Pharmacists and religious beliefs

[enjolras]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/

"There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."

That is what happened to Kathleen Pulz and her husband, who panicked when the condom they were using broke. Their fear really spiked when the Walgreens pharmacy down the street from their home in Milwaukee refused to fill an emergency prescription for the morning-after pill.

"I couldn't believe it," said Pulz, 44, who with her husband had long ago decided they could not afford a fifth child. "How can they make that decision for us? I was outraged. At the same time, I was sad that we had to do this. But I was scared. I didn't know what we were going to do."

Fascinating debate here.. In small towns with one pharmacy, this IS a really big deal. Be interesting to see where everyone stands.

[Spider]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/



Fascinating debate here.. In small towns with one pharmacy, this IS a really big deal. Be interesting to see where everyone stands.
Ok . so they only pass out birth control if you meet certian christian criteria ....And they wonder why there is abortion in this country ......

[Mile High Shack]

Ok . so they only pass out birth control if you meet certian christian criteria ....And they wonder why there is abortion in this country ......
I believe only the people classified as “idiot pharmacists” are actually doing this….this has nothing to with being Christian…but just being stupid, must be assembly of God or something where they think if God wants you to be pregnant, you’ll get prego…and vice versa

[Spider]

I believe only the people classified as “idiot pharmacists” are actually doing this….this has nothing to with being Christian…but just being stupid, must be assembly of God or something where they think if God wants you to be pregnant, you’ll get prego…and vice versa
you are absolutley correct ....... it was wrong of me to paint everyone with the same Brush ....

[Hotrod]

you are absolutley correct ....... it was wrong of me to paint everyone with the same Brush ....

Ya I personally use two brushes

Brush #1: People who dont see things my way and they are wrong
Brush #2: People who do see things my way and are correct.

rofl

[RaiderH8r]

Ok . so they only pass out birth control if you meet certian christian criteria ....And they wonder why there is abortion in this country ......
These pharmacists aren't all bad, some send the girls away with a wire hanger and a bucket at least.... ugh!~

[Spider]

These pharmacists aren't all bad, some send the girls away with a wire hanger and a bucket at least.... ugh!~
Thats fine , but then dont biatch about abortion , when you had a chance to prevent one ........
Ya I personally use two brushes

Brush #1: People who dont see things my way and they are wrong
Brush #2: People who do see things my way and are correct.
that about sums it up ..... ;D soon you will see I am always right

[Rascal]

Damn you BUSH!!!

Alright...everything I said good about Bush you can throw it in the crapper...I should have voted for Kerry.

No it has nothing to do with this issue.

They just reduced the engineer's pay here my base by 10% while keeping it the same at other bases and no this has nothing to to do with BRAC. **** YOU BUSH!!!!

[RaiderH8r]

Thats fine , but then dont biatch about abortion , when you had a chance to prevent one ........

that about sums it up ..... ;D soon you will see I am always right
Option 1: Coat hanger and bucket
Option 2: Ether, then the coat hanger and bucket
Option 3: Knitting needle and bucket
Option 4: Shop Vac 16 Gal
Option 5: RU-486

And so on and so forth. I support and even encourage contraception but failing that, off to unplanned parenthood with you little girls and boys. Today's special 2 for 1 coathanger and bucket. Get one today and your next one free.

After 3 abortions the uterus comes out with it. 3 strikes and you're out.

Incidentally, for Easter there was the mandatory easter egg hunt. My girl friend shouts, "Get ready to find your eggs." To which I replied, "I'll need a speculum and a needle."

[Spider]

Option 1: Coat hanger and bucket
Option 2: Ether, then the coat hanger and bucket
Option 3: Knitting needle and bucket
Option 4: Shop Vac 16 Gal
Option 5: RU-486

And so on and so forth. I support and even encourage contraception but failing that, off to unplanned parenthood with you little girls and boys. Today's special 2 for 1 coathanger and bucket. Get one today and your next one free.

After 3 abortions the uterus comes out with it. 3 strikes and you're out.

Incidentally, for Easter there was the mandatory easter egg hunt. My girl friend shouts, "Get ready to find your eggs." To which I replied, "I'll need a speculum and a needle."

LOL ......

[TexanBob]

Personally, if the pharmacist is an employee and he is handed a legal prescription, the pharmacist shouldn't have the right to refuse to fill it. Now, if the owner of the business has a moral objection to a particular medicine, he can opt not to carry that medicine but he should post this someone near the register "We refuse to fill prescriptions for the following products due to moral reasons: x, y z..." so it is known beforehand and stated as policy. If that policy upsets someone enough to boycott that business, that's the consumer's right as well.

I don't imagine there are many pharmacies that would tolerate an employee refusing to help a customer with a legitimate perscription. 90% of the pharmacies out there now are part of chain stores. If your town is big enough for a Wal-Mart, it has a chain pharmacy in town so I can't see this scenario being much of a problem.

OTOH, I respect the right of the business owner to refuse to carry a product because if that product had adverse affects (such as a woman dying from RU-486), the business owner could be found liable for furnishing the medicine that killed her.

[orangeatheist]

Personally, if the pharmacist is an employee and he is handed a legal prescription, the pharmacist shouldn't have the right to refuse to fill it. Now, if the owner of the business has a moral objection to a particular medicine, he can opt not to carry that medicine but he should post this someone near the register "We refuse to fill prescriptions for the following products due to moral reasons: x, y z..." so it is known beforehand and stated as policy. If that policy upsets someone enough to boycott that business, that's the consumer's right as well.

I don't imagine there are many pharmacies that would tolerate an employee refusing to help a customer with a legitimate perscription. 90% of the pharmacies out there now are part of chain stores. If your town is big enough for a Wal-Mart, it has a chain pharmacy in town so I can't see this scenario being much of a problem.

OTOH, I respect the right of the business owner to refuse to carry a product because if that product had adverse affects (such as a woman dying from RU-486), the business owner could be found liable for furnishing the medicine that killed her.


Good, thoughtful post. I agree with it wholeheartedly.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Aren't pharmacists employees of a company for the most part? I live in the country of TX and have seen several pharmacies here post signs stating certain drugs they don't carry. My advice would be if you don't want to fill prescriptions then find another line of work or find a company that fills prescriptions based on your religious beliefs that you can work for.

[TexanBob]

Aren't pharmacists employees of a company for the most part? I live in the country of TX and have seen several pharmacies here post signs stating certain drugs they don't carry. My advice would be if you don't want to fill prescriptions then find another line of work or find a company that fills prescriptions based on your religious beliefs that you can work for.

Precisely. You're not guaranteed a job where you refuse to do the work required. Either shut up and live with it or work for a place where the ownership/management agrees with your position or find another employer/line of work. I don't go to a drug store for sermons.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/



Fascinating debate here.. In small towns with one pharmacy, this IS a really big deal. Be interesting to see where everyone stands.

Yikes!

I knew about right-wing activist judges, but right-wing activist pharmacists?

Scary.

[football idiot]

never heard of mom&pop drug stores?

no, a pharmacist should not fill a legitimate prescription. but should they be able to use their discretion if there not sure whether a prescription is legitimate or not?

and a private business shouldn't have to stock/sell/provide anything it doesn't want to.

they should be obligated to transfer prescriptions. holding them hostage is silly, obviously. but who knows what reasons this pharma had to withhold this medicine. maybe it was the medical knowledge that a 44-year-old ladies chances of getting pregnant by accident are incredibly slim. and they suspected foul play (a pregnant daughter or such). who knows.

[enjolras]

they should be obligated to transfer prescriptions. holding them hostage is silly, obviously. but who knows what reasons this pharma had to withhold this medicine. maybe it was the medical knowledge that a 44-year-old ladies chances of getting pregnant by accident are incredibly slim. and they suspected foul play (a pregnant daughter or such). who knows.

That's what doctors are for. Under our system it is the responsibility of the pharmicist to monitor drug interactions, but little more. If they want to be involved in the process of determining who gets what drugs, they need to be doctors not pharmicists.

This is simply another way of shoving perceived morality down the throats of those who may have quite different views.

[Montaq]

Personally, if the pharmacist is an employee and he is handed a legal prescription, the pharmacist shouldn't have the right to refuse to fill it. Now, if the owner of the business has a moral objection to a particular medicine, he can opt not to carry that medicine but he should post this someone near the register "We refuse to fill prescriptions for the following products due to moral reasons: x, y z..." so it is known beforehand and stated as policy. If that policy upsets someone enough to boycott that business, that's the consumer's right as well.

I don't imagine there are many pharmacies that would tolerate an employee refusing to help a customer with a legitimate perscription. 90% of the pharmacies out there now are part of chain stores. If your town is big enough for a Wal-Mart, it has a chain pharmacy in town so I can't see this scenario being much of a problem.

OTOH, I respect the right of the business owner to refuse to carry a product because if that product had adverse affects (such as a woman dying from RU-486), the business owner could be found liable for furnishing the medicine that killed her.

I'll agree with that. But, do they have a right to sell birth control to married women and not to unmarried?

[Mile High Shack]

I'll agree with that. But, do they have a right to sell birth control to married women and not to unmarried?

they weren't selling it to either

[orangenblue2]

Here's my take...These "pharmacists" should have their licenses stripped from them. What in the hell gives them the right to deny a legally written prescription for anyone? ??? If their "morals" don't allow them to fill an Rx, then they should find a different line of work. Pharmacies exist to fill legally prescribed medications that doctors deem necessary or warranted...period. I don't give a rat's ass what your "morals" may be as my pharmacist..just give me what my doctor ordered, take my money, give me the receipt, and practice your "morals" on your own time...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's what doctors are for. Under our system it is the responsibility of the pharmicist to monitor drug interactions, but little more. If they want to be involved in the process of determining who gets what drugs, they need to be doctors not pharmicists.

I'm not a healthcare professional, but this was my assumption also. ;)

This is simply another way of shoving perceived morality down the throats of those who may have quite different views.

Some call them fanatics; some call them religio-crazies; Bush calls them his base. ;)

[Montaq]

they weren't selling it to either

The first line of this thread says:

There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Perhaps some of you denizens of the reality-based community were thinking the reich-wingers couldn't possibly sink any lower after the recent "pharmacist as right-wing activist" absurdity.

Get a load of this:

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

Catholics say gays are not worth the trouble of treating when they're sick?

Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House. The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds. The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol."

http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes

http://www.bartcop.com/seeds-Of-Life.jpg

[Montaq]

Perhaps some of you denizens of the reality-based community were thinking the reich-wingers couldn't possibly sink any lower after the recent "pharmacist as right-wing activist" absurdity.

Get a load of this:

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

Catholics say gays are not worth the trouble of treating when they're sick?

Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House. The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds. The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol."

http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes

http://www.bartcop.com/seeds-Of-Life.jpg


I heard on Mark Malloy last night that this story is actually a year old and has already been defeated in the Michigan Senate.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I heard on Mark Malloy last night that this story is actually a year old and has already been defeated in the Michigan Senate.

Hmmm...that's odd - when you click on the link, the story is posted with today's date.

I hope Mike is right. If so, then I will give props to the repubs in the MI Senate who helped defeat such a toxic piece of legislation.

[Montaq]

Hmmm...that's odd - when you click on the link, the story is posted with today's date.

I hope Mike is right. If so, then I will give props to the repubs in the MI Senate who helped defeat such a toxic piece of legislation.

Mike Malloy ugh!~ .. Sorry we just got Air America in Dallas last week.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Mike Malloy ugh!~ .. Sorry we just got Air America in Dallas last week.

No worries, amigo.

I would imagine it's hard enough just being a non-Bush cult follower in Texas.

[Montaq]

No worries, amigo.

I would imagine it's hard enough just being a non-Bush cult follower in Texas.

It's easy for me, I'm a transplanted yankee. :)