impartial and so on and so forth.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
""If a person is prescribed a drug that the nearest pharmacy does not carry and instead they must travel 10 miles to reach a pharmacy that does stock that drug, was that person's right to access denied?""


{{YES Dognabbit it, IF the reason the prescription is unavailable is that the pharmacist decided it would be "sinful" for the patient to have access to this prescription.}}



Your statement that a person who travels 30 miles for a prescription does not have their rights violated yet a person who travels 10 miles does have their rights violated makes no sense whatsoever. If one person has the right to have a prescription filled without having to travel 10 miles, then every single person has that exact same right.




[[I'm irritated, because I took a lot of time to think about this from a number of different angles, but you've responded by "playing dumb" ("Are my rights violated if there isn't a nearby drugstore?") and refusal to even acknowledge that there are competing interests.}}


I am no less irritated with you as I too took time to think about this and you have have played dumb by simply calling me names rather than engaging in discussion.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
{{And if that's the only restaurant in town? And there's only one waiter?}}


So? I fail to see how that hypothetical condition makes any difference.

{{I'm not sure that I'm suggesting that government per se intervenes.}}


That is what this discussion has been about. most people have advocated for the use of government force.

c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ok, I'm convinced you are an idiot. You know that isn't what I meant.

If you needed a drug that was prescribed to you by your doctor and you went to the pharmacy that was 30 miles away, and the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription and there was no other pharmacy around, don't you think you would feel like your rights had been violated?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Then the business is being run by an idiot and will eventually go bankrupt.

And no, this is not a situation where the government should get involved. Why? Because you can buy a steak at the grocery store a half a block down. Or you can go to a different restaurant that isn't being run by idiots. The person ordering the steak has other options.

The person who is being denied the medication may not have other options. That's the point.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Your statement is incorrect in regard to pharmacists needing to know why. Ror example, if a person comes in with a prescription for oxycontin and the pharmacists suspects that the only reason WHY is to sell them illegally, then the pharmacist is duty bound not to fill that prescription.

Oh, please. So then by your reasoning, if a married woman has a prescription for BC pills for reasons other than birth control and the pharmacist suspects she is going to have sex (being married and all), he is ethically bound to refuse to fill her prescription?

Did you give johnmoni your password?

pix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Your statement that a person who travels 30 miles for a prescription does not have their rights violated yet a person who travels 10 miles does have their rights violated makes no sense whatsoever. If one person has the right to have a prescription filled without having to travel 10 miles, then every single person has that exact same right.

As you already know, we are NOT talking about an imaginary "right" to have a drug store within a certain distance.
We are discussing whether there is a right to have a prescription filled at the pharmacy of the person's choice, however close or far that is, even if that requires the pharmacist to dispense a medication she disapproves of. This is what I meant by "playing dumb." You are too intelligent to genuinely think I was saying there's a "right" to have a nearby drug store.

I am no less irritated with you as I too took time to think about this and you have have played dumb by simply calling me names rather than engaging in discussion.

That is just a lie. My first post to you makes the point several times that there are various competing interests, and both my posts to you stress several times that we are all entitled to different opinions. I also included links to other websites with more information. I am not the one who has been dogmatic, or made generalizations about those with opposing views.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
{{If you needed a drug that was prescribed to you by your doctor and you went to the pharmacy that was 30 miles away, and the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription and there was no other pharmacy around, don't you think you would feel like your rights had been violated?}}

No, I would not feel that my rights were violated. I would however be upset. But being upset does not any way mean that my rights were violated.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
{{We are discussing whether there is a right to have a prescription filled at the pharmacy of the person's choice, however close or far that is, even if that requires the pharmacist to dispense a medication she disapproves of.}}


I do not believe such a right exists. I think the only person who even should even have a reasonable expectation that a particular pharmacy will stock a particular drug is the owner of said pharmacy.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
{{Oh, please. So then by your reasoning, if a married woman has a prescription for BC pills for reasons other than birth control and the pharmacist suspects she is going to have sex (being married and all), he is ethically bound to refuse to fill her prescription?}}


I fail to see how you can make such a conclusion based on anything I said.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You know, C-man, there is a reason libertarians, even mild libertarians like me, are on the fringes of politics. A lot of people really do want government to force people to do what they want them to do. And they have a heckuva time recognizing that they are even doing it.

I've been asked, on many occasions, how I sleep at night and how I get out of bed in the morning.

Not very many people who really believe in liberty anymore.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm not sure that I'm suggesting that government per se intervenes. Just that I expect a pharmacist to dispense in line with a doctor's prescription, a doctor to treat regardless of personal beliefs, an ambulanceman to be impartial and so on and so forth.


How many doctors in South Dakota currently provide abortion services?

Or, try this one.

Why do you think Planned Parenthood flied doctors into South Dakota from other states to provide abortions services?

Lots of doctors decline to provide lots of services for lots of reasons, some of them arbitrary and capricious.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Do you understand what a "right" is?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
You know, C-man, there is a reason libertarians, even mild libertarians like me, are on the fringes of politics. A lot of people really do want government to force people to do what they want them to do.

That's because there's some other names for strong libertarianism in real life practice. Those words are "anarchy" and "chaos".

-synchronicity
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
That's because there's some other names for strong libertarianism in real life practice. Those words are "anarchy" and "chaos".

-synchronicity


You say that like it is a bad thing.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 30
Everyone can shut up now.

Ultimately, the narrow issue of certain pharmacists filling or not filling specific prescriptions is just a tangent in the cman debate. It's just another iteration of the libertarian/liberal democracy debate.

The heart of the debate is whether it is proper for the government to force private businesses to do X or whether an unfettered free market will yield the best results.

Cman believes government should not force a business (pharmacy) to sell a particular product (morning after pill). He believes an unregulated free market will result in some businesses (pharmacies) that sell a particular product (morning after pill) and others that do not, and they will succeed or fail based on whether customers choose to support businesses that do or do not carry that product.

Most of the rest of us apparently believe that one of the functions of government is to protect the health of its citizens by regulating free enterprise to some degree. For example, most of us are happy to pay taxes that pay for government meat inspectors, because before the government began inspections citizens were sold dangerous contaminated meat, the product of unfettered free enterprise. Likewise, most of us want the government to prohibit pharmacists from making subjective value judgments on which prescriptions they fill because we want to know that if we have an urgent, time-sensitive prescription that needs to be filled, we can go to any pharmacy and have it filled quickly.

But it all boils down to what is the proper role of government. And we all know you can't change the mind of a libertarian, ever. I think this thread is going to keep going nowhere...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
You say that like it is a bad thing.

Here, take a sheet of paper, and make two lists. On one side, list all the countries that have relatively strong governmental institutions. On the other, list all the countries that have very weak to nonexistent governmental institutions.

Now, take another sheet of paper. List the twenty nations in the world with the highest GDP per capita. Then list the twenty nations in the world with the lowest GDP per capita.

Compare your lists. Notice anything?

-synchronicity
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
{{ It's just another iteration of the libertarian/liberal democracy debate.}}

This statement is incorrect as written. The folowing change will make it more accurate

It's just another iteration of the libertarian/neo-liberal democracy debate. This correction factor is needed as classical liberal = libertarian.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You know, C-man, there is a reason libertarians, even mild libertarians like me, are on the fringes of politics. A lot of people really do want government to force people to do what they want them to do.

That's because there's some other names for strong libertarianism in real life practice. Those words are "anarchy" and "chaos".


I wish I could rec this post more than once.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That's because there's some other names for strong libertarianism in real life practice. Those words are "anarchy" and "chaos".

-synchronicity

You say that like it is a bad thing.




I wish I could rec this more than once.


RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Sync,

Well, I know that if I were to do as you suggest I'd definitely notice that I would have wasted a sheet of paper on a childish exercise.

Let's do another little exercise.

When was Germany's economy stronger? 1933 or 1939? What changed during the intervening six years? Did government institutions become weaker or stronger?

As a self-described mild libertarian, I believe in the smallest necessary government, the simplest necessary social structure, the fewest necessary laws, and the highest level of personal and local autonomy. I recognize there will be a constant weighing of the needs of the individual and society, and that sometimes compromises will be made.

I think pharmacists ought to dispense all legal medications, but I don't believe government should compel them, and I don't believe anyone has a "right" to expect either the pharmacists to dispense all legal medications or to expect the government to compel them to do so.

A little disorder is a good and healthy thing. Familiar at all with the internet? Some of the adjectives that are commonly used to describe that modern phenomenon are disorderly, chaotic, anarchic, unregulated, out of control and dangerous. Followed the activities of the Chinese government and their attempts to impose a little order and regulation upon it?

Sincerely,

Not quite as dumb and you think daimon.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
{{Here, take a sheet of paper, and make two lists. On one side, list all the countries that have relatively strong governmental institutions. On the other, list all the countries that have very weak to nonexistent governmental institutions.

Now, take another sheet of paper. List the twenty nations in the world with the highest GDP per capita. Then list the twenty nations in the world with the lowest GDP per capita.}}


I would say that looking at it in those terms is misleading. I would say make a list of countries. On one side list countires that have contral governments that are limited to strong protection of individual rights and on the other side list countries that have governments that do not protect individual rights.


Most libertarians do not advocate for weak government, they advocate for a strong government that is very limited.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's because there's some other names for strong libertarianism in real life practice. Those words are "anarchy" and "chaos".

-synchronicity

You say that like it is a bad thing.




I wish I could rec this more than once.


RJ


Could this possibly mean there are four things RJ and I agree on?

And I bet noone can figure out even two of the other three, besides Imp. But if she thinks about it, I bet she can guess them all.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I do not believe such a right exists.

Right.

Just like you don't believe that school children have a right to a safe school environment.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I fail to see how you can make such a conclusion based on anything I said.

Then please elaborate on what you meant by this statement: For example, if a person comes in with a prescription for oxycontin and the pharmacists suspects that the only reason WHY is to sell them illegally, then the pharmacist is duty bound not to fill that prescription.

I read that to mean you feel that the pharmacist is duty bound to act upon his assumptions and concluded that you also felt he was ethically bound to act on his assumptions as well (assuming the BC pills were actually to be used for birth control even if they had been prescribed for some other purpose.)

Let me ask you this specific question — if a pharmacist who is ethically opposed to BC works for a pharmacy where the owner is not, and where the pharmacy carries BC pills to dispense to whomever has a legitimate prescription, would you still think the pharmacist is within his rights to refuse to fill that prescription? You have been saying all along that it is up to the business owner to decide not to carry certain substance, so I would assume you also feel it is up to the owner to make this decision and not the employee. After all, no one is forcing the pharmacist to work for a pharmacy that dispenses medicine he objects to, correct? There is nothing stopping him from opening up his own selective pharmacy or to go work instead for some other pharmacy that shares his particular sense of ethics, so how could he justify forcing his own sense of ethics on his employer? No government involved, strictly an employer/employee difference of opinion.

pix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
{{Let me ask you this specific question — if a pharmacist who is ethically opposed to BC works for a pharmacy where the owner is not, and where the pharmacy carries BC pills to dispense to whomever has a legitimate prescription, would you still think the pharmacist is within his rights to refuse to fill that prescription? You have been saying all along that it is up to the business owner to decide not to carry certain substance, so I would assume you also feel it is up to the owner to make this decision and not the employee. After all, no one is forcing the pharmacist to work for a pharmacy that dispenses medicine he objects to, correct? There is nothing stopping him from opening up his own selective pharmacy or to go work instead for some other pharmacy that shares his particular sense of ethics, so how could he justify forcing his own sense of ethics on his employer? No government involved, strictly an employer/employee difference of opinion.}}


I do not have a problem with the employer requiring a pharmacist to dispense all prescriptions or else the pharmacist would be fired. I object to government intervention in the matter.



c
Print the post Back To Top