Pharmacists refusing to fill scripts ...

[HollowSoul]

If they cannot do their job(s), they should find another position that does engage in their religious beliefs. That's like saying the McDonalds cashier isn't going to serve the fat lady 'cause the clerk is a health nut and against obesity.

i agree, it would be the same if some pro life retard joind the military and then sat on his hands because he refused to be part of an organization that enforces death

 

[crabcake]

i agree, it would be the same if some pro life retard joind the military and then sat on his hands because he refused to be part of an organization that enforces death

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that blanket party!

 

[HollowSoul]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that blanket party!

i would LOVE to say that i was not involved..























however

 

[crabcake]

i would LOVE to say that i was not involved..

however

I hope you weren't the recipient/guest of honor?

 

[migtig]

Actually, this was a big issue in more ways than one where I work this past June. They were in the process of switching our medical coverage and two of the companies - big insurance providers - that they looked at, mentioned that they refuse to pay for birth control as part of their insurance plan. There was almost a riot. In the process of vetting the insurance companies, they brought in reps for a q&a by staff, and the fact that many pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill bc prescriptions was brought up. Following day there was a big write up in the newspaper about this. Seems it doesn't matter who they work for, it's their "right" to refuse service. :shrug: It'll get worse if Roe vs Wade is overturned IMHO. Seems like the powers that be are trying to send women back in time. After all if we hadn't become so darn liberated with the advent of the pill, we would be at home where we belong.

 

[kwillia]

Yet the powers that be have no problem funding Viagra...UFB...

 

[crabcake]

Yet the powers that be have no problem funding Viagra...UFB...

Did you catch that report some time ago about how New York (I believe) was giving viagra to convicted sex offenders, as well as a couple other states? It was being done through medicaid or whatever state-paid medical benefits are called for low-income members.

 

[kwillia]

Did you catch that report some time ago about how New York (I believe) was giving viagra to convicted sex offenders, as well as a couple other states? It was being done through medicaid or whatever state-paid medical benefits are called for low-income members.

Yep... that was the first thing I thought of when I read Mig's post. I can't understand why those against abortion wouldn't be on the pregnancy prevention bandwagon. Abortion wouldn't have to be a choice if the pregnancy never happens.

 

[Fred Hoeck]

Many of these socalled "morning after" pills are chemical abortifactants. Pharmacists have rights too, they do not have to fill scripts for lethal drugs. As I said, another one can do it. Doctors and nurses are free to not be involved in abortions.
Where are the "Pro-Choice" people now when the choice is NOT to kill a baby?

 

[kwillia]

Many of these socalled "morning after" pills are chemical abortifactants. Pharmacists have rights too, they do not have to fill scripts for lethal drugs. As I said, another one can do it. Doctors and nurses are free to not be involved in abortions.
Where are the "Pro-Choice" people now when the choice is NOT to kill a baby?

I completely understand why you are against the "morning after" pills, but I don't understand why anyone would be against preventatives.

 

[crabcake]

Many of these socalled "morning after" pills are chemical abortifactants. Pharmacists have rights too, they do not have to fill scripts for lethal drugs. As I said, another one can do it. Doctors and nurses are free to not be involved in abortions.
Where are the "Pro-Choice" people now when the choice is NOT to kill a baby?

It's my doctor's responsibility and MY responsibility to educate myself about medications I take; and the pharmacist can answer questions about complications or drug interactions with other medications I might take. But the FDA approved it, so they should issue it and STHU about it, or take the issues of its safety up with the FDA.

And I do consider myself to be pro-choice, btw. It's my choice, though, that I not kill a fetus; however, I don't believe it's MY choice to tell someone else what to do with their body. Just like it's not the pharmacists' job to determine what prescriptions are morally acceptable for me. :shrug:

And you're right; Pharmacists have 'rights', too. Such as the right to find a job that doesn't impede their moral beliefs.

 

[Fred Hoeck]

Many of the contraceptives also work as abortafactants. They prevent the implantation of the embyo in the womb. The embryo is life.
Now, people like me who are pro-life believe this. Pharmacists and others should not have to check their morals at the door when they go to work, especially when another phamacist would fill it.
Heard from doctors in Oregon re assisted suicide, same idea, they don't want to be forced to do it, violates Hypocratic oath.

 

[crabcake]

Pharmacists and others should not have to check their morals at the door when they go to work, especially when another phamacist would fill it.

Why not? Judges have to check their moral beliefs at the door when they lay the smack down in court? :shrug: My daughter has to leave her Bible at home vs. take it to school for quiet reading time. :shrug:

Blame the liberals, if you don't like it; they're the ones who push separation of church and state. Since medications are federally controlled in a sense, I don't see any reason why pharmacists shouldn't be subjected to the same the rest of the country is. :shrug:

And note, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm applying what the current laws dictate, and I don't see where a pharmacist has this right, IMO. And no, it's not a "gray" area, either, if you ask me!

 

[Chasey_Lane]

Pharmacists have rights too, they do not have to fill scripts for lethal drugs.

Tylenol can be lethal if large amounts are consumed.

 

[vraiblonde]

And you're right; Pharmacists have 'rights', too. Such as the right to find a job that doesn't impede their moral beliefs.

And there you have it.

If it's his pharmacy that he owns, let him refuse whatever he wants. But if he's working for someone else, then he should do his job of find another one.

 

[Fred Hoeck]

It is about time that people DO NOT check their moral beliefs at the door when they go to work or into the public. My hat goes off to all phamacists that refuse to fill scripts for birthcontrol, RU-486, or any other such drug that is against their beliefs. Some have been fired, but have gotten their jobs back with a cash settlement later.
Judges need to keep morals in mind when making decisions, they need a compass. Lawmakers need to use their morals when writing lawas and voting on them. If you don't like their morals, vote for ones who share your morals.

 

[kwillia]

And there you have it.

If it's his pharmacy that he owns, let him refuse whatever he wants. But if he's working for someone else, then he should do his job of find another one.

This sums up my opinion.

 

[crabcake]

It is about time that people DO NOT check their moral beliefs at the door when they go to work or into the public. My hat goes off to all phamacists that refuse to fill scripts for birthcontrol, RU-486, or any other such drug that is against their beliefs. Some have been fired, but have gotten their jobs back with a cash settlement later.
Judges need to keep morals in mind when making decisions, they need a compass. Lawmakers need to use their morals when writing lawas and voting on them. If you don't like their morals, vote for ones who share your morals.

Don't mistake my beliefs/morals in this case. I'm basically applying a "devils advocate" logic to the issue. While I consider myself a right-winger, my beliefs are usually shelved in the foyer (middle of the road).

I agree that morals should be applied to laws for the good of our country; I believe that judges should apply morals to decisions for the good of our people; and I believe that people should apply morals to their actions, especially when they effect others.

HOWEVER, our constitution (as interpreted by the masses), dictates a separation of church and state. And since prescription drugs are federally controlled substances, and "the church has no business in government and vice versa", one who issues those medications (much like a judge issues sentences and congressmen issue laws) should not interject the church in the issuance of their "products".

And I would go so far as to apply that same logic to the argument of a pharmacist who owns his business ... because again, he chooses to work in a field where federal laws/regulations govern his products.

 

[mAlice]

Lawmakers need to use their morals when writing lawas and voting on them. If you don't like their morals, vote for ones who share your morals.

We do, and we have. That's why we're having this discussion.

 

[crabcake]

In summary, I see this as a tough position for pharmacists, but one in which they knowingly choose to be in the middle. You don't see anti-death penalty folks applying to be the switch-puller on death row. There aren't a ton of Jehovah's Witnesses serving in the military, to my knowledge. Why would you continue working in a job that requires you to do something that you morally object? :shrug: