Political Crossfire Forums

[Lost_In_Ambivelence]

There are always other pharmacies. We live in the 21st century. All cars can reach 60 miles per hour which means that everyone in the country (possibly Alaska excluded) could reach another state in no more than 4 hours. Maybe it isn't the most convenient thing however, it is there.

Pharmacists should be allowed to refuse any service they deem harmful or wrong. Should lawyers be forced to defend defendants they know to be guilty. For that matter, should surgeons be forced to perform surguries they don't agree with. Why can urologist refuse to perform vascetomies on 18 year old males who want one? Why can a neurologist refuse to give me MRI after MRI if I want them? Should pharmacies be fined if they don't carry band-aids?

[steen]

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote: There are always other pharmacies. We live in the 21st century. Tell that to a woman without a car, living on Pine Ridge reservation.

Quote: Pharmacists should be allowed to refuse any service they deem harmful or wrong. Their license is on the condition that hey fill prescriptions by physicians unless they see a medically relevant complication from the medication, mainly per drug-drug interaction. And in that case, their duty is to call the physician, clarify and then proceed unless they discovered a problem the physician was unaware off and thus cancel the prescription.

THAT is the condition of their license, being one last stopgap against medical error, nothing else. I they want to make decisions about diagnosis and treatment, then they need to go to medical school and become physicians. If they want to play politics with their license and with people's health and function, then their license needs to be revoked.

Quote: For that matter, should surgeons be forced to perform surguries they don't agree with. Unless they don't see a medical necessity, then they for sure have to immediately provide a practical referral to another surgeon. And again, the physicians' license involves making such determinations about appropriateness of treatment. The pharmacist license does not.

Quote: Why can urologist refuse to perform vascetomies on 18 year old males who want one? Well, that one does get dicey. They probably can be sued for that one. Again, these are physicians, they are licensed to make treatment decisions.

Quote: Why can a neurologist refuse to give me MRI after MRI if I want them? Because of lack of medical indication. However, if you insist, you have to refer to another neurologist to do the evaluation as well.

Quote: Should pharmacies be fined if they don't carry band-aids? Good question. It is not a prescription item, so I don't see this as being part of their license.

[Sataere]

Stygma wrote: Also, not having a morning-after pill will not kill you.

It's not about being killed, It's about legal rights, the person is legally allowed to get and use the pill, and the pharmacist is stopping them from doing something that is completely legal. The pharmacist has no right to do that. And the repercussions of them not being able to get the pill result in an unwanted baby or an abortion, which is not a good thing. Imagine if you are walking to work, and you're about to be late, and I block the sidewalk and keep pushing you back so you are late and lose your job. If there are no repercussions for me doing that, is that right? It's almost the same thing, and it shouldn't happen in America.

[Snarf]

Sataere wrote: Do you think that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse the sale of the morning after pill? I saw the case of a man who had been a pharmacist for 30 years but would not complete perscriptions for the pill because he believed it to be taking a life.
No. Do your job or get another one...

[Stygma]

Sataere wrote: Stygma wrote: Also, not having a morning-after pill will not kill you.

It's not about being killed, It's about legal rights
Absolutely, the right to property.

Sataere wrote: the person is legally allowed to get and use the pill, and the pharmacist is stopping them from doing something that is completely legal.

So? Just because something is legally permissible doesn't mean I'm obligated to procure it for you. Pornography is legal, should I be obligated to sell it if I own a bookstore? What if it's against my religious beliefs?


Sataere wrote: The pharmacist has no right to do that.
Yes. The owner of that pharmacy owns the property and has a right to do what he wants with it so long as that does not imfringe upon the rights of another individual. You don't have a right to purchase pills at ay particular pharmacy.

Sataere wrote: And the repercussions of them not being able to get the pill result in an unwanted baby or an abortion, which is not a good thing.

There's always another pharmacy, or an abortion.

Sataere wrote: Imagine if you are walking to work, and you're about to be late, and I block the sidewalk and keep pushing you back so you are late and lose your job. If there are no repercussions for me doing that, is that right?
...huh? So, refusing to sell a pill is like using physical coercian to prevent someone from getting to work? :? These two situations bear no similarities, so your analogy is... not really an analogy at all.

Sataere wrote: It's almost the same thing

No. No it's not.

[Sailor Moon]

Sataere wrote: Do you think that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse the sale of the morning after pill? I saw the case of a man who had been a pharmacist for 30 years but would not complete perscriptions for the pill because he believed it to be taking a life.

Yes. I fully believe in the First Amendment. I also believe in the oath of hippocrates. Both are still very important!

[Lost_In_Ambivelence]

Quote: Quote: There are always other pharmacies. We live in the 21st century.
Tell that to a woman without a car, living on Pine Ridge reservation.


I guess this means that we should require that pharmacies be placed across the nation at five mile increments. Otherwise, we are refusing to allow someone in rural Montana without a car to fill a prescription. How shameful of us.

Quote: Quote: For that matter, should surgeons be forced to perform surguries they don't agree with.
Unless they don't see a medical necessity, then they for sure have to immediately provide a practical referral to another surgeon. And again, the physicians' license involves making such determinations about appropriateness of treatment. The pharmacist license does not.


Quote: Quote: Why can urologist refuse to perform vascetomies on 18 year old males who want one?
Well, that one does get dicey. They probably can be sued for that one. Again, these are physicians, they are licensed to make treatment decisions.

These are both circumstances where professionals are allowed to make decisions for you. The surgeon can just claim no medical necessity and doesn't have to do anything else. Is EC medically necessary? Most urologist will refuse to perform the vascetomy based on their belief that they are too young. Not that it is harmful or even not medically necessary but rather their personal belief that the young person will change their mind. If you don't like it, you shop around until you find a urologist who will do it. Same with the pharmacies.

You belief that doctors have to constantly refer you to someone just because you ask is wrong. Many do just to retain clients. However, many doctors opt not to refer you for services they deem unnecessary, wasteful or just plain wrong. Insurance must pay for a second opinion if you ask but doctors are not required to refer you.

[Sailor Moon]

I agree with you, Lost in Ambivalence-

Its like someone who has been diagnosed with a disease, without a second opinion, not getting prescribed the medications they think they need. I honestly think we need to put more faith in doctors as a whole to make medical decisions based on our true health status, and their religious preferences have alot to do with it, also. If they think that we will never be forgiven by God for taking EC, then they wont be doing their part in helping us get saved. This is the religious freedom I have been talking about. A medical professional has the right to religion, and if their religion involves not assisting in euthenasia, then they have that right.

[steen]

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote: Quote: Quote: There are always other pharmacies. We live in the 21st century.
Tell that to a woman without a car, living on Pine Ridge reservation.
I guess this means that we should require that pharmacies be placed across the nation at five mile increments. Otherwise, we are refusing to allow someone in rural Montana without a car to fill a prescription. How shameful of us. No, we merely require pharmacists and all other professionals to do their job. That solves the problem.

Quote: Quote: Quote: For that matter, should surgeons be forced to perform surguries they don't agree with.
Unless they don't see a medical necessity, then they for sure have to immediately provide a practical referral to another surgeon. And again, the physicians' license involves making such determinations about appropriateness of treatment. The pharmacist license does not.
Quote: Quote: Why can urologist refuse to perform vascetomies on 18 year old males who want one?
Well, that one does get dicey. They probably can be sued for that one. Again, these are physicians, they are licensed to make treatment decisions. These are both circumstances where professionals are allowed to make decisions for you. The surgeon can just claim no medical necessity and doesn't have to do anything else. That is a lie. he has to refer to a second opinion. If a medical professional refuses to provide a procedure or treatment, he/she has to refer elsewhere. That is the law.

Quote: Is EC medically necessary? To prevent an unwanted pregnancy? it certainly is the medical standard and thus, if there is a need for it, it is necessary

Quote: Most urologist will refuse to perform the vascetomy based on their belief that they are too young. Not that it is harmful or even not medically necessary but rather their personal belief that the young person will change their mind. If you don't like it, you shop around until you find a urologist who will do it. And the urologist who says "you are to young" with no other expressed concern will get sued. They can insist on various evaluations etc, but that is all.

Quote: Same with the pharmacies. They can not make medical treatment and diagnosis decisions. That is not in their license. They are not allowed to second-guess the physician's order

Quote: You belief that doctors have to constantly refer you to someone just because you ask is wrong. A lie. I am a physician. The law states that I MUST refer if I don't want to provide a procedure.

Quote: Many do just to retain clients. However, many doctors opt not to refer you for services they deem unnecessary, wasteful or just plain wrong. Insurance must pay for a second opinion if you ask but doctors are not required to refer you. If I don't refer to another physician, I get sued and lose my license. Your claim is flat-out a lie.

[Lost_In_Ambivelence]

Steen

So if I walk into your office and demand to have my leg amputated, if you don't want to do it, it is your responsibility to refer me to a doctor who will amputate my perfectly healthy leg?

What if I want a liver transplant. My liver is fine and you point this out. I say I don't care, give me the transplant. At what point do you thumb through your roledex and give me the doctors' name?

You claim that a medical standard is a a need? This is absurd. I assume that the medical standard would be to not remove a healthy leg for no reason. Seems like a paradox here.

Just because the Urologist might get sued does not mean that all will perform the surgery.

These pharmacists are not making medical treatment or diagnosis decisions. They are making a business/moral decision. If they were making a treatment decision, they would lock the person in the store preventing them from going elsewhere.

I wonder if there are any instances of allowing pharmacists to make judgement calls.

Could a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription for birth control for a 6 month old baby?
Could a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription for 20,000 tablets of penicillan?
Could a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription for 20,000 capsules of narcotics?
What about from a dentists who is prescribing HRT or blood pressure medicine?

Are there any cases where a pharacist can make a judgement call or are they just required to blindly fill whatever rediculus order that comes in?

[Lost_In_Ambivelence]

If these are the laws where doctors are required to find me someone who will do whatever I ask or a pharmacist isn't allowed to apply common sense/moral judgement, then we have far more problems then I thought. At some point, professionals must be allowed to do what they think is right.

I feel tempted to walk into Steen's office and demand a doctor's name who will switch my left and right eye.

[Enoch]

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote:
You claim that a medical standard is a a need? This is absurd. I assume that the medical standard would be to not remove a healthy leg for no reason. Seems like a paradox here.

How is that a paradox? Medical standard is "a need." Why would you NEED to have your healthy leg cut off? The doctor would be right to tell you that they are not able to amputate a perfectly healthy leg simply because you don't want it any more. If, however, there was a medical need for amputation and your doctor did not wish to do so, he/she would refer you to another doctor who would be willing.

Doesn't seem all that paradoxical to me.

Quote: I wonder if there are any instances of allowing pharmacists to make judgement calls.

Could a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription for birth control for a 6 month old baby?
Could a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription for 20,000 tablets of penicillan?
Could a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription for 20,000 capsules of narcotics?
What about from a dentists who is prescribing HRT or blood pressure medicine?

Are there any cases where a pharacist can make a judgement call or are they just required to blindly fill whatever rediculus order that comes in?

If I walk in to a pharmacy with a prescription for 20,000 tablets of penicillin, it would raise a few eyebrows. Any pharmacist worth having the job should check the veracity of the prescription and speak to the doctor as to the medical need. The DOCTOR prescribes the medication, the pharmacist just hands it out. As long as no local, state, or federal laws were being violated in the process of filling said prescription, the pharmacist should just pass out the pills.

[SpellJammer]

Sataere wrote: Do you think that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse the sale of the morning after pill? I saw the case of a man who had been a pharmacist for 30 years but would not complete perscriptions for the pill because he believed it to be taking a life.
Abosolutely not, thier first priority as an employee is to do what's best for the buisness. That's partof being a team-player, if they can't bite a bullet for the team, then they need to work elsewhere..

Besides, any moron would know that it is better for someone to take a morning after pill then to tempt then with an abortion outright. Mostly it's Catholics who have some kindof problem with the pill, well.. them and Scientologists.. and both do more harm then good with thier involvment...

[Sailor Moon]

SpellJammer wrote: Sataere wrote: Do you think that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse the sale of the morning after pill? I saw the case of a man who had been a pharmacist for 30 years but would not complete perscriptions for the pill because he believed it to be taking a life.
Abosolutely not, thier first priority as an employee is to do what's best for the buisness. That's partof being a team-player, if they can't bite a bullet for the team, then they need to work elsewhere..

Besides, any moron would know that it is better for someone to take a morning after pill then to tempt then with an abortion outright. Mostly it's Catholics who have some kindof problem with the pill, well.. them and Scientologists.. and both do more harm then good with thier involvment...

That whole mentality is like saying that a doctor who goes to work for an OB/GYN clinic, which doesnt have abortion services HAS to perform abortions, just because that is whats best for the business.

Well, many many doctors and pharmacists like to do whats best for the unborn human, as well, and follow the oath of Hippocrates, still, which I see no reason to be upset about.

Plus, to allow morning after pills while being against abortion, is to be a bit hypocritical, since both are means of ending lives at an early stage in development.

[SpellJammer]

You're right, SpellJammer won't try to hide his stance as anything less then hypocrisy. But that's the only way to succeed is to discriminate and be picky. People will never respect the unborn children, but if you can sway them to atleast do the lesser of two evils, then that's all that matters.

It's sortof like.. SpellJammer's not trying to win the morality game, just make sure that the liberals lose..

[Sailor Moon]

^^^^^ Responding to someone else, from before...

What if the pharmacist happens to be the persons relative or friend, or boyfriend or husband? Why on earth would a womans husband fill a prescription for EC, or Birth Control, if theyre trying to have a baby, or is he knows shes pregnant, or whatever?

He doesnt have to, nobody HAS to. And there should be no laws stating that any health care provider should have to do something, just because some other people do it.

I figure, if the OBGYN office is going to prescribe it, then they should be the ones to carry it. Its certainly not illegal to do that. They DONT, generally, though, especially the ones who provide abortion services... they dont want a bunch of women in there being creeped out by other women who saw their dead fetus's hand or a foot, running out crying... They got sales to make, ya know..

It really ticks me off to no end that people who do not provide abortions are now being forced to have a hand in doing so- pharmacists, namely... If someone is willing to prescribe an abortive pill, then they ought to be the ones required to carry and dispense of it, not anyone else.

[Mycroft147]

The pharmacist has a choice not to do it, but he also runs the risk of being fired. I dont think theres anything we can do about it.

[SpellJammer]

Well, SpellJammwr would agree there, they have the right to do it, and thier employer has the right to fire them. Their nobility is wonderful, but what makes nobility great is the courage to takeon reprocussions..

[Sailor Moon]

I understand where youre coming from.. by allowing one, we can lessen the other... fine fine... :-)

[Mycroft147]

exactly, it just seems to me that since its not illegal for the clinics to hand out the stuff, we cant make it illegal for them to fire employees for refusing to give it out. Ideally it would be illegal, but the employers hire the employees thinking they will do whatever the clinic is supposed to do